The U.S. economy in 2026 is neither uniformly strong nor uniformly weak — it is increasingly segmented. This research note sets out which industries are expanding, which are under structural pressure, what capital costs by sector, where population and output growth are concentrated, and why none of it establishes that a specific project is feasible.
Updated September 7, 2026. Some industries are benefiting from structural demand: healthcare, artificial intelligence infrastructure, electrical equipment, renewable power, defense, selected manufacturing, logistics, engineering and specialized professional services. Others are stable but highly dependent on location, pricing, demographics and financing structure. Some face structural pressure from changing consumer behaviour, automation, weak margins, overcapacity or high capital intensity.
For investors, business owners, lenders, developers and companies considering expansion, the central question is not simply whether the U.S. economy is growing. The more useful questions are: which industries are growing, where, at what cost of capital, what returns can reasonably be expected, how much capital will be required, and does the specific project remain feasible under downside conditions? Those are precisely the questions that independent feasibility analysis and ongoing project monitoring are intended to answer.
Real U.S. GDP increased at an annualized 1.5% in the second quarter of 2026, following 2.1% growth in the first quarter. Consumer spending, exports and investment contributed positively, while government spending declined. Real final sales to private domestic purchasers — a useful measure of underlying private-sector demand — rose 4.2% in the second quarter. Corporate profits from current production increased by $400.9 billion during the quarter.
That combination suggests an economy that is still expanding, but with significant differences by industry. The latest full industry breakdown is currently for the first quarter of 2026. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that private goods-producing industries expanded at a 4.5% annualized rate while private service-producing industries increased 0.8%. Information, professional, scientific and technical services, and durable-goods manufacturing were among the largest positive contributors. Retail trade, wholesale trade, and finance and insurance were offsets.
That divergence matters for capital allocation. A project entering a structurally expanding market deserves a different set of assumptions from one entering a market where industry output, employment and margins are under pressure.
The following is a strategic classification, not an official government rating. It combines current economic activity, employment trends, long-term Bureau of Labor Statistics projections, public-company fundamentals and capital-market conditions.
| Industry / sector | Current view | Opportunity outlook | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare & social assistance | Growing | Strong | Labor, reimbursement, construction cost |
| AI / cloud / data infrastructure | Growing rapidly | Strong but capital intensive | Power, equipment, obsolescence, valuation |
| Software / technology services | Growing | Strong selectively | High cost of equity, disruption |
| Electrical equipment / power infrastructure | Growing | Strong | Supply chain, execution |
| Aerospace & defense | Growing | Strong | Procurement concentration, execution |
| Engineering & specialized construction | Growing selectively | Strong | Labor and project-cost risk |
| Manufacturing | Mixed / improving | Strong in selected subsectors | Automation, trade, energy, plant utilization |
| Food processing | Stable / selective growth | Moderate | Thin margins, commodity exposure |
| Logistics / warehousing | Stable to growing | Selective | Overbuilding, freight cycles |
| Hotels / hospitality | Stable / market-specific | Selective | Demand, new supply, financing |
| Restaurants | Stable but challenging | Highly location-specific | Labor and food costs |
| Commercial real estate | Mixed | Asset-specific | Refinancing, occupancy |
| Homebuilding | Mixed / rate-sensitive | Regional | Affordability, mortgage rates |
| Traditional retail | Structurally pressured | Selective | E-commerce, margins |
| Traditional broadcasting / publishing | Under pressure | Limited / specialized | Audience migration |
| Conventional autos | Low-return / disruptive | Selective | Capital intensity, technology shifts |
| Traditional telecom | Mature / mixed | Infrastructure niches | Capital intensity |
| Agriculture | Mixed | Commodity-specific | Prices, weather, input costs |
| Oil & gas | Profitable but cyclical | Selective | Commodity prices, regulation |
| Renewable power | Growing structurally | Strong | Interconnection, permitting, financing |
Healthcare remains one of the clearest structural growth sectors. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects healthcare and social assistance employment to increase 8.4% between 2024 and 2034, adding nearly 2 million jobs, more than any other major sector. Mental health, outpatient services, elderly care, home care, rehabilitation and specialized medical services are among the faster-growing areas. Current labor-market data support that direction: healthcare and social assistance added approximately 28,400 jobs in August 2026, including continued hiring by hospitals and home-health providers.
