Learn
A little clarity for your next decision.
Loading your learning library…
Investor WorkspaceWelcome, there!Log Out
Investor WorkspaceA little clarity for your next decision.
By Jerry Baker
Spartan Investment Group is a self-storage investment and operating firm that buys, develops, and improves facilities. Its property investments and lending products can have very different cash-flow, control, and exit terms. This guide explains Spartan's approach and the practical questions I would use to review a proposed investment.
This profile covers Spartan Investment Group at spartan-investors.com, based in Golden, Colorado. The company dates its start to 2014. Its current leadership page lists co-founders Scott Lewis as chief executive and Ryan Gibson as president and chief investment officer. It identifies FreeUp Storage as its storage operating brand. [1]
Those details help distinguish the firm from other businesses with Spartan in their names. They do not establish the terms of an investment. I would still request the issuer's full legal name, the ownership chart, and the contracts that connect the issuer to the sponsor and property manager.
The company describes in-house acquisition, development, asset management, and property management capabilities. That can place several jobs within the same group. I would ask how those jobs are supervised and priced, rather than assume that using related teams automatically creates a better outcome. [1]
This profile is not an investment offering or a claim that Baker 1031 has approved a Spartan program. It does not establish current availability, a selling relationship, or suitability for a particular investor.
Spartan's acquisition page describes three main routes: ground-up development, conversion of existing buildings, and purchase of operating storage facilities. It also discusses newly completed properties and portfolios. These are screening categories, not one uniform investment strategy. [2]
An operating facility may already have customers and a history of cash collection. A new building may have permits and finished units but few paying customers. A conversion may save part of the cost of a new shell while creating a different set of design and construction questions.
I would label the stage clearly in any investment comparison. How much income exists today? What work remains before new income can begin? How much capital is set aside for that work? What must happen before the owner can refinance or sell?
A projection based on a fully leased future facility should not be placed next to an operating property's current income as though the figures describe the same point in time. The difference between those stages is often where much of the investment risk sits.
For a portfolio, I would break down the properties by stage. A mix of operating and developing assets can have a different cash profile from the label on the overall fund.
Spartan's published criteria include secondary and tertiary markets, population screens, zoning, and access to utilities. I would use those screens as a starting point. The evidence should then explain demand for the proposed unit mix in the actual trade area. [2]
A population within a circle on a map is not the same as an accessible customer base. A river, highway, long drive, or difficult entrance can change which facility people choose. I would compare travel routes and competing facilities that customers would realistically use.
The unit mix matters. An area may need larger drive-up spaces but already have plenty of small interior units. Vehicle storage serves a different need from climate-controlled household storage. A model that applies one average rent to all future space can miss those differences.
I would also ask about supply that is not yet open. Which competing projects have approvals? Which are under construction? How much of their space is similar to the proposed facility? A low vacancy figure today can change by the time a new building is ready.
These are questions to test the sponsor's market case. They are not findings that Spartan's selected markets have excess supply or poor demand.
Spartan's criteria include converting existing buildings into storage. That approach requires more than dividing a vacant building into units. I would ask how much rentable storage can actually fit after corridors, access, building systems, and other required space are included. [2]
Suppose an imaginary building has 70,000 square feet, but the finished plan provides 50,000 rentable square feet. The rentable share is about 71.4%. If a budget assumes rent on all 70,000 feet, it would overstate potential rented area by 40% relative to the 50,000-foot plan.
The example is not a Spartan project. It shows why the floor plan belongs in the financial review. I would reconcile the architect's measurements with the unit schedule, construction estimate, and forecast.
Next come the building systems. Can the existing floor carry the planned loads? Are elevators needed? Does the fire system fit the new use? What roof, drainage, and climate work is required? Do permits allow the intended operating hours and access?
I would want those answers from appropriate local professionals. A low purchase price can be attractive, but it does not establish a low finished cost. The important comparison is the total cost of usable, approved, rentable space.
For ground-up development, I would separate land control, approvals, construction, occupancy permission, and lease-up. A certificate of occupancy allows a completed building to be used under the applicable approval. It does not prove that enough customers have rented units to cover expenses and debt.
