FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY: La Quinta Inn & Suites Willowbrook XXX XXX Xxxxxxxxxxx Houston, Texas 77064

Page 1 of 105 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY: La Quinta Inn & Suites Willowbrook XXX XXX Xxxxxxxxxxx Houston, Texas 77064 December 13, 2011 This study has been prepared to determine the financial feasibility of building and operating a La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel in the Willowbrook area of northwest Houston, Texas. The property is expected to open as a 77 unit La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel in January of 2013. The site has easy access and is convenient to all area attractions, including the Willowbrook Mall, the Methodist Hospital, and to nearby traffic corridors. The hotel is expected to have 57 standard rooms of 390 square feet, 17 suites of 442 square feet, and 3 two room suites of 510 square feet. Project quality is set to meet the physical and operating standards of the La Quinta Inn brand, owned by the Blackstone Group. This study is entirely dependent on the hotel operating as a 'La Quinta Inn & Suites, and retaining the brand in good standing at the time of an assumed sale after 10 years. The actual level of consumer acceptance for the La Quinta Inn product has been quantified versus market averages and has been assumed in developing this financial feasibility study. Product specification, revenues, and operating costs are set at the level of similar limited service segment hotel products. KEY FINDING: Developing and opening a La Quinta Inn & Suites at this site should generate an unleveraged, pre-tax return on total invested capital of 13%, with a return on equity of 38%. This return on invested capital also assumes that improvements per unit are completed at the estimated cost of $86,753, plus $1,670,000 for land. Project details follow: PO Box 120055, San Antonio, TX 78212 210-734-3434 Fax 210-735-7970 www.sourcestrategies.org

Page 2 of 105 Total Investment Land & Building Cost $ 1,670,000 for 3.4 acres Improvements Budget $ 6,680,000 @ $86,753 per key Total Investment $ 8,350,000 Pre-Tax Project Return 12.98% 1 Pre-Tax Return on Equity 37.50% 2 This study incorporates the current downturn in the Texas hotel market, caused by the broader national recession, which began in late 2008. In our Market section, we highlight the historical hotel performance in Texas, noting the effect of past recessions. While every market has its own unique characteristics, our projections for the local area market consider how the lodging industry reacts in times of economic downturn and in normal times. We anticipate that the current upturn will continue to impact subject markets through 2011, followed by a slow, long-term period of recovery. See the Market section for more details. With a January 2013 opening, cash flow market projections for the La Quinta Inn & Suites Willowbrook, before taxes and after renovation reserves, should be available for debt service, income tax and dividends as follows: Project Summary Occupancy Average $ Total Percent $ Rate REVPAR Revenue CashFlow** Year I 61.3% $97.20* $59.62 $1,759,289 $837,419 Year II 71.1% $98.61 $70.15 $2,070,086 $1,021,842 Year III 74.5% $101.07 $75.30 $2,221,976 $1,102,219 Year IV 74.9% $104.11 $77.93 $2,299,746 $1,132,332 Year V 75.2% $107.23 $80.66 $2,380,237 $1,110,819 Year VI 74.3% $110.45 $82.09 $2,422,404 $1,114,092 Year VII 74.5% $112.10 $83.54 $2,465,318 $1,144,484 Year VIII 74.7% $113.79 $85.02 $2,508,992 $1,170,422 Year IX 74.9% $115.49 $86.53 $2,553,440 $1,132,915 Year X 75.0% $117.25 $87.91 $2,594,309 $9,835,266*** *Year I ADR equates to approximately $94 in current market dollars.**before Income Tax & Financing expense, but reflecting $1,377,058 in reserves for capital expenditures / property renovation ($17,884 per unit). ***assumes valuing property at Year 10 cash flow at an 11% return-to-buyer, less 4% expense of sale, plus year 10 cash flow. 1. After reserve for on-going renovations. 2. Assuming 20% equity and 80% debt at a 6.85% pre-tax debt cost; calculated weighted average.

Page 3 of 105 The above cash flow, assuming a Year 10 sale, has been discounted at the rate of 12.98% to a present value of $8,348,333, approximating the total budgeted investment of $8,350,000. This 12.98% is the project's unleveraged return, provided capital is kept at this level. An estimated capital budget for construction and FF&E of $86,753 per unit 'turn-key' costs for a hotel of this size and quality is far above average for this brand, but reasonable considering that the design is a new upscale La Quinta prototype. If capital outlays vary from budget for this project, returns will vary accordingly. The following table illustrates the linear nature of financial returns as capital requirements escalate or decline and revenue streams remain stable. Effect on Returns if Capital Investment Changes 3 Improvements Budget Land Total Discounted Cash Flow Variance Per Unit Total Cost Investment Total Proj On Equity (85%) $73.7 $5,678 $1,670 $7,348 15.32% 49.20% (90%) $78.1 $6,012 $1,670 $7,682 14.49% 45.05% (95%) $82.4 $6,346 $1,670 $8,016 13.71% 41.15% BUDGET $86.8 $6,680 $1,670 $8,350 12.98% 37.50% (105%) $91.1 $7,014 $1,670 $8,684 12.29% 34.05% (110%) $95.4 $7,348 $1,670 $9,018 11.63% 30.75% (115%) $99.8 $7,682 $1,670 $9,352 11.01% 27.65% 3. Discounted Cash Flow / Internal Rate of Return.

Page 4 of 105 A detailed look at Year III shows the following: Year III 2015 Room Revenues $2,116,168 Total Revenues $2,221,976 Income Before Fixed Costs $1,316,602 (59.3%) Net Income Before Tax & Fin. $1,002,040 (45.1%) Cash Flow Before Financing $1,102,219 (49.6%) 4 Occupancy % 74.5% Average Daily Rate $101.07 $ REVPAR $ 75.30 Per Occupied Room Cost $ 43.24 The critical statistic used in this study is REVPAR. REVPAR means revenue per available room per day, and reflects the average daily room revenue yield of every room in a property or market (not just occupied rooms). REVPAR is generated by multiplying occupancy times rate (i.e. REVPAR = % occupancy times average daily rate), and is the most effective and important tool in the evaluation of the success of any lodging concern. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS: Critical assumptions are summarized as follows, with the Market History and Projection study (page 11) following the Methodology section (page 7). 1. Projections of the local Willowbrook Area Market 5 reflect a mixture of mostly new hotels. The average hotel room in the local market is only 10 years old, in the early middle of the life cycle of the typical hotel building. The typical hotel building becomes stylistically and structurally obsolete after 30 years, though this figure is larger for typical downtown highrise/concrete structures which undergo complete remodeling. The local market has 1,160 rooms built since 2000, and only 253 rooms built before 1995. There is typically a wide and dramatic gap between the performance of new and older properties, with the typical hotel in the area either being relatively new and competitive or older and on its way to closure. We are comfortable with market projections, and expect market demand in the area to continue to rise steadily. After rising strongly overall since the start of 2010, occupancy is expected to fall towards an equilibrium level of 63% by 2015. Further, REVPAR in this 4. Before deductions of loan principal and interest, before income tax deductions, and before any equity payout. 5. Zipcodes 77070/069/066/064/379/377/375.

