iii. Preparing Assets for Audits, Refinancing, or Sale

What readiness actually requires beyond assembling documents.

Overview

Audits, refinancing, and asset sales are often treated as discrete events triggered by timing or market conditions. In practice, their success depends on long-term readiness that cannot be manufactured on short notice. Assets that require last-minute document assembly, historical reconstruction, or clarification of operational decisions experience extended timelines, elevated transaction costs, and conservative assumptions that directly affect outcomes. Research indicates that approximately 20-25% of real estate transactions fail during due diligence, often due to issues uncovered when documentation proves inadequate or inconsistent. Commercial real estate transactions in 2023 declined 53% compared to 2022—the lowest volume since 2012—in part because heightened scrutiny in uncertain markets exposes informational weaknesses that would have been tolerated in more forgiving conditions.

Preparation is not a sprint before a transaction. It is the cumulative result of how an asset has been documented, operated, and governed throughout its lifecycle. When due diligence reveals gaps between operational reality and formal records, the information asymmetry forces counterparties to price uncertainty rather than performance. Approximately $2 trillion in commercial real estate mortgages matured between 2024 and 2026, with 67% of banks reporting tightened underwriting standards during this period—the first time this level of restriction occurred outside a recession. In this environment, assets with coherent, verifiable documentation command measurably better terms than those requiring prospective lenders or buyers to reconstruct history through investigation.

Why Transactions Expose Informational Weakness

Audits and transactions place assets under scrutiny by external parties—auditors, lenders, buyers, insurers—who must understand the asset well enough to form independent judgments about value, risk, and compliance status. This process reveals weaknesses that day-to-day operations may accommodate. Unclear ownership of records across departments or vendors creates ambiguity about authoritative sources. Inconsistent documentation across systems means that maintenance records, financial statements, and physical inspections tell different stories about the same asset. Missing context for past decisions—why systems were modified, under what authority changes were approved, what conditions prompted interventions—transforms documented activities into unexplained events that raise rather than resolve questions.

Commercial due diligence periods typically range from 30 to 90 days depending on transaction complexity, with residential transactions compressed to 7-14 days in most markets. Within these windows, external parties must validate years of operational claims against fragmented evidence. What feels manageable internally—work orders stored in one system, compliance records in another, energy data in a third—becomes friction externally when attempts to cross-reference information reveal inconsistencies or gaps that cannot be reconciled without extensive additional investigation.

The Difference Between Document Assembly and Readiness

Many organizations approach audits or transactions by assembling documents: leases, architectural plans, compliance certifications, inspection reports, financial summaries. This addresses whether required documents exist but does not address whether they collectively explain the asset in ways that external parties can verify and rely upon.

Assembly answers: "Do we have the required documents?" Readiness answers: "Do these documents form a coherent, verifiable narrative about asset condition, operational history, and governance?" An asset can be document-complete and still difficult to evaluate if information is fragmented across disconnected sources, outdated relative to current conditions, or unverifiable because provenance is unclear.

Consider refinancing preparation. Lenders typically require two to three years of financial statements, current rent rolls, property condition assessments, environmental reports, and evidence of regulatory compliance. These documents can be assembled, yet the refinancing may still encounter delays if financial statements show maintenance expenses that cannot be reconciled to work orders, if rent rolls reference lease terms that differ from signed contracts, or if property condition reports describe systems that do not match as-built documentation. Each discrepancy extends underwriting timelines as lenders investigate whether documentation is inaccurate or conditions have changed without being formally recorded.

Audits Require Traceability, Not Volume

Auditors are less concerned with information volume than with whether it can be trusted. Effective audit preparation depends on traceability from records to authoritative sources, clarity around version history and document control, evidence that established controls and approval processes were followed, and consistency between records and observable conditions.

When traceability is weak, audits expand in scope and duration. Auditors cannot simply accept representations about compliance or operational quality; they must test underlying evidence through sampling and inquiry. This testing multiplies when initial samples reveal inconsistencies that suggest systemic documentation problems. Industry research on accounts payable processes—which face similar audit scrutiny—finds that 97% of finance professionals waste time monthly chasing down invoice details, with 30 days required on average to complete payment cycles in mid-market companies. Similar dynamics affect real estate audits when operational evidence cannot be quickly traced to verified sources.

The cost manifests in extended audit timelines, increased professional fees as auditors invest more hours reconstructing context, qualified opinions or findings that trigger follow-up reviews, and delayed transaction closings while audit concerns are addressed. These outcomes reflect documentation gaps, not operational failures, yet they introduce the same friction and expense as actual performance issues.

Refinancing Rewards Clarity and Consistency

Lenders assess risk under time constraints. When asset information is unclear, they compensate through conservative assumptions that protect against unknowns. Extended diligence timelines beyond standard 30-60 day periods delay closings and increase the probability that market conditions change unfavorably during underwriting. Increased contingency reserves reduce loan proceeds below maximum leverage ratios. Tighter covenants restrict operational flexibility. Higher pricing or reduced proceeds reflect information risk premiums rather than asset performance.

