Dental Office Feasibility Study in the Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV Metro Area

One county, balanced programs

Dental lending across this Nevada metro is entirely a Clark County story, with all 60 loans there. SBA approved those loans from FY2017 to FY2026 for $43.5 million. The area is 32 of 562 for the class, dental offices hold 7 of 39 by class rank, and 0.92x as a quotient puts the class just under its national share. Because there is one county, a study does not have to pick among jurisdictions, but it should still choose a submarket.

A program mix that leans to 504 more than most

By program, 7(a) took 43 loans and 504 took 17, so a substantial minority involved real estate financing of the kind 504 serves. That fits dentistry, where buying the building the practice occupies is common. A franchise share of 0.00% means no loan here was flagged as franchised.

Loan size at the national benchmark

The midpoint of $503,500 is 0.99x the class's national midpoint, essentially at parity, and loans in the central band range from $200,000 to $945,750. A ticket this size usually covers equipment, build-out and perhaps a practice purchase, so a study must say which.

The one holder that can be named

The Mortgage Capital Development Corporation is listed under 504 with 12 loans worth $8.2 million, the sole holder whose loan count clears the naming threshold. No 7(a) lender reaches the threshold. This is the current holder per SBA, and says nothing about the corporation's current practice.

What the years and rates do not show

Printed years are FY2018 with 6 loans and $4.9 million, FY2019 with 9 and $4.2 million, FY2021 with 6 and $7.8 million, and FY2022 with 5 and $4.6 million. Other years are withheld. Loss rates are absent in both forms, cancellation and charge-off, and an absence is not a zero.

Studying a Las Vegas-area practice

Before a practice is financed, a study should test patient base within the drive time of the site, including the share of residents with dental insurance that the plan assumes, and the number of competing practices nearby. It should price operatory build-out and equipment, test whether the dentist's production per chair supports payroll and rent, and consider whether a start-up or an acquired practice is proposed. The appraisal differs between the two: a start-up has no history to value. Payments should be covered while patient volume builds, and a planned building purchase should be tested separately from the practice.