Page 5 of 105 market is projected to grow by 3% annually over the next nine years, reflecting a steady market and the expectation of the replacement of obsolete hotel products. Detailed local market history and projections commence on page 16. WILLOWBROOK AREA MARKET Year Occupancy % $ REVPAR 2002 63% $ 38-2004 62% $ 40-2006 70% $ 51-2008 72% $ 64-2011 64% $ 50 6 Projected 2015 63% $ 57 2019 63% $ 66 Historical Annual Compound Growth Rates Past 9 YearAverage 0.1% 2.9% Past 4YearAverage 2.7% -2.8% Past YearAverage 9.5% 13.6% Future Annual Compound Growth Rates Next 9 Years -0.2% 3.3% Next 5 Years -0.4% 3.1% 2. Versus the local market's REVPAR dollar projections, the REVPAR index of the proposed La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel ramps upwards, peaking at 133% of the market average REVPAR in Years III-V. Thereafter, the REVPAR Index declines due to the normal aging cycle. Detailed REVPAR derivation and subsequent projections commence on page 32. LA QUINTA HOTEL DERIVATION Data in 2011 $ s Year I Year II Year III Base: Name & Quality 0.88 0.88 0.88 x Brand Age Adjustment 1.10 1.10 1.10 x Site Value Adjustment 0.90 0.90 0.90 x Size Adjustment 1.09 1.09 1.09 x Other Adjustments 1.25 1.25 1.25 x Newness Adjustment 0.92 1.07 1.12 = Performance Factor 109% 127% 133% x Market REVPAR $49.82 $49.82 $49.82 = Projected Performance $54.24 $63.08 $66.03 6 12 months ending September 30, 2011.

Page 6 of 105 The projected REVPAR performance of the subject hotel, versus the local area market average REVPAR reflects the fact that this hotel is expected to perform at a level above the market average. The hotel's REVPAR index starts in Year I at 109% of the market, rises to it s peak of 133% of the market in Years III-V, then slowly loses ground versus the local area's inflationary growth: 3. Expenses are set at the level of similar, limited service hotel products from Smith Travel Research Host Reports operating statistics, inflated at 3% per annum. See page 46 for details.

Page 7 of 105 METHODOLOGY To develop Pro Forma financial results for the proposed project, two major sets of assumptions have been developed. First, the future market's average REVPAR is forecast on a reasonable and economically-sound basis; the performance of the project is dependent on this market forecast and varies from it only due to specific variables of the project. Second, the specific variables of the project are combined and expressed as an index for each quarter ofthe forecast, an index that is used to adjust the overall market performance to the specific project. MARKET REVPAR FORECAST The large Houston Metro market is examined historically and projected. The key in the market projections is to stabilize the metro market in the future at a sustainable, average equilibrium for occupancy, a level which we have determined to be approximately 60% in markets of this type, and lower for non-metro and highway areas. Over the 20 years from 1987 through 2007, according to the Source Strategies, Inc. database, hotel occupancy in Texas has averaged 59%, and 60% in overall Texas metros. This occupancy level is highly relevant as a long-term, equilibrium occupancy, a level where investors are neutral about adding new hotel rooms to the market and an average that will reoccur over long periods of time (e.g. 20 years). After the wider market area is forecast, we forecast the performance of the local Willowbrook Area Market on a similar basis. Market projections are based on growth rates in real demand (room-nights sold), prices (average daily rates), and supply (rooms available). The key in this projection is to stabilize the local market in the future at a sustainable, average equilibrium for occupancy, a level which we have determined to be approximately 60% in markets of this type. The REVPAR projection of the local market is then the pro forma market environment of the proposed subject development; the project will vary from the norm for only project-specific differences, and then only relatively. PROJECT SPECIFIC VARIABLES: DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT REVPAR INDICES The first variable from the averages to be developed has to do with the fact that each product type and brand have a typical and identifiable influence on REVPAR performance. This variable is based on its consumer acceptance, its product definition, its level

Page 8 of 105 of quality, the price it can command from the consumer, its marketing efforts, and other factors. The value of the brand and product type is termed the Base Value. The second adjustment used on the dollar value of the local area's REVPAR is the Brand Age Adjustment. This is made to reflect the average age of similarly branded hotels on the subject property's performance versus the market average. The opening dates of La Quinta hotels in Texas were examined in order to quantify this factor. The next step to developing a project REVPAR index is to determine any further adjustment based on any deviation from a normal project Size. If the number of proposed rooms in the project is significantly above or below the average for that brand and product-type, its performance will also vary from the norm. A lower than average number of rooms should increase per room performance and vice versa. This is due to the fact that consumer demand for a single brand is demand at the project's site, regardless of the number of rooms offered by the hotel (a minor exception here would be a convention hotel). An empirical proof of this evaluation of Size is the major increase in volume enjoyed by numerous hotels throughout Texas that have split into two branded operations, using two different names. For example, the Hilton Hotel Towers Austin added $1,000,000 annually to revenues by splitting off its adjacent, ground-based rooms as a Super 8 Motel. By creating another brand, the Super 8 began to fill demand for budget properties in the immediate area, while the Hilton Towers kept its current upscale customer base. Hence, smaller room counts than average generate higher occupancy than average. Further proof is the correlation between project size and occupancy: the smaller the property, the higher the occupancy. 7 A further, 'Other,' segment adjustment may be made if the proposed product type is under- or over- supplied in the local market, or for other factors. For example, a product type commanding 10% of the Texas market - but zero locally - would command a higher daily rate or occupancy locally because it is a relatively scarce commodity. Further, a subject product far exceeds the product quality of the brand average, then a positive adjustment should be made to 7 Study detailed in size factor derivation in analysis section.

Page 9 of 105 reflect a better product than normal. While there is usually a reasonably consistent pattern of site factors for the nearby local chain properties selected, these factors often vary because of unique situations, including: 1) visibility and access differences between nearby sites; 2) any large variation from the norm in the usual number of rooms for a local chain property at a site; 3) a nearby property's quality, the quality of management, last renovation, etc.; and 4) any major new commercial development nearby (e.g. shopping, office complex, hospital). Adjustments can be made for these differences within forecast site factor, based on industry experience. This is the Segment, or Other adjustment. Then the REVPAR potential of the subject Site, regardless of brand, is developed in two ways. First, all other property factors except site are calculated for nearby competitors, the site factor then being used to bring the calculated REVPAR into a match with actual REVPAR performance. In other words, combining all factors including a 'plugged' site factor results in the theoretical REVPAR projection equaling actual REVPAR for each property studied, revealing the mathematical value of individual hotel sites. With the development of the adjustments for Brand/product type, overall Brand Age, Segment, project Size, and Site, a revenue projection for the proposed operation begins to take form by combining these factors into a combined index that is applied to the overall market-wide REVPAR projection, resulting in the forecast of the project's dollar REVPAR. However, this combined index changes with the cumulative age the project. Then, the physical Age of the individual project impacts this REVPAR index. A +12% increase factor is applied to the combined REVPAR index in the operating Years III-V. A first-year start-up adjustment of -8% and a second year adjustment of +7%, followed by a +12% adjustment for years III-V. This factor reflects the major revenue-generating power of new versus old properties. In the sixth year and thereafter, the REVPAR index is then diminished at a rate of 1.67% per annum in order to reflect aging and the normal life-cycle of a hotel. This pattern of declining performance with property aging is based on major studies of economic life-cycle patterns. The first study was conducted on a census of all 25,000 Texas rooms built