Assets that present coherent, verifiable operational histories reduce lender uncertainty even when performance is imperfect. Clarity does not eliminate risk—it limits speculation. Lenders can underwrite actual conditions rather than worst-case assumptions. This distinction becomes material in markets where approximately $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate debt required refinancing before 2025's end, with borrowing costs nearly doubling since early 2022 and many assets facing the prospect of needing to contribute additional equity to offset declined valuations.

Consider a refinancing scenario where an office property originally financed at 80% loan-to-value with a 4% interest rate seeks refinancing at current market rates approaching 7%. If appraised value has declined 25% due to market conditions and the lender can verify through clear operational records that the building maintains stable occupancy, consistent maintenance, and predictable expense patterns, underwriting may support 75% LTV on the current value. If operational documentation is fragmented and key metrics cannot be verified independently, underwriting may require 65% LTV or impose additional reserves, reducing proceeds by millions of dollars on large transactions.

Sale Processes Magnify Documentation Gaps

Asset sales compress years of operational history into short due diligence windows where buyers must decide what they are willing to underwrite. Documentation gaps force buyers to assume worst-case scenarios about deferred maintenance or hidden liabilities, discount purchase price to cover unknowns that could be clarified through better documentation, or request indemnities and holdbacks that reduce proceeds and extend post-closing obligations for sellers.

Data from Redfin indicated that approximately 60,000 home purchase agreements fell through in June 2022, representing 14.9% of homes under contract—the highest failure rate on record outside pandemic disruptions. While commercial transactions face lower absolute failure rates, they experience similar pressure when documentation cannot support buyer confidence. Sellers experience this as friction, delayed closings, or price erosion during negotiation. Buyers experience it as risk management that protects against information asymmetries they cannot otherwise resolve.

The National Association of Realtors reported that 5% of contracts were terminated and 15% delayed in late 2022, with inspection issues cited as a primary cause. In commercial transactions, "inspection issues" frequently trace to discrepancies between seller representations and verifiable evidence. Mechanical systems described as "recently upgraded" that lack documentation of specifications, installation dates, or commissioning reports. Compliance certifications that cannot be cross-referenced to the underlying inspections or remediation work. Financial performance claims unsupported by lease documentation or validated tenant payment histories.

Why Last-Minute Preparation Is Costly

Attempting to prepare assets shortly before audits or transactions introduces multiple inefficiencies. Consultants must be hired to reconstruct records that should have been maintained systematically. Property condition assessments and environmental studies require 30-60 days to complete, compressing transaction timelines. Operational teams divert attention from core work to support due diligence requests, reducing service quality during critical evaluation periods.

More importantly, late preparation limits what can be improved. Records can be assembled, but history cannot be recreated convincingly. A maintenance log compiled retroactively from vendor invoices and institutional memory lacks the contextual detail—failure modes, performance observations, decisions to replace versus repair—that would have been captured in real-time documentation. Compliance certifications obtained urgently before transactions indicate current status but do not demonstrate continuous compliance over extended periods. Financial reconciliations produced for due diligence reveal current relationships between operational activities and accounting records but cannot retroactively establish the verification history that would support representations about historical performance.

Research on commercial refinancing timing finds that delays in preparation force borrowers into weaker options and higher costs. Starting refinancing processes 6-9 months before maturity dates rather than in the final 90 days provides time to order third-party reports, clean financial records, model multiple scenarios, and engage lenders during favorable market windows rather than under time pressure during peak volume periods when lender capacity is constrained.

Continuous Readiness as an Operating Posture

Assets that transact efficiently share a common trait: readiness is embedded in normal operations rather than manufactured for specific events. This includes maintaining current, structured records that reflect actual asset conditions rather than outdated snapshots. Linking operational events to asset history so that maintenance interventions, system modifications, and compliance activities create traceable documentation. Preserving context for changes and decisions through systematic annotation that explains not just what occurred but why, under what authority, and with what expected impacts. Aligning documentation practices with audit and finance requirements so that operational data collection inherently generates evidence suitable for external verification.

In these environments, audits and transactions become validations rather than investigations. External parties verify existing documentation against observable conditions rather than reconstructing history through testing. Due diligence proceeds according to standard timelines rather than extending while gaps are filled. Risk assessment relies on verified evidence rather than conservative assumptions about uncertainties.

The distinction is not merely efficiency. Continuous readiness demonstrates stewardship that influences how external parties evaluate management quality and operational discipline. Assets where documentation accurately reflects conditions over time indicate systematic governance. Assets where documentation must be assembled urgently before scrutiny indicate reactive management that may have similar gaps in other operational areas.