There may be opportunities in outpatient medical facilities, behavioral and mental health, home healthcare, senior services, physical and occupational therapy, specialty healthcare, medical equipment, healthcare IT and ambulatory facilities. But healthcare is not automatically feasible. A new facility must still demonstrate patient demand, payer mix, reimbursement assumptions, provider availability, staffing, construction costs and debt-service capacity — the substance of a healthcare feasibility study.
Professor Aswath Damodaran’s January 2026 U.S. industry data estimate a weighted average cost of capital of approximately 6.19% for hospitals and healthcare facilities, 6.83% for healthcare support services and 7.54% for healthcare products. These are market-derived public-company estimates — not the interest rate a private project should expect from its lender. That distinction is essential.
Technology remains one of the strongest structural opportunities, but the opportunity is shifting. It is not simply “technology companies.” The strongest capital-investment themes include data centers, cloud infrastructure, AI computing, semiconductor capacity, electrical equipment, power systems, cooling infrastructure, data-center construction and network infrastructure. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects employment among computing infrastructure providers, data processing, hosting and related services to grow 20.3% from 2024 to 2034, driven in part by AI and cloud computing demand.
Damodaran’s January 2026 market dataset shows strong expected growth assumptions for several related public-company sectors. System and application software had roughly 12.3% expected five-year revenue growth and 22.8% expected EPS growth; semiconductors had about 11.7% expected five-year revenue growth and 22.9% expected EPS growth. But growth comes with a higher hurdle rate. Damodaran’s estimated WACC is approximately 10.55% for semiconductors, 9.89% for semiconductor equipment, 9.34% for system and application software, 10.66% for internet software and 7.83% for computer services.
Power demand is increasingly becoming a constraint on economic development. Data centers, electrification, advanced manufacturing, semiconductor plants and population growth require new generating capacity, grid upgrades, transformers, substations, switchgear, transmission, backup power, energy storage and cooling infrastructure. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the four fastest-growing detailed industries through 2034 to be related to renewable electricity generation, including solar and wind. Other electrical equipment and component manufacturing is projected to grow employment by approximately 29.2%.
Damodaran estimates a January 2026 WACC of approximately 5.01% for power and 6.04% for green and renewable energy, although individual development projects can have very different financing costs and risks. The opportunity is significant, but a power project feasibility analysis must address a blunt question: can the project actually secure power, interconnection, permits, equipment, customers and financing on the assumed timeline? Those questions are now central to site selection.
Aerospace and defense is another attractive sector. Damodaran’s January 2026 dataset shows aerospace and defense public-company net income growing at a five-year historical CAGR of about 19.6%, with expected five-year revenue growth near 19.8% and expected EPS growth around 25%. Its estimated WACC was approximately 7.60%. Potential expansion opportunities include components, precision manufacturing, electronics, maintenance, defense supply chain, specialty materials and aerospace machining. But government-contract concentration, customer qualification, certification, skilled labor and long procurement cycles must be evaluated carefully.
It is misleading to say simply that manufacturing is growing or declining. U.S. manufacturing is becoming increasingly segmented. Manufacturing employment rose by 16,000 in August 2026 and has increased by about 58,000 since its December 2025 low. Machinery and fabricated-metal manufacturing were among the industries adding jobs, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis identified durable-goods manufacturing as a leading contributor to first-quarter economic growth.
Potentially attractive niches include electrical equipment, the semiconductor supply chain, aerospace, defense, medical devices, machinery, advanced materials, food processing, industrial automation and grid equipment. Damodaran’s January data show machinery companies with roughly 9.8% expected five-year revenue growth and 13.6% expected EPS growth, against an estimated WACC of about 7.70%.
But manufacturing feasibility is heavily dependent on facility utilization, customer contracts, equipment cost, labor productivity, electricity, freight, working capital, raw materials, inventory and supply-chain resilience. A plant running at 55% utilization can have a completely different financial profile from the same plant running at 85%.