Page 10 of 105 between 1980 and 1982 (study published in September 1994 issues of MarketShare 8 and the October 1994 issue of Hotel & Motel Management); the second investigation was conducted on all 17,231 rooms built in Texas from 1990 through 1995. These Source Strategies, Inc. studies confirm a similar, major study conducted in 1982 at the Holiday corporation on 160 companyowned and company-operated Holiday hotels. Combining all of these factors - Product Type, Brand Age, Site, Size, Segment (other), and Newness (Age) - results in the REVPAR stream for the project. A REVPAR stream from which room revenues, estimated rate, occupancy and roomnights sold are derived. At this point, the investment and operational costs can be laid against the revenue line to generate pro forma financial performance and discounted cash flow analysis. The calculation of the statistic of Operating Costs Per Occupied Room (before fixed/capital costs are deducted) is typically the important cost to examine carefully because it is highly stable and predictable, regardless of occupancy and rate. The Smith Travel Research Host Report of Hotel Operating Statistics, 2011 edition (2010 data) with dollar costs inflated, and Source Strategies, Inc. financial models are the source of operating cost statistics. From national average occupancies, costs are categorized as fixed, semi-variable or variable, resulting in the highly-leveraged profit performance characteristic of lodging products, depending on occupancy and REVPAR performance (i.e. variable costs increase proportionately with higher occupancy levels while fixed costs do not). Furthermore, with a capital expenditures profile provided by the International Society of Hospitality Consultants' CapEx, A Study of Capital Expenditures in the U.S. Hotel Industry, a method has been applied to determine an appropriate amount of renovation reserves to ensure that the property is maintained at the franchisor's required level. All study-area individual hotel/motel five year histories are included in the study, using the Source Strategies, Inc. database of all Texas hotels and motels (includes each hotel s brand, room count, room revenue, occupancy, rate and REVPAR). The methodology of this database is attached as an exhibit. 8 Now Hotel Brand Report.

Page 11 of 105 MARKET REVPAR HISTORY: TEXAS 1. Since 1980, the State of Texas (and the wider U.S. market) has experienced other instances of economic turmoil such as the current recession. In 1982-1983 the Texas market suffered through six consecutive quarters of major demand declines, with a sharp plummet of 24% in the first quarter of 1983. Two years later, every quarter in 1986 posted significant demand decreases of 19% or more. Before the recent recession, the most recent period of decline was in 2001, during which the onset of a recession was coupled, and accelerated by, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Beginning in the Third quarter of 2001, seven of the next eight quarters showed declining room demand, and it was not until the first quarter of 2004 that healthy levels of growth resumed. We have considered the historical market patterns in formulating our projections for all market projections. Though there are differences in each economic downturn, and areas across the state are impacted differently depending on factors driving demand, there is much that can be discerned from historical negative trending performances and the patterns of subsequent periods of recovery. Historical quarterly periods of economic decline and recession are highlighted in the Texas market data that follows overleaf:

Page 12 of 105 HOTEL MARKET: STATE OF TEXAS - 1980-1989 # Room-1 Total Htls nites Rooms % Growth Vs Yr Ago Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $ 000's Occ. Rate RPAR Sply Real ADR $ Rev 801 1,694 138,446 9,012 286,171 72.3 31.76 22.97 802 1,859 143,967 9,593 321,352 73.2 33.50 24.53 803 1,941 147,589 10,077 331,532 74.2 32.90 24.42 804 1,827 150,272 9,430 296,137 68.2 31.40 21.42 811 1,808 149,062 10,268 349,319 76.5 34.02 26.04 7.7 13.9 7.1 22.1 812 1,990 154,783 11,102 398,057 78.8 35.85 28.26 7.5 15.7 7.0 23.9 813 2,065 157,359 12,026 429,629 83.1 35.73 29.68 6.6 19.3 8.6 29.6 814 1,941 159,855 10,955 368,202 74.5 33.61 25.04 6.4 16.2 7.0 24.3 821 1,944 159,719 11,275 410,194 78.4 36.38 28.54 7.1 9.8 6.9 17.4 822 2,072 164,022 11,554 448,560 77.4 38.82 30.05 6.0 4.1 8.3 12.7 823 2,122 168,756 11,239 426,972 72.4 37.99 27.50 7.2-6.5 6.3-0.6 824 1,909 169,962 9,383 340,781 60.0 36.32 21.79 6.3-14.4 8.1-7.4 831 1,927 171,393 8,574 326,286 55.6 38.06 21.15 7.3-24.0 4.6-20.5 832 2,098 177,954 9,118 367,533 56.3 40.31 22.70 8.5-21.1 3.8-18.1 833 2,192 181,281 9,574 378,280 57.4 39.51 22.68 7.4-14.8 4.0-11.4 834 1,988 181,046 8,445 320,928 50.7 38.00 19.27 6.5-10.0 4.6-5.8 841 2,059 185,074 9,110 370,661 54.7 40.69 22.25 8.0 6.3 6.9 13.6 842 2,263 193,838 9,777 417,810 55.4 42.73 23.69 8.9 7.2 6.0 13.7 843 2,343 198,581 10,267 440,975 56.2 42.95 24.14 9.5 7.2 8.7 16.6 844 2,144 198,042 8,762 357,849 48.1 40.84 19.64 9.4 3.8 7.5 11.5 851 2,168 201,426 11,088 462,103 61.2 41.68 25.49 8.8 21.7 2.4 24.7 852 2,396 207,832 12,005 525,445 63.5 43.77 27.78 7.2 22.8 2.4 25.8 853 2,456 210,876 12,004 521,612 61.9 43.45 26.89 6.2 16.9 1.2 18.3 854 2,201 210,122 10,095 422,314 52.2 41.83 21.85 6.1 15.2 2.4 18.0 861 2,221 209,942 8,935 394,611 47.3 44.16 20.88 4.2-19.4 6.0-14.6 862 2,366 216,430 9,484 438,490 48.2 46.24 22.26 4.1-21.0 5.6-16.5 863 2,398 216,313 9,335 433,948 46.9 46.49 21.81 2.6-22.2 7.0-16.8 864 2,162 214,530 8,011 354,767 40.6 44.29 17.97 2.1-20.6 5.9-16.0 871 2,125 211,297 9,822 439,986 51.6 44.80 23.14 0.6 9.9 1.4 11.5 872 2,323 217,846 10,613 469,942 53.5 44.28 23.71 0.7 11.9-4.2 7.2 873 2,488 223,226 11,609 513,072 56.5 44.20 24.98 3.2 24.4-4.9 18.2 874 2,288 220,113 8,703 389,235 43.0 44.72 19.22 2.6 8.6 1.0 9.7 881 2,225 216,646 10,651 480,022 54.6 45.07 24.62 2.5 8.4 0.6 9.1 882 2,328 219,194 11,468 519,279 57.5 45.28 26.03 0.6 8.1 2.3 10.5 883 2,394 220,718 12,179 551,823 60.0 45.31 27.18-1.1 4.9 2.5 7.6 884 2,183 217,487 10,408 468,241 52.0 44.99 23.40-1.2 19.6 0.6 20.3 891 2,139 214,433 10,972 505,830 56.9 46.10 26.21-1.0 3.0 2.3 5.4 892 2,254 216,409 12,152 568,731 61.7 46.80 28.88-1.3 6.0 3.4 9.5 893 2,380 219,464 13,087 606,723 64.8 46.36 30.05-0.6 7.5 2.3 9.9 894 2,143 214,991 10,915 505,305 55.2 46.30 25.55-1.1 4.9 2.9 7.9 1. Room nights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues) 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Avg. price for room nights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