The budget should show the cash needed after construction is complete. Marketing, staffing, utilities, insurance, and loan costs can continue while occupancy grows. An investment may run short of cash even if the building itself is finished within budget.
Consider a hypothetical facility with 600 units. At an average of 25 net new occupied units per month, reaching 480 occupied units from zero takes a little over 19 months in a simplified straight-line model. At 15 net units per month, it takes 32 months. Real leasing is rarely that smooth, but the gap makes the funding question clear.
I would ask which evidence supports the absorption forecast—the pace at which units become occupied. Does it come from nearby comparable facilities, another market, or the sponsor's target? What discounts are needed? How many customers leave while new ones arrive?
The model should show a slower case with enough operating carry and a plan for loan maturity. Hoping for a fast lease-up is not a replacement for funding the period before it happens.
Spartan describes value-add and opportunistic work in its company materials. For an operating storage facility, I would ask what specifically needs to improve and what evidence shows the opportunity. A broad label does not explain the source of the proposed return. [1]
Possible changes might involve pricing, online rentals, collections, physical repairs, a new unit mix, or additional space. Each has a different budget and timing. I would want separate assumptions rather than a single rent-growth percentage meant to cover all of them.
If the plan is to raise below-market rents, the comparison should use similar units and complete customer terms. An advertised online price may include a temporary offer or fees. A larger space with easier access may not be a fair comparison for a smaller interior unit.
If the plan is to reduce costs, I would ask whether the savings depend on sharing staff, changing vendors, or deferring work. A lower expense in one year is less useful if it creates a larger repair the next year.
The review should establish the starting condition and the cost of the proposed change. That gives investors a way to judge later progress without relying on a new story each quarter.
Spartan identifies FreeUp as the brand established to manage its storage portfolio. I would examine the management agreement to understand how that operating relationship works for the investment being considered. The brand is not a separate guarantee of payments or principal. [1]
Who sets prices? Who handles unpaid accounts? Who approves repairs and vendor contracts? How many facilities does a regional manager oversee? Which reports reach the asset manager and which reach investors?
I would also review the technology and customer service plan. Online leasing can make it easier for a customer to sign up, but someone must handle access problems, move-outs, payment errors, and security events. The budget should show the people and systems needed to do that work.
Related-party fees should be listed clearly. Does the manager receive a share of revenue, a minimum monthly fee, construction fees, or charges for software and marketing? Are those amounts included in the projected investor cash flow?
Finally, I would ask about replacing the manager. Who controls customer data, listings, websites, and payment records? What does termination cost? An investor needs to understand the available remedies if the service does not meet the contract.
Suppose a made-up facility has 500 units with an average monthly collected rent of $120. At 90% occupancy, simple annual revenue is $648,000. At 95% occupancy but only $110 collected per occupied unit, it is $627,000. The second case has more occupied units and $21,000 less estimated revenue.
This is a simplified illustration, not a Spartan forecast. It ignores size differences, other charges, and expenses. Its purpose is to show why an occupancy target alone does not prove the business plan works.
I would request both physical and economic measures. Physical occupancy shows space in use. Economic measures help show how much of the potential rent becomes revenue or cash, depending on the definition. Concessions and unpaid accounts can create a gap between them.
Reports should also track move-ins and move-outs. A facility may replace many departing customers with discounted new customers while keeping headline occupancy steady. That churn can affect marketing costs and collected rents.
I would want the sponsor to explain the trend by unit type and customer group. Averages are helpful, but they can hide which part of the facility is improving and which needs work.
Spartan's public offerings page describes a debt fund as well as property development investments. That establishes a separate product category, not its current terms or suitability. I would not adopt promotional descriptions of low risk or flexible access without reading the fund's documents. [3]
For a debt investment, I would ask who borrows the money and which assets secure repayment. Does the fund lend to related projects? What is its priority relative to banks and other lenders? Is interest paid from operations, a reserve, or additional borrowing?
