The difference in cap rates between value-add deals and stabilized deals is closely tied to various factors such as perceived risk, market stability, and historic performance. Investors often assess risks associated with operational instability in value-add properties, where renovations might not produce the expected returns within an ideal timeframe.
In contrast, stabilized deals present a more predictable cash flow, attracting a different segment of investors who prefer security over potential high returns. Such preferences can lead to value-add deals having lower cap rates as a reflection of investor sentiment about potential risks involved compared to stabilized properties.