Page 13 of 105 HOTEL MARKET: STATE OF TEXAS - 1990-1999 # Room-1 Total Htls nites Rooms % Growth Vs Yr Ago Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $ 000's Occ. Rate RPAR Sply Real ADR $ Rev 901 2,129 214,419 11,679 554,170 60.5 47.45 28.72-0.0 6.4 2.9 9.6 902 2,311 218,824 12,840 624,482 64.5 48.64 31.36 1.1 5.7 3.9 9.8 903 2,488 223,343 12,708 629,223 61.8 49.51 30.62 1.8-2.9 6.8 3.7 904 2,195 215,581 10,531 513,588 53.1 48.77 25.90 0.3-3.5 5.3 1.6 911 2,288 216,607 11,476 565,424 58.9 49.27 29.00 1.0-1.7 3.8 2.0 912 2,450 220,230 12,714 652,416 63.4 51.31 32.55 0.6-1.0 5.5 4.5 913 2,489 221,280 13,203 669,743 64.9 50.73 32.90-0.9 3.9 2.5 6.4 914 2,288 217,777 11,146 556,396 55.6 49.92 27.77 1.0 5.8 2.4 8.3 921 2,311 218,438 11,593 595,139 59.0 51.34 30.27 0.8 1.0 4.2 5.3 922 2,488 222,368 12,751 675,369 63.0 52.97 33.38 1.0 0.3 3.2 3.5 923 2,548 223,434 13,690 721,311 66.6 52.69 35.09 1.0 3.7 3.9 7.7 924 2,359 219,803 11,488 593,804 56.8 51.69 29.36 0.9 3.1 3.5 6.7 931 2,364 220,328 11,903 630,049 60.0 52.93 31.77 0.9 2.7 3.1 5.9 932 2,526 223,631 12,955 711,191 63.7 54.90 34.95 0.6 1.6 3.6 5.3 933 2,587 225,580 14,033 762,508 67.6 54.34 36.74 1.0 2.5 3.1 5.7 934 2,382 221,392 11,714 625,100 57.5 53.36 30.69 0.7 2.0 3.2 5.3 941 2,414 222,471 12,287 671,853 61.4 54.68 33.56 1.0 3.2 3.3 6.6 942 2,593 227,497 13,565 773,762 65.5 57.04 37.38 1.7 4.7 3.9 8.8 943 2,666 230,187 13,848 787,544 65.4 56.87 37.19 2.0-1.3 4.7 3.3 944 2,475 226,119 12,215 677,868 58.7 55.50 32.59 2.1 4.3 4.0 8.4 951 2,457 225,028 12,549 738,394 62.0 58.84 36.46 1.1 2.1 7.6 9.9 952 2,604 229,116 13,526 810,170 64.9 59.90 38.86 0.7-0.3 5.0 4.7 953 2,701 234,593 14,117 841,494 65.4 59.61 38.99 1.9 1.9 4.8 6.9 954 2,602 232,201 12,326 722,297 57.7 58.60 33.81 2.7 0.9 5.6 6.6 961 2,596 233,619 13,221 823,051 62.9 62.26 39.14 3.8 5.4 5.8 11.5 962 2,740 239,156 14,047 878,542 64.5 62.54 40.37 4.4 3.9 4.4 8.4 963 2,735 242,809 14,040 875,250 62.9 62.34 39.18 3.5-0.5 4.6 4.0 964 2,666 241,679 12,572 775,657 56.5 61.70 34.89 4.1 2.0 5.3 7.4 971 2,694 245,315 13,353 861,700 60.5 64.53 39.03 5.0 1.0 3.6 4.7 972 2,774 250,349 14,720 965,813 64.6 65.61 42.39 4.7 4.8 4.9 9.9 973 2,838 254,368 14,874 968,988 63.6 65.15 41.41 4.8 5.9 4.5 10.7 974 2,800 257,088 13,470 873,191 57.0 64.83 36.92 6.4 7.1 5.1 12.6 981 2,847 258,388 14,390 965,828 61.9 67.12 41.53 5.3 7.8 4.0 12.1 982 2,930 263,497 15,481 1,057,929 64.6 68.34 44.12 5.3 5.2 4.2 9.5 983 3,019 270,763 15,927 1,053,109 63.9 66.12 42.28 6.4 7.1 1.5 8.7 984 2,978 271,238 14,316 941,569 57.4 65.77 37.73 5.5 6.3 1.4 7.8 991 3,047 277,678 15,010 1,023,911 60.1 68.22 40.97 7.5 4.3 1.6 6.0 992 3,129 282,933 15,996 1,125,938 62.1 70.39 43.73 7.4 3.3 3.0 6.4 993 3,220 290,145 16,562 1,111,162 62.0 67.09 41.63 7.2 4.0 1.5 5.5 994 3,208 289,149 14,552 968,974 54.7 66.59 36.43 6.6 1.7 1.2 2.9 1. Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues) 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Avg. price for roomnights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