A loan backed by a storage project still depends on the project and borrower. If a facility needs more money to finish, the lender may face a choice between advancing funds, restructuring, or enforcing its rights. The document should show who can make that decision and how losses are allocated.
Any redemption feature needs careful reading. How much notice is required? Are there limits, fees, or a manager's right to suspend payments? What assets supply the cash? A fund making longer-term loans may not be able to return every investor's money at once.
A stated interest rate, a preferred return, and a projected equity return should not be compared as though they are identical. Their payment order, upside, loss exposure, and timing differ.
For a property equity investment, I would lay the debt schedule over the construction and leasing schedule. When does interest begin? When do principal payments start? What must the property achieve before an extension is allowed? What happens if the project is still leasing when the loan matures?
A variable rate needs a range of scenarios. An interest cap may help for a defined period, but its coverage, expiration, and cost need review. A refinancing assumption should show both the rate and the lender's expected value or income test.
For example, a hypothetical property with $900,000 of operating income and $600,000 of annual debt payments has 1.5 times coverage. If income falls to $750,000, that ratio becomes 1.25 times before other required costs. The property may still pay the stated debt service while having much less cash available for owners.
I would also review cross-collateralization. If several facilities secure one loan, a strong property's value may support a weaker property. Selling one asset may require lender consent and a paydown. A portfolio does not always provide the same flexibility as several separate loans.
The offering documents should state whether investors may be asked for more capital, diluted by new capital, or subject to a manager's extension of the holding period. They should also explain voting, transfer limits, and the distribution order.
A preferred return is not a guarantee just because it appears before another party's profit share. I would ask whether it accrues, compounds, or is paid only when cash is available. The model should show what happens when the property earns less than planned.
Spartan's website says investors receive regular updates and reports. I would request samples tied to the proposed strategy. A useful development report includes budget, work completed, remaining cost, schedule changes, and funding. An operating report should include collections, expenses, debt, reserves, and cash paid. [4]
The company's site also warns that website plans and images may be conceptual and that investments carry a risk of principal loss. That is a reason to rely on signed documents and current evidence instead of treating a rendering as a completed asset. [5]
The current public sources reviewed for this profile do not establish a Spartan DST program. I would not infer one from the firm's storage focus or its appearance in an older sponsor directory. A specific proposed interest needs its own legal and tax review.
IRS guidance distinguishes qualifying real property from ordinary partnership and other financial interests. Owning an interest in a business that owns storage facilities does not automatically mean you own qualifying replacement real estate. The exact tax treatment and your transaction's facts matter. [6]
I would coordinate with your tax adviser and qualified intermediary before committing exchange funds. If the proposed investment is a fund interest or a loan, that should be made clear at the start. We should not try to solve a structural mismatch after money has moved.
Use the full issuer name and address in the proposed documents. Compare them with the firm identified at the start of this guide. Similar names should never be treated as proof that two businesses or investment contracts are the same.
Spartan identifies FreeUp as its storage operating brand. The management contract still determines duties, fees, and investor remedies. A brand connection does not itself guarantee the investment's income or value. [1]
No. A building can be complete and approved for use while still needing customers. Review the pace of lease-up, operating carry, marketing costs, debt terms, and the cash available if occupancy grows more slowly than planned.
No. Promotions, unit mix, lower rents, and unpaid balances can offset more occupied space. Read occupancy, pricing, and cash collection together. A property report should explain the connection among those measures.
No such guarantee should be assumed. Review notice periods, payment limits, available cash, fees, and suspension rights in the actual documents. A website description does not replace those terms. [3]
No. The sources used here do not establish a current DST program, and not every real estate investment interest qualifies. Your advisers must review the exact ownership structure, tax treatment, and transaction before exchange funds are committed. [6]
Educational information, not an offer or a personal tax, legal, or investment recommendation. Examples are hypothetical and omit stated adjustments. Tax treatment depends on your facts and current law. Review your transaction with your CPA, attorney, and qualified intermediary. Real estate investments can lose value and may be illiquid.
Enter your approved email to explore investments, save your shortlist, and keep learning.