Food demand is relatively defensive, but agricultural economics are mixed. USDA forecasts 2026 net farm income at approximately $158.4 billion, down 2.6% nominally and 5.5% after inflation from 2025. Crop receipts are forecast to rise 6.1%, while animal and animal-product receipts are expected to decline. Corn and soybean receipts are expected to rise, while rice and certain livestock categories face weaker economics.
Food processing can be more stable because it captures value after the farm gate. Damodaran estimates a 5.79% WACC for food processing, relatively low compared with high-growth technology industries. But processor margins can be sensitive to commodity prices, labor, energy, transportation, refrigeration, waste, customer concentration and grocery pricing power. This can create opportunities for USDA B&I-backed rural processing projects — but only if the market and financial feasibility are independently established.
Total U.S. construction spending was running at approximately $2.158 trillion annualized in July 2026, down 3.8% from July 2025. Private residential construction declined, but private nonresidential construction actually increased 0.4% from June. Construction is another sector where the aggregate number hides important opportunities: manufacturing facilities, power infrastructure, data centers, transportation, water infrastructure, waste treatment, specialized healthcare and industrial construction. Historically, public construction in power, water, sewage and transportation has shown significant investment growth in recent Census data.
The danger is assuming that strong sector demand guarantees an individual project will work. It does not. Construction projects have among the greatest feasibility risks because several variables can move simultaneously: cost, schedule, interest, demand and stabilization. A 12% construction overrun combined with a six-month delay and weaker-than-forecast demand can eliminate the equity return of an otherwise attractive development.
Homebuilding remains difficult to classify. Demographics and housing shortages can support long-term demand, but affordability and borrowing costs remain constraints. Damodaran’s public-company dataset showed only 2.27% expected five-year revenue growth for homebuilders as of January 2026, against an estimated WACC of approximately 7.27%. The opportunities are therefore highly geographic: fast-growing outer-ring and exurban markets can have substantially better fundamentals than mature or shrinking locations.
Retail sales were still 5.0% above their year-earlier level in July 2026, despite declining 0.6% month over month. But employment projections are less favorable: the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects retail employment to decline approximately 1.2% between 2024 and 2034, largely because of continued e-commerce penetration and automation. That does not mean retail has no opportunities. It means location and format matter more. Potentially stronger segments include grocery, necessity retail, discount formats, specialty concepts, experiential retail and high-growth suburban markets. Generic commodity retail is much harder to justify without a very strong location or cost advantage.
Hospitality is a classic example of why national forecasts are insufficient. Damodaran’s hotel and gaming companies showed roughly 8.75% expected five-year revenue growth and 13.6% expected EPS growth as of January 2026, with an estimated industry WACC of about 7.36%. Those figures do not tell you whether another 120-room hotel should be built in a specific county. That requires analysis of existing room supply, proposed new supply, occupancy, ADR, RevPAR, corporate demand, tourism, highway traffic, seasonality, event demand and construction costs — the substance of a hotel feasibility study. USDA’s own guidance specifically recognizes the importance of demand, utilization and cash-flow analysis for tourism-related projects. The same logic applies to restaurant projects, where labor and food costs make the location case decisive.
Information is an interesting contradiction. The Bureau of Economic Analysis identified the sector as a major contributor to GDP growth in the first quarter, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that information employment fell by 23,000 in August 2026, following average monthly losses during the prior year. At the same time, BLS projects information-sector employment to increase 6.5% through 2034, with especially strong growth in computing infrastructure. The explanation is partly structural: output can grow while employment declines or shifts because productivity and automation are rising. A feasibility study should therefore avoid assuming that employment growth and industry revenue growth are the same thing.
Professional, scientific and technical services remain attractive. BLS projects 7.5% employment growth through 2034, adding more than 800,000 jobs, and BEA identified the sector as one of the principal contributors to first-quarter 2026 GDP growth. Opportunities include engineering, technical consulting, cybersecurity, AI implementation, scientific research, environmental services and financial analytics. These businesses typically require less fixed capital than manufacturing, but talent becomes the critical feasibility variable.