Page 14 of 105 HOTEL MARKET: STATE OF TEXAS - 2000-2011 # Room-1 Total Htls nites Rooms % Growth Vs Yr Ago Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $ 000's Occ. Rate RPAR Sply Real ADR $ Rev 001 3,226 290,046 15,883 1,114,731 60.8 70.18 42.70 4.5 5.8 2.9 8.9 002 3,356 295,709 17,001 1,232,674 63.2 72.51 45.81 4.5 6.3 3.0 9.5 003 3,388 300,371 17,187 1,219,157 62.2 70.94 44.12 3.5 3.8 5.7 9.7 004 3,360 299,047 15,228 1,064,870 55.3 69.93 38.71 3.4 4.6 5.0 9.9 011 3,411 302,343 16,517 1,188,162 60.7 71.94 43.66 4.2 4.0 2.5 6.6 012 3,536 306,089 17,222 1,239,069 61.8 71.95 44.48 3.5 1.3-0.8 0.5 013 3,589 310,957 16,802 1,164,254 58.7 69.29 40.70 3.5-2.2-2.3-4.5 014 3,535 307,914 14,483 960,167 51.1 66.30 33.89 3.0-4.9-5.2-9.8 021 3,576 309,745 15,867 1,110,327 56.9 69.98 39.83 2.4-3.9-2.7-6.6 022 3,684 314,166 17,012 1,225,468 59.5 72.04 42.86 2.6-1.2 0.1-1.1 023 3,707 318,226 16,541 1,158,407 56.5 70.03 39.57 2.3-1.6 1.1-0.5 024 3,644 313,988 14,713 986,554 50.9 67.05 34.15 2.0 1.6 1.1 2.7 031 3,672 316,723 15,361 1,057,864 53.9 68.87 37.11 2.3-3.2-1.6-4.7 032 3,780 318,836 16,737 1,169,718 57.7 69.89 40.32 1.5-1.6-3.0-4.5 033 3,805 323,624 16,776 1,162,518 56.3 69.30 39.05 1.7 1.4-1.0 0.4 034 3,734 320,212 14,914 987,483 50.6 66.21 33.52 2.0 1.4-1.3 0.1 041 3,747 323,147 16,239 1,145,793 55.8 70.56 39.40 2.0 5.7 2.5 8.3 042 3,878 327,926 17,518 1,237,847 58.7 70.66 41.48 2.9 4.7 1.1 5.8 043 3,913 332,549 17,679 1,264,128 57.8 71.50 41.32 2.8 5.4 3.2 8.7 044 3,829 329,158 15,951 1,082,616 52.7 67.87 35.75 2.8 7.0 2.5 9.6 051 3,852 329,449 17,015 1,214,908 57.4 71.40 40.97 2.0 4.8 1.2 6.0 052 3,983 332,254 18,593 1,391,414 61.5 74.84 46.02 1.3 6.1 5.9 12.4 053 4,048 338,115 19,173 1,449,393 61.6 75.59 46.59 1.7 8.5 5.7 14.7 054 3,962 334,144 18,561 1,383,105 60.4 74.52 44.99 1.5 16.4 9.8 27.8 061 3,978 334,912 18,910 1,479,351 62.7 78.23 49.08 1.7 11.1 9.6 21.8 062 4,121 337,788 19,328 1,609,669 62.9 83.28 52.37 1.7 4.0 11.3 15.7 063 4,184 344,093 19,733 1,606,206 62.3 81.40 50.74 1.8 2.9 7.7 10.8 064 4,093 341,556 18,004 1,439,964 57.3 79.98 45.82 2.2-3.0 7.3 4.1 071 4,127 343,745 19,366 1,614,471 62.6 83.37 52.19 2.6 2.4 6.6 9.1 072 4,290 347,178 19,916 1,756,887 63.0 88.21 55.61 2.8 3.0 5.9 9.1 073 4,340 353,440 20,324 1,743,413 62.5 85.78 53.62 2.7 3.0 5.4 8.5 074 4,248 350,908 18,594 1,564,612 57.6 84.15 48.46 2.7 3.3 5.2 8.7 081 4,276 353,555 19,690 1,738,726 61.9 88.31 54.64 3.1 1.7 0.2-0.9 082 4,463 359,217 20,654 1,919,396 63.2 92.93 58.72 3.6 3.7 8.5 10.3 083 4,524 366,163 21,246 1,907,486 63.1 89.78 56.62 3.8 4.6 7.0 22.3 084 4,338 360,500 19,285 1,694,290 58.1 87.86 51.09 2.7 3.7 4.4 8.2 091 4,378 366,440 18,710 1,592,799 56.7 85.13 48.30 3.6-5.0-3.6-8.4 092 4,603 374,553 18,627 1,613,320 54.7 86.61 47.33 4.3-9.8-6.8-15.9 093 4,789 385,834 18,572 1,598,060 52.3 86.05 45.02 5.2-12.6-2.3-5.6 094 4,507 380,224 17,174 1,367,498 49.1 79.62 39.09 4.9-10.6-6.3-13.9 101 4,569 385,457 19,015 1,544,141 54.8 81.21 44.51 4.6 1.8-6.0-4.3 102 4,782 392,775 20,075 1,725,520 56.2 85.96 48.28 4.2 7.5-0.1 8.0 104 4,599 396,315 18,692 1,537,908 51.3 82.27 42.18 4.2 8.8 12.5 4.5 111 4,509 392,003 20,983 1,779,430 59.5 84.80 50.44 1.7 10.4 15.2 8.6 112 4,769 398,204 21,956 1,943,642 60.6 88.52 53.64 1.4 9.4 12.6 7.8 113 4,789 404,807 22,661 1,944,148 60.8 85.79 52.20 1.2 8.9 11.9 7.4 CGR% 28 yrs 3.0% 3.0% 6.0% 0.1% 2.9% 2.9% 20 yrs 3.0% 2.9% 5.6% -0.2% 2.7% 2.5% 10 yrs 2.7% 2.5% 4.5% -0.2% 1.9% 1.7% 5 yrs 8.1% 6.6% 8.0% 3.1% 6.0% 4.5% 1 yr 2.1% 9.4% 13.0% 7.2% 3.4% 10.8% 1. Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues) 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Avg. price for roomnights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

80 85 86 90 95 00 05 8 9 10 11 12 13 REVPAR $'s Page 15 of 105 Texas Lodging Market: Projection Room- Yr nights $ Room % Changes to Prior Year & # # Sold Revenues % $ $ # Rooms $ Qtr Hotels Rooms (000's) (000's) Occ Rate REVPAR Rms Sold ADR Revs 114 4,830 399,387 19,656 1,692,568 53.5 $86.11 $46.06 1.0 5.0 5.0 10.3 121 4,898 404,961 21,456 1,902,773 58.9 $88.68 $52.21 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.2 122 5,076 408,643 22,339 2,096,926 60.1 $93.87 $56.39 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.2 123 5,105 411,720 22,946 2,092,264 60.6 $91.18 $55.24 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.2 124 4,977 407,375 20,442 1,830,681 54.5 $89.55 $48.85 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.2 131 5,046 413,060 22,315 2,058,039 60.0 $92.23 $55.36 2.0 4.0 4.0 8.2 Texas REVPAR Growth History & Projection $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 Year

Page 16 of 105 Market REVPAR History & Forecast: 2. Over the past nine years, the Houston Metro Market has shown an average annual real growth of 2.5% (room-nights sold), annual growth of 5.1% in total room revenues, and a 2% annual gain in REVPAR; note that the severe recession of 2009 depressed the longterm performance numbers. Occupancy fell 0.5% per year over the nine years. Supply rose by 3% per year, with room rates also rising 2.5% annually. Over the past four years, a gain of 0.9% per year in demand was coupled with higher levels of supply growth, at +3.8% annually. Revenues over this period rose an average of 1.4% per year, while REVPAR slipped 2.3% annually. Room rates rose 0.4% per year. Occupancy decreased over the last four years by 2.8% per year. Over the last two years, demand rose by 3.1% annually. Overall results were depressed by a high 5.4% annual increase in supply. These results caused occupancy to fall by 2.3% annually, and REVPAR to fall 4.7% year over year. Rates fell 2.3% per year, and yearly revenues rose 0.7%. Most recent history, the 12 months ending September 30, 2011, shows positive results. Real demand rose by 9.7%, rates rose by 2.7%, revenues rose by 12.8%; occupancy gained 5.6%, as supply grew by 3.8%. REVPAR gained 8.7% for the average hotel. For comparison, revenues rose 13.2% for the state of Texas in the latest year. Houston Metro market occupancy averaged 60%, above the 58% for the overall state of Texas.

