Why feasibility looks strong on paper but fails on floor
Most files model peak-season upside but fail to test low-season cash pressure. The core question is whether rent and working capital remain survivable together.
Five rent-risk checks
- 1Is rent-to-revenue tested for both strong and weak seasons?
- 2Are shared charges and hidden costs contractually explicit?
- 3Is rent escalation survivable under inflation/currency stress?
- 4Was location demand measured by hourly traffic patterns?
- 5Is there at least a six-month working-capital protection plan?
Investor red flags
- Revenue forecast built only on peak-season assumptions
- Kitchen CAPEX approved without menu and demand logic
- Opening date set without staffing and training cost model
- Lease risk not mapped to operating reality
Quick diagnostic table
| Area | Healthy signal | Red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Rent model | Multi-scenario tested | Single-scenario assumption |
| Capital plan | 6-month buffer secured | Opening budget near zero buffer |
| Operations plan | SOP + training documented | Design/menu only focus |
Use this with Turkey F&B investment trends and the pre-investment due diligence checklist.
Conclusion
Feasibility is not a hope document. It is a stress test. If rent and cash pressure hold in downside scenarios, the investment base is stronger.