Financial activity is not collapsing, but current data are mixed. Finance and insurance reduced first-quarter GDP growth, and financial activities employment declined by 11,000 in August. However, corporate finance, investment management, brokerage and specialty financial services continue to produce meaningful profitability. Damodaran reports approximately 17.8% return on equity for brokerage and investment banking, versus 12.9% for money-center banks and 9.8% for regional banks in its January 2026 dataset.
Some industries deserve greater caution. Damodaran reports only about a 2.25% return on capital for auto and truck companies versus an estimated WACC of 9.38%. That spread implies negative economic value creation for the aggregated public-company sample. This does not mean every auto supplier is unattractive; it means new capacity needs unusually strong evidence.
Long-term employment decline and continued digital substitution make generic retail expansion difficult without a strong local demand case. Traditional publishing and certain media businesses continue to face migration of audiences and advertising to digital channels. Damodaran’s January dataset showed negative recent revenue growth and negative expected EPS growth for paper and forest products, illustrating persistent structural pressure. And aggregate inflation-adjusted farm profitability is forecast to decline in 2026 even though individual crop categories are improving.
Aggregate U.S. corporate profitability, meanwhile, is currently strong. Corporate profits from current production increased by $400.9 billion in the second quarter of 2026, following a $74.4 billion increase in the first. At the industry level, public-company data suggest particularly attractive historical or expected profit dynamics in aerospace and defense, software, semiconductor businesses, healthcare products, selected financial services, environmental services, machinery, certain metals and mining segments, hotels and gaming, and renewable energy. More defensive or mature industries — food processing, grocery, utilities, healthcare facilities, insurance, transportation, household products — can have relatively predictable demand, but stable demand does not necessarily mean high returns.
One of the most important questions in a project is what return it must produce to compensate debt and equity investors for the risk they are taking. That is fundamentally a cost-of-capital question. As of September 3, 2026, the effective federal funds rate was approximately 3.63%. But businesses do not borrow at the federal funds rate. A project lender adds a credit spread, term premium, liquidity premium, collateral risk, industry risk, project risk and fees. Equity investors generally demand even more.
| Industry | Estimated cost of debt | Estimated WACC |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 4.73% | 5.01% |
| Food processing | 5.07% | 5.79% |
| Real estate development | 5.29% | 5.82% |
| Hospitals / healthcare facilities | 5.29% | 6.19% |
| Air transport | 5.29% | 6.72% |
| Healthcare support services | 5.29% | 6.83% |
| Hotel / gaming | 5.07% | 7.36% |
| Aerospace / defense | 5.29% | 7.60% |
| Machinery | 5.29% | 7.70% |
| Computer services | 5.29% | 7.83% |
| Construction supplies | 5.07% | 8.29% |
| System / application software | 5.29% | 9.34% |
| Auto & truck | 5.29% | 9.38% |
| Semiconductor | 5.29% | 10.55% |
These figures are based on public-company market data as of January 2026 and should be used as benchmark hurdle rates, not quotations for a particular loan.
Suppose a proposed business requires $20 million of invested capital and is expected to generate a sustainable annual after-tax operating return of $1.4 million. That is a 7% return on capital. If comparable-risk capital costs 5.5%, the project may create economic value. If its true WACC is 10%, the same project is economically unattractive. This is why “profitable” does not necessarily mean “financeable” or “investable,” and why a feasibility study should test whether return on invested capital exceeds cost of capital rather than merely whether revenue exceeds expenses. Where debt is involved, the same discipline applies to debt-service coverage.
Financing conditions are improving selectively. The Federal Reserve’s July 2026 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed essentially unchanged commercial and industrial lending standards overall, but stronger demand from large and middle-market companies. Banks also reported narrower loan spreads, while commercial-real-estate standards eased for some nonresidential and multifamily lending. Construction and land-development standards, however, remained relatively tight, and demand for those loans weakened. Banks cited increased financing needs for plant and equipment, inventory, receivables and mergers and acquisitions as major reasons for stronger commercial loan demand. That is constructive for expansion financing — but capital remains selective.
There is no universally best state. The best location depends on what the project needs.