Page 17 of 105 LODGING MARKET HISTORY: HOUSTON METRO # Room 1 Total Htls nites Rooms Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 % Growth Vs Yr Ago Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $000's Occ. Rate RevPar Sply Real ADR $Rev 014 608 61,197 3,252 226,711 57.8 69.73 40.27 021 616 61,620 3,459 252,629 62.4 73.03 45.55 022 632 62,747 3,538 267,756 62.0 75.69 46.89 023 639 63,735 3,463 248,560 59.1 71.77 42.39 024 638 62,800 3,160 222,255 54.7 70.34 38.47 2.6-2.8 0.9-2.0 031 648 63,761 3,228 231,542 56.3 71.72 40.35 3.5-6.7-1.8-8.3 032 656 63,911 3,384 247,968 58.2 73.27 42.64 1.9-4.3-3.2-7.4 033 664 65,292 3,454 244,316 57.5 70.73 40.67 2.4-0.3-1.4-1.7 034 668 65,147 3,204 222,596 53.4 69.49 37.14 3.7 1.4-1.2 0.2 041 678 67,003 3,566 280,471 59.1 78.66 46.51 5.1 10.4 9.7 21.1 042 697 67,698 3,559 264,500 57.8 74.31 42.93 5.9 5.2 1.4 6.7 043 708 68,951 3,653 269,577 57.6 73.79 42.50 5.6 5.8 4.3 10.3 044 704 68,311 3,361 234,179 53.5 69.67 37.26 4.9 4.9 0.3 5.2 051 718 68,688 3,680 267,384 59.5 72.65 43.25 2.5 3.2-7.6-4.7 052 727 68,927 3,920 301,858 62.5 77.01 48.13 1.8 10.1 3.6 14.1 053 740 70,046 4,254 328,201 66.0 77.16 50.93 1.6 16.4 4.6 21.7 054 735 69,096 4,481 355,990 70.5 79.45 56.00 1.1 33.3 14.0 52.0 061 734 68,683 4,258 348,341 68.9 81.82 56.35-0.0 15.7 12.6 30.3 062 747 69,093 4,009 351,260 63.8 87.62 55.87 0.2 2.3 13.8 16.4 063 754 70,361 4,111 345,703 63.5 84.09 53.41 0.4-3.4 9.0 5.3 064 748 69,845 3,783 323,247 58.9 85.45 50.30 1.1-15.6 7.6-9.2 071 749 69,865 4,280 367,443 68.1 85.85 58.44 1.7 0.5 4.9 5.5 072 762 69,865 4,188 398,083 65.9 95.05 62.61 1.1 4.5 8.5 13.3 073 766 71,196 4,227 382,507 64.5 90.49 58.40 1.2 2.8 7.6 10.6 074 770 70,793 3,941 362,570 60.5 92.00 55.67 1.4 4.2 7.7 12.2 081 775 71,647 4,271 403,399 66.2 94.44 62.56 2.6-0.2 10.0 9.8 082 796 72,806 4,267 438,201 64.4 102.70 66.14 4.2 1.9 8.0 10.1 083 802 74,098 4,392 431,089 64.4 98.15 63.24 4.1 3.9 8.5 12.7 084 768 71,653 4,653 456,341 70.6 98.08 69.23 1.2 18.1 6.6 25.9 091 755 71,886 4,170 392,796 64.5 94.20 60.71 0.3-2.4-0.3-2.6 092 789 73,604 3,640 355,484 54.3 97.67 53.07 1.1-14.7-4.9-18.9 093 814 76,073 3,627 328,997 51.8 90.72 47.01 2.7-17.4-7.6-23.7 094 803 76,378 3,482 300,900 49.6 86.42 42.82 6.6-25.2-11.9-34.1 101 824 77,629 3,954 341,934 56.6 86.48 48.94 8.0-5.2-8.2-12.9 102 848 79,296 4,046 377,814 56.1 93.39 52.36 7.7 11.1-4.4 6.3 103 851 80,750 4,113 358,635 55.4 87.20 48.28 6.1 13.4-3.9 9.0 104 839 79,705 3,701 326,679 50.5 88.28 44.55 4.4 6.3 2.2 8.6 111 845 80,634 4,390 386,008 60.5 87.93 53.19 3.9 11.0 1.7 12.9 112 879 82,073 4,522 441,654 60.5 97.66 59.13 3.5 11.8 4.6 16.9 113 878 83,518 4,496 401,013 58.5 89.19 52.19 3.4 9.3 2.3 11.8 CGR% Past 9yrs 3.0% 2.5% 5.1% -0.5% 2.5% 2.0% 4yrs 3.8% 0.9% 1.4% -2.8% 0.4% -2.3% 2yrs 5.4% 3.1% 0.7% -2.3% -2.3% -4.7% 1yr 3.8% 9.7% 12.8% 5.6% 2.7% 8.7% 1.Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues) 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Avg. price for roomnights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

Page 18 of 105 3. In the future, overall Houston Metro market occupancy is projected to return to the estimated long-term equilibrium occupancy level of 60% by 2015. For the next nine years, real demand (room nights sold) is projected at an average 2.9% growth rate, above the projected net supply growth of 2.4%. With 2.7% average daily rate inflation, market gross revenues should gain 5.6%, and REVPAR should rise 3.1% annually during the nine year forecast. These assumptions relative to demand, supply, and occupancy reflect the fact that over the past 20 years overall occupancy in Texas has averaged about 59%, a level considered to be 'Equilibrium Occupancy' state-wide. This fact considers that larger and more successful metro area markets generate higher overall occupancy and REVPAR numbers than state averages, while rural areas lag these averages (Source Strategies, Inc. database). 'Equilibrium Occupancy' is further explained by the fact that new investment money will eventually be attracted to an under-supplied market until market occupancy falls and lower returns on capital are the result. The equilibrium occupancy point is where net, new supply is being added at about the same rate as growth in demand, and where return on investment is in balance with the cost of capital. Fueled by moderate, steady demand growth, the Houston Metro has room for appropriatelypositioned new development, added at similar rates to demand. Higher quality new lodging products at or above mid-priced levels are performing very well in the market despite overall performance numbers being moderated by the large number of older, obsolete, budget and independent hotels. These older, existing competitors are highly vulnerable to the superior attractiveness of newly-built lodging. This pattern can be seen in the success of chain operations at or above the mid-priced levels. Given this growth scenario, room supply consequently grows from 81,483 rooms currently to 99,782 in 2019, 22% higher and representing 18,299 net new rooms (gross new openings, less closings). Note that REVPAR growth for every individual hotel unit is well below the total revenue growth of the market, with average REVPAR in our projection rising by 3.6% per annum over the next five years (compared to 2% REVPAR average growth of the past nine years). Revenues are forecast to grow by 6.4% per year on the strength of 3.5% growth in real demand and 2.8%

Page 19 of 105 growth in price (room-rates). Occupancy over the next five years is expected to fall by 0.8% per year, as supply rises 2.7% per year. If supply should grow 1,800 rooms over forecast (+10%), without demand also growing faster than forecast, average individual hotel REVPAR would decline by 9% versus forecast, dropping from the forecast REVPAR of $72 to $65 by 2019. Real growth for hotel rooms in the metro is expected to slowly continue the recovery that began in the 1st Quarter of 2010.

