Cash Flow vs. Equity Multiple

[Jason Merchey]

What do you think of a syndicated apartment value-add strategy, slated for 4 years, with an IRR of 21% and an equity multiple of 2.0+, yet 0% cash flow in year 1? My two thoughts would be a) does that indicate anything about the conservatism or the prudence of the underwriting, or not necessarily? Is this a bad thing, or does that depend entirely on one's investment goals -- that is, one investor can't really tell another investor that no cash flow in year 1 is a good or a bad thing because it depends on the investor's cash flow situation, goals, etc.?

I'm not asking for academic purposes, I'm actually not sure how to interpret this investor summary I am reading that features a huge IRR projection and full use of 100% of capital over four straight years, yet no cash flow in year 1. If it's just me and my bills and my income, that's one thing, but if this telegraphs something about the deal per se that I'm not really aware of, I'd like to know!

[Brian Burke]

A sponsor’s projected returns tell you nothing about their conservatism. Only an analysis of their assumptions can reveal any insight into that.

One investor can’t tell another if zero cash flow is good or bad because each investor’s needs differ.  If you need the cash flow, zero is bad. If you don’t, zero cash flow is less of a concern, assuming the underwriting assumptions are reasonable and the business plan is likely to produce a favorable outcome with a risk profile that matches your risk tolerance.