The South remains the strongest region demographically. Census data show that all major age groups in the South grew faster than in any other U.S. region between 2020 and 2025. South Carolina was the fastest-growing state between July 2024 and July 2025 at 1.5%, followed by Idaho at 1.4%, North Carolina at 1.3%, Texas at 1.2% and Utah at 1.0%. For population-dependent businesses that supports consideration of Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and selected Florida markets, across healthcare, distribution, food processing, consumer services, housing-related businesses, manufacturing and hospitality in selected markets. But growth alone can produce overbuilding, which makes local supply analysis essential.
Dallas–Fort Worth is particularly notable. The metro reached approximately 8.5 million residents in 2025, an increase of roughly 11% since 2020, and much of the growth has occurred in outer suburban and exurban communities. For businesses tied to population growth those outer markets can offer opportunities in healthcare, distribution, food services, hotels, industrial services, building products and business services. But metropolitan statistics can hide major differences between submarkets: a site 30 miles away can have completely different demographics, traffic, supply and land costs.
The Carolinas combine strong population growth with established manufacturing, logistics, financial services, healthcare and technology clusters, and deserve consideration for advanced manufacturing, aerospace, automotive suppliers, food processing, distribution, healthcare and business services — subject to project-specific analysis of labor availability, electricity requirements, incentives and transportation access. Fast population growth in Idaho and Utah supports selected opportunities in healthcare, housing-related services, technology, distribution, food processing and consumer services, though smaller labor pools can become a constraint for major industrial projects.
Washington state led U.S. state GDP growth in the first quarter of 2026 at 4.5% annualized, with information as the leading contributor, supporting continued consideration for technology, cloud, aerospace and advanced services — weighed against costs, energy, land, labor and regulation. The Midwest may not have the fastest population growth, but it can offer lower land costs, industrial infrastructure, manufacturing labor pools, rail, highway connectivity and existing supply chains. That can make selected Midwest markets attractive for machinery, food processing, automotive suppliers, warehousing, advanced manufacturing and industrial services. In industrial projects, labor and logistics can matter more than headline population growth.
Rural markets can also be attractive where a project is tied to agriculture, food processing, manufacturing, tourism, natural resources, renewable energy, distribution or healthcare. USDA B&I loan guarantees can improve financing access for qualifying rural projects. But rural does not mean low-risk: a rural project can have greater labor, supplier, transportation and market-depth constraints, and those factors belong in the feasibility analysis. See also our note on underserved business opportunities in America.
A fast-growing industry can still produce a bad investment if the project costs too much. Consider a project originally estimated at $20 million where actual development cost becomes $25 million. If annual operating cash flow remains $2 million, the original 10% cash yield becomes 8%. If the project’s relevant cost of capital is 8%, essentially all of the economic cushion has disappeared. That is why project cost must be continuously tested against expected returns.
Economic statistics tell you where to look. They do not tell you whether to invest. A serious feasibility study should translate national trends into a specific project decision, which requires economic feasibility (regional economy, labor, infrastructure and industry conditions), market feasibility (demand, customers, competitors, market share, pricing and supply), technical feasibility (construction, equipment, technology, utilities and operating capacity), financial feasibility (revenue, costs, capital requirements, debt service, working capital and returns) and management feasibility (whether management has the experience required to execute the plan). For USDA B&I projects this five-part framework is directly reflected in USDA’s feasibility guidance; for SBA transactions the analogous expectations are set out in the SBA feasibility study requirements.
Independence is what makes the exercise worth performing. The consultant should not simply validate management’s preferred answer. If management forecasts $25 million of revenue by year three, the consultant should determine whether customers, market size, production capacity, pricing, competition and historical evidence support that number — and must be able to conclude that the project should not proceed as proposed. That is the economic value of independence, and it is why we publish our position on why the analyst should not arrange the financing and on choosing an independent consultant.
A feasibility study answers whether the project appears feasible before capital is committed. Project monitoring answers whether it is still feasible as reality unfolds. That distinction becomes critical for construction and expansion projects, because a project can be feasible at closing and financially compromised twelve months later.