Page 20 of 105 HOUSTON METRO PROJECTION # Room 1 Total Htls nites Rooms Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 % Growth Vs Yr Ago Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $000's Occ. Rate RevPar Sply Real ADR $Rev 114 876 82,415 4,034 370,335 53.2 91.81 48.84 3.4 9.0 4.0 13.4 121 883 83,376 4,565 417,502 60.8 91.45 55.64 3.4 4.0 4.0 8.2 122 918 84,863 4,703 477,676 60.9 101.57 61.85 3.4 4.0 4.0 8.2 123 917 86,358 4,676 433,739 58.9 92.76 54.59 3.4 4.0 4.0 8.2 124 907 84,475 4,195 394,777 54.0 94.11 50.80 2.5 4.0 2.5 6.6 131 914 85,460 4,748 445,057 61.7 93.73 57.86 2.5 4.0 2.5 6.6 132 951 86,985 4,891 509,202 61.8 104.11 64.33 2.5 4.0 2.5 6.6 133 949 88,517 4,863 462,366 59.7 95.08 56.78 2.5 4.0 2.5 6.6 134 939 86,587 4,342 418,809 54.5 96.46 52.57 2.5 3.5 2.5 6.1 141 946 87,596 4,914 472,150 62.3 96.08 59.89 2.5 3.5 2.5 6.1 142 984 89,160 5,062 540,200 62.4 106.71 66.58 2.5 3.5 2.5 6.1 143 983 90,729 5,033 490,512 60.3 97.45 58.76 2.5 3.5 2.5 6.1 144 973 88,752 4,450 440,011 54.5 98.87 53.89 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 151 980 89,786 5,037 496,052 62.3 98.48 61.39 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 152 1,019 91,389 5,189 567,548 62.4 109.38 68.24 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 153 1,018 92,998 5,159 515,344 60.3 99.89 60.23 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 154 1,007 90,971 4,562 462,286 54.5 101.34 55.24 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 161 1,014 92,031 5,163 521,165 62.3 100.94 62.92 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 162 1,055 93,673 5,319 596,280 62.4 112.11 69.95 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 163 1,054 95,323 5,288 541,434 60.3 102.39 61.74 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 164 1,043 93,245 4,676 485,690 54.5 103.88 56.62 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 171 1,050 94,332 5,292 547,549 62.3 103.46 64.49 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 172 1,092 96,015 5,452 626,466 62.4 114.91 71.70 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 173 1,091 97,706 5,420 568,844 60.3 104.95 63.28 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 174 1,079 95,576 4,793 510,278 54.5 106.47 58.03 2.5 2.5 2.5 5.1 181 1,082 96,218 5,398 572,462 62.3 106.05 66.11 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.6 182 1,125 97,936 5,561 654,971 62.4 117.79 73.49 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.6 183 1,124 99,660 5,529 594,726 60.3 107.57 64.86 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 184 1,112 97,488 4,888 533,495 54.5 109.13 59.48 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 191 1,115 98,143 5,506 598,510 62.3 108.70 67.76 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.6 192 1,159 99,894 5,672 684,772 62.4 120.73 75.33 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.6 193 1,158 101,653 5,639 621,786 60.3 110.26 66.49 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 194 1,146 99,437 4,986 557,769 54.5 111.86 60.97 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 201 1,148 100,106 5,616 625,742 62.3 111.42 69.45 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 202 1,195 101,892 5,785 715,929 62.4 123.75 77.21 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 203 1,193 103,686 5,752 650,078 60.3 113.02 68.15 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 204 1,181 101,426 5,086 583,148 54.5 114.66 62.49 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 211 1,183 102,108 5,728 654,213 62.3 114.21 71.19 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 212 1,231 103,930 5,901 748,504 62.4 126.84 79.14 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.6 213 1,229 105,760 5,867 679,656 60.3 115.84 69.85 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 214 1,216 103,455 5,188 609,681 54.5 117.53 64.06 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 221 1,219 104,150 5,843 683,980 62.3 117.06 72.97 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 222 1,268 106,009 6,019 782,561 62.4 130.01 81.12 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 223 1,267 107,875 5,984 710,580 60.3 118.74 71.60 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.5 9yr CGR % 2.4% 2.9% 5.6% 0.5% 2.7% 3.1% '5yrs 2.7% 3.5% 6.4% 0.8% 2.8% 3.6% HISTORY CGR% Past 9 yrs 3.0% 2.5% 5.1% -0.5% 2.5% 2.0% 4yrs 3.8% 0.9% 1.4% -2.8% 0.4% -2.3% 1yr 3.8% 9.7% 12.8% 5.6% 2.7% 8.7% 1.Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues). 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Avg. price for roomnights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day.

Page 21 of 105 LOCAL MARKET PERFORMANCE 4. The subject hotel s market of the local Willowbrook Area 9 currently generates a REVPAR of $50 compared to the Texas average of $50: PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: WILLOWBROOK AREA #* EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR CANDLWOOD 1.1 3.4 19 3.4 1,190 2.7 63.3 62.07 39.28 HILT GARD 1.2 7.0 42 7.4 4,981 11.3 67.9 117.59 79.81 HOLID INN 1.2 6.4 29 5.2 1,629 3.7 51.8 55.58 28.80 HOMEWOOD 1.1 3.0 19 3.3 2,593 5.9 72.1 136.85 98.69 WINGATE 1.1 3.7 20 3.6 1,370 3.1 63.0 66.91 42.17 TOT COMPS 5.6 23.4 130 22.9 11,764 26.6 62.6 90.30 56.54 RESIDENCE 1.1 3.9 25 4.3 3,097 7.0 70.3 125.65 88.38 STAYBRIDG 1.1 4.7 28 4.9 2,821 6.4 67.3 100.80 67.81 OTH SUITE 1.1 5.1 31 5.4 3,702 8.4 67.9 121.37 82.46 TOT SUITES 3.3 13.7 83 14.6 9,620 21.7 68.4 115.72 79.15 COURTYARD 1.1 5.2 33 5.7 3,524 8.0 71.2 108.26 77.05 COMFO STE 2.1 4.9 27 4.8 1,855 4.2 63.2 67.58 42.72 TOWNPLACE 1.1 5.2 31 5.4 2,328 5.3 66.6 75.38 50.18 TOT MIN STE 3.2 10.1 58 10.2 4,183 9.5 64.9 71.71 46.57 BEST WEST 1.1 2.1 10 1.8 842 1.9 56.6 81.46 46.14 HAMPTON 2.2 6.4 39 6.8 4,140 9.4 68.1 106.81 72.70 HOLID EXP 1.1 3.4 17 3.0 1,693 3.8 56.0 100.05 56.08 LA QUINTA 2.1 5.9 32 5.6 2,573 5.8 61.5 80.20 49.29 TOT LTD SVE 6.4 17.7 98 17.2 9,247 20.9 62.3 94.27 58.69 EXT AMERI 1.1 4.3 25 4.4 1,054 2.4 65.8 42.19 27.76 HOMESTEAD 1.1 5.6 32 5.7 1,071 2.4 64.7 33.11 21.41 INTOWN ST 1.1 5.0 31 5.4 903 2.0 69.7 29.34 20.44 VALUE PLC 1.1 5.0 32 5.7 963 2.2 73.3 29.74 21.80 TOT EXT STA 4.5 19.9 120 21.2 3,990 9.0 68.3 33.12 22.63 BEST VALU 1.0.6 2.3 106.2 38.8 53.30 20.66 SUPER 8 2.1 3.4 17 3.0 921 2.1 57.1 53.90 30.78 TOT BUDGET 3.1 3.9 19 3.4 1,027 2.3 54.4 53.84 29.30 TOT CHAINS 25 2.3 93.9 542 95.2 43,356 98.0 65.0 80.00 51.98 TOT INDEP 3.1 6.1 27 4.8 890 2.0 50.4 32.73 16.48 TOT MARKET 28 2.4 100.0 569 100.0 44,247 100 64.1 77.74 49.82 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. 9. Zipcodes 77070/069/066/064/379/377/375.

