There is no defensible single national boutique hotel cap rate in this evidence set. Two recent disclosures show why the earnings definition matters:
| Transaction | Reported earnings-based pricing | Critical qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Bellmoor | 8.6% trailing NOI cap rate; 10.4× hotel EBITDA, based on the twelve months ended August 2026 | The company’s approximately 9.5% stabilized NOI yield is a forecast following planned improvements—not realized performance. The release does not fully reconcile its capital-cost denominator. (sec.gov) |
| Chamberlain | 5.9% NOI cap rate; 14.5× EBITDA, based on the twelve months ended April 30, 2026 | NOI assumed a 4% of total-revenue capital reserve. Preferred shares accepted as consideration had an agreed value of approximately $26.1 million. (sec.gov) |
Owner-side interpretation: These are transaction observations, not a recommended cap-rate range. Matching a seller’s price per room while ignoring its earnings definition can produce a misleading comparison.
For a boutique hotel underwriting model, maintain three separate outputs:
- Market-value evidence: adjusted comparable transactions and appropriately credentialled valuation work.
- Buyer’s bid ceiling: the price consistent with the buyer’s own downside cash-flow requirements and financing constraints.
- All-in investment basis: purchase consideration plus transaction costs, required works, pre-opening or transition expenditure, and working capital.
A buyer can rationally have a bid ceiling below an appraised value. The model should show that difference rather than disguising the buyer’s hurdle as a market fact.