The Role of Operations in Transaction Readiness

Operations teams are often excluded from transaction planning until late in processes when due diligence requests reveal documentation needs. This represents a strategic error. Operational records explain system behavior and design decisions. They contextualize maintenance spending patterns and capital allocation priorities. They demonstrate asset stewardship through documented responsiveness to conditions and systematic attention to long-term performance rather than short-term expedience.

When operational data is structured with provenance and temporal continuity, it transforms from anecdote into evidence. A work order becomes a record of system reliability and maintenance philosophy. Energy consumption data becomes demonstration of operational efficiency and building performance trajectory. Inspection findings become proof of proactive risk identification and systematic remediation. This transformation strengthens both audit outcomes, where documentation supports compliance claims, and transaction narratives, where verified operational performance justifies financial projections.

ISO 19650 standards for information management in the built environment emphasize that asset information should be managed as a strategic resource throughout lifecycle phases. This requires operations teams to understand which operational facts have financial significance beyond immediate operational utility, how information should be structured to support future verification rather than merely current use, and what provenance attributes must accompany operational observations for external parties to rely upon them.

Readiness Reduces Asymmetry

Transactions are shaped by information asymmetry. Parties with clearer information about asset conditions, operational patterns, and governance quality are better positioned to define terms and maintain negotiating leverage. Assets prepared continuously reduce surprise findings that shift negotiating dynamics, control narratives around risk by providing verified evidence rather than representations requiring investigation, and support faster decision-making by eliminating information gaps that would otherwise extend due diligence timelines.

Readiness does not guarantee favorable outcomes in markets where fundamental conditions affect all assets. Office properties face valuation pressure regardless of documentation quality when remote work reduces demand. Retail assets face cap rate expansion regardless of operational excellence when e-commerce shifts consumer behavior. However, among assets facing common market pressures, those with verified operational records and systematic documentation consistently achieve better relative outcomes than comparable assets lacking information infrastructure.

This advantage compounds in stressed markets. When $2 trillion in debt requires refinancing during a period of elevated interest rates and tightened lending standards, the difference between assets that can demonstrate continuous compliance, predictable performance, and systematic maintenance versus those that cannot may determine whether refinancing is available at acceptable terms or whether assets must be sold under pressure.

Why This Guide Matters

Audits, refinancing, and sales are not exceptional events. They are recurring checkpoints in an asset's lifecycle that test whether operational reality can be verified by external parties. Preparing assets effectively requires shifting from episodic document assembly to continuous readiness where records are maintained as operational infrastructure rather than administrative byproducts.

When documentation practices align with audit and finance requirements from the start, transactions become faster, less expensive, and more defensible. Due diligence compresses because information is readily available and verifiable. Underwriting proceeds with confidence because claims can be substantiated through traceable evidence. Negotiations focus on value and terms rather than information gaps and indemnities. These advantages accumulate across multiple transactions over an asset's life, creating material differences in total lifecycle returns.

Readiness is not preparation for scrutiny. It is the result of disciplined stewardship that treats information as a strategic asset requiring the same systematic attention as physical maintenance, financial management, and regulatory compliance. Assets lacking this discipline pay the cost repeatedly through extended timelines, conservative assumptions, and reduced proceeds whenever external parties must evaluate conditions they cannot independently verify.

---

Keywords: audit readiness, refinancing preparation, asset sale diligence, real estate documentation, transaction readiness, asset management, underwriting risk, operational records, due diligence timelines, information asymmetry

References

• Allegro Real Estate. Understanding the 4 Types of Due Diligence During CRE Disposition. Industry guidance on due diligence components in commercial real estate transactions.

• Deloitte. (2023). Financial Reporting Alert 23-4: Financial Reporting and Accounting Considerations Related to the Current Commercial Real Estate Macroeconomic Environment. Analysis of CRE transaction conditions and documentation requirements.

• Deloitte. (2024). Financial Reporting Alert 24-2: Financial Reporting and Accounting Considerations Related to the Current Commercial Real Estate and Banking Macroeconomic Environment. Updated analysis showing 53% decline in 2023 transactions.

• Hellmuth & Johnson. (2024). Due Diligence in Commercial Real Estate Transactions. Legal framework and timeline considerations for commercial transactions.

• International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 19650: Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including Building Information Modelling (BIM) — Information Management Using Building Information Modelling.

• Moss Adams. (2024). The Commercial Real Estate Debt Dilemma. Analysis of $2 trillion refinancing wave and lending standard tightening.

• National Association of Realtors. (2022). Transaction Data on Contract Terminations and Delays. Quarterly data on failed transactions.

• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. (2024). OCC Bulletin 2024-29: Commercial Lending: Refinance Risk. Guidance on refinance risk management in commercial real estate.

• Redfin. (2022). Home Purchase Agreement Analysis. Data on transaction failure rates during due diligence periods.

• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Real Estate Due Diligence and Transaction Risk. Professional standards for transaction documentation and verification.

• Terrydale Capital. (2026). How to Time a Commercial Real Estate Refinance. Analysis of refinancing timelines and preparation requirements.