For significant debt- and equity-financed projects, monitoring should compare actual performance against the feasibility-study base case: project budget, cost-to-complete, construction progress, contingency usage, schedule, change orders, equity invested, debt drawn, interest expense, working capital, sales commitments, customer pipeline, revenue, operating expenses, hiring, production capacity, occupancy or utilization and debt-service coverage. The process should also maintain an updated forecast to completion rather than merely reporting historical spending.
Equity takes first-loss risk, so an investor needs to know whether cost overruns are consuming contingency, whether debt is increasing, whether revenue has been delayed, whether returns are falling, whether additional capital will be required and whether management assumptions remain credible. If project cost increases from $25 million to $30 million, investors should understand immediately what that change does to IRR, cash yield, valuation and exit assumptions. Waiting until construction is finished is too late.
Debt investors care primarily about repayment: whether the project is on budget, whether borrower equity is actually being contributed, whether collateral value is being preserved, whether completion is likely, whether cash flow will support debt and whether the business has deviated materially from the feasibility case. Monitoring gives lenders early warning, which can make a project easier to finance because the capital provider has greater visibility into risk.
Debt and equity providers generally have different return objectives, but they share one concern: whether management’s projections can be trusted. Independent feasibility and project monitoring can strengthen credibility because they create an evidence-based framework around market assumptions, project cost, capital requirements, downside risk, sources and uses, returns and debt coverage. The purpose is not to manufacture a favorable investment story; it is to reduce information asymmetry between management and capital providers.
The strongest opportunities today tend to share several characteristics: structural rather than temporary demand; markets with growing populations or customer bases; returns comfortably above cost of capital; defensible competitive positions; realistic project budgets; adequate working capital; experienced management; and financing that remains sustainable under downside conditions. Industries such as healthcare, AI infrastructure, power, electrical equipment, specialized manufacturing, aerospace, technical services and selected rural processing projects currently have attractive structural characteristics. But none should be treated as automatically feasible.
Healthcare is benefiting from demographics and chronic-care demand. AI and cloud computing are driving extraordinary infrastructure requirements. Power and electrical systems are becoming critical bottlenecks. Manufacturing is improving in selected advanced industries. Aerospace and defense have favorable demand. Population growth continues to favor parts of the South and selected Western states. At the same time, traditional retail, certain media businesses, some commodity industries, highly leveraged real estate and low-return capital-intensive businesses face greater pressure.
Capital is available — but it is not free. The effective federal funds rate was approximately 3.63% in early September, while market-derived industry WACCs range from roughly 5% in lower-risk utility-type businesses to more than 10% in riskier technology sectors. The important question for a new business, acquisition, manufacturing plant, hotel, healthcare facility or expansion is therefore not whether this is a growing industry. It is whether this specific project can generate sustainable returns above its true cost of capital under realistic market, construction, operating and financing assumptions.
That is why independent feasibility analysis should occur before major capital is committed, and independent project monitoring should continue after funding. Together they give lenders and equity investors a disciplined way to determine whether a project remains economically viable, properly capitalized, on budget, on schedule and capable of producing the returns required by its capital providers. That discipline does not make a project financeable, and no analysis can promise that a lender or investor will commit. What it does is establish, on evidence, whether the project deserves to be.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP by industry, corporate profits, state GDP); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Employment Situation, Employment Projections 2024–2034); U.S. Census Bureau (Vintage 2025 population estimates, Value of Construction Put in Place, Monthly Retail Trade); USDA Economic Research Service (Farm Sector Income Forecast); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (H.15 selected interest rates; July 2026 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey); Aswath Damodaran, NYU Stern, U.S. industry cost of capital and growth datasets, January 2026. Published September 7, 2026.
President, Wert-Berater, Inc. — independent feasibility study consultants since 1998. 4,000+ engagements completed across all 50 states and internationally, evaluating $41.2 billion in project value for SBA, USDA, EB-5, conventional, and institutional financing decisions. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and agency in every engagement.
Schedule a ConversationIndependent feasibility studies since 1998 — 4,000+ engagements, $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. Standard delivery 10–15 business days; RUSH delivery available at additional cost. Fixed fee, quoted before any work begins, never contingent on the finding.
Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.