Page 22 of 105 Local Market REVPAR History & Forecast: 5. Over the past nine years, the local Willowbrook Area Market has shown real growth (room-nights sold) of 6.2%, and annual growth of 9.2% in total room revenues, and a 2.9% annual gain in REVPAR; note that the severe recession of 2009 depressed the long-term performance numbers. Occupancy rose 0.1% per year over the nine years. Supply rose by 6.1% per year, with room rates rising 2.8% per year. Over the past four years, 4% annual demand gains were coupled with a larger gain in supply of 6.9% annually. Revenues over this period rose an average of 3.9% per year, while REVPAR fell 2.8% annually. Room rates fell 0.1% per year. Occupancy decreased over the last four years, by 2.7% per year. Over the last two years, demand rose by 9.6% annually, and supply rose only 8.2%. These results caused occupancy to rise by 0.9% annually, followed by REVPAR falling 2.8% per year. Rates fell 3.3% per year, and yearly revenues rose 5.8%. Most recent history, the 12 months ending September 30, 2011, shows a solid recovery underway for the area. Real demand rose 14.2%, rates rose by 3.7%, revenues rose by 18.4% and occupancy rose by 9.5%. Market occupancy averaged 64% versus 58% for the state.

Page 23 of 105 LODGING MARKET HISTORY: WILLOWBROOK AREA # Room 1 Total Htls nites Rooms Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 % Growth Vs Yr Ago Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $000's Occ. Rate RevPar Sply Real ADR $Rev 014 16 1,348 76 4,475 61.5 58.67 36.08 021 16 1,353 81 4,754 66.1 59.08 39.04 022 17 1,406 86 5,316 66.9 62.13 41.55 023 17 1,596 88 5,418 59.8 61.69 36.90 024 19 1,562 86 5,219 59.8 60.74 36.32 15.9 12.6 3.5 16.6 031 19 1,621 87 5,479 59.4 63.17 37.55 19.8 7.7 6.9 15.3 032 19 1,611 90 5,727 61.3 63.74 39.07 14.6 5.0 2.6 7.7 033 18 1,689 93 5,744 60.1 61.48 36.96 5.8 6.4-0.3 6.0 034 19 1,652 93 5,567 61.1 59.97 36.63 5.8 8.0-1.3 6.7 041 19 1,682 99 6,829 65.4 68.99 45.11 3.8 14.2 9.2 24.6 042 19 1,682 99 6,491 64.8 65.43 42.41 4.4 10.3 2.7 13.3 043 19 1,756 95 6,122 58.7 64.52 37.90 4.0 1.6 4.9 6.6 044 20 1,724 96 5,734 60.3 59.99 36.15 4.4 3.0 0.0 3.0 051 20 1,734 108 6,625 69.1 61.47 42.45 3.1 8.9-10.9-3.0 052 20 1,732 107 6,935 68.0 64.73 44.00 3.0 8.0-1.1 6.8 053 20 1,806 117 7,665 70.2 65.73 46.13 2.8 22.9 1.9 25.2 054 20 1,729 121 8,362 76.2 69.02 52.57 0.3 26.7 15.1 45.8 061 20 1,734 118 8,037 75.6 68.08 51.50 0.0 9.5 10.8 21.3 062 21 1,747 111 8,316 69.9 74.79 52.31 0.9 3.8 15.5 19.9 063 21 1,920 123 8,846 69.3 72.22 50.08 6.3 5.1 9.9 15.4 064 21 1,843 113 8,461 66.6 74.98 49.90 6.6-6.9 8.6 1.2 071 21 1,848 125 9,364 75.2 74.85 56.30 6.6 6.0 9.9 16.5 072 21 1,846 124 10,267 73.8 82.79 61.12 5.7 11.5 10.7 23.5 073 21 1,920 124 9,836 70.3 79.23 55.69 0.0 1.3 9.7 11.2 074 21 1,843 117 9,470 69.1 80.79 55.85 0.0 3.9 7.7 11.9 081 22 1,903 123 10,334 71.9 83.90 60.34 3.0-1.5 12.1 10.4 082 22 1,902 122 11,404 70.6 93.34 65.89 3.0-1.5 12.7 11.1 083 22 1,975 125 10,938 68.6 87.72 60.20 2.9 0.5 10.7 11.2 084 22 1,898 131 11,971 75.0 91.35 68.55 3.0 11.8 13.1 26.4 091 23 1,960 112 9,116 63.6 81.24 51.68 3.0-8.9-3.2-11.8 092 25 2,192 115 9,546 57.5 83.16 47.85 15.2-6.1-10.9-16.3 093 25 2,266 116 8,893 55.5 76.85 42.66 14.7-7.2-12.4-18.7 094 27 2,261 115 8,602 55.0 75.14 41.35 19.1-12.6-17.7-28.1 101 26 2,297 124 9,113 60.0 73.48 44.08 17.2 10.5-9.6-0.0 102 27 2,332 127 10,021 60.0 78.69 47.22 6.4 10.9-5.4 5.0 103 27 2,447 133 9,627 59.0 72.54 42.76 8.0 14.7-5.6 8.3 104 27 2,385 127 9,792 58.0 76.91 44.63 5.5 11.2 2.4 13.8 111 27 2,407 146 11,186 67.6 76.39 51.64 4.8 18.1 4.0 22.7 112 28 2,423 144 11,737 65.2 81.69 53.23 3.9 12.9 3.8 17.1 113 28 2,517 152 11,531 65.5 75.98 49.80 2.9 14.4 4.7 19.8 CGR%Past9yr 6.1% 6.2% 9.2% 0.1% 2.8% 2.9% 4yrs 6.9% 4.0% 3.9% -2.7% -0.1% -2.8% 2yrs 8.2% 9.6% 5.8% 0.9% -3.3% -2.8% 1yr 4.2% 14.2% 18.4% 9.5% 3.7% 13.6% Wider Market History CGR%Past9yr 3.0% 2.5% 5.1% -0.5% 2.5% 2.0% 4yrs 3.8% 0.9% 1.4% -2.8% 0.4% -2.3% 1. Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues). 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Average price for roomnights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day).

Page 24 of 105 6. Overall market occupancy is projected to fall very slightly to a more typical level for this kind of market, to the long-term equilibrium level of 63% over the next ten years (by 2015). REVPAR should grow 3.3% annually in the period, coupled with room revenue growth of 6.2% annually, 3.6% annual rate increases, and 0.2% annual occupancy losses. Over the next nine years, real demand (room nights sold) is projected at an average 2.5% growth rate, with supply rising 2.8%. These assumptions relative to demand, supply, and occupancy reflect the fact that over the past 20 years overall occupancy in Texas has averaged about 59%, a level considered to be 'Equilibrium Occupancy' state-wide. This fact considers that larger and more successful metro area markets generate higher overall occupancy and REVPAR numbers than state averages, while rural and Interstate highways areas lag these averages (Source Strategies, Inc. database). 'Equilibrium Occupancy' is further explained by the fact that new investment money will eventually be attracted to an under-supplied market until market occupancy falls and lower returns on capital are the result. The equilibrium occupancy point is where net, new supply is being added at about the same rate as growth in demand, and where return on investment is in balance with the cost of capital. The Willowbrook Area Market has room for selectively-positioned new development. Higher quality new lodging products at or above mid-priced levels are performing very well in the market despite overall performance numbers being moderated by the large number of older, obsolete, budgets. These older, existing competitors are highly vulnerable to the superior attractiveness of newly-built, major-branded lodging. This pattern can be seen in the success of chain operations at or above the mid-priced levels. Given our growth assumptions, room supply consequently grows from 2,433 rooms currently to 3,078 in 2019, 27% higher and representing 645 net new rooms (gross new openings, less closings). Note that REVPAR growth for every individual hotel unit is well below the total revenue growth of the market, with average REVPAR in our projection rising by 3.1% per annum over the next five years. Revenues during this upcoming period are forecast to grow at 7.1% per year on the strength of 3.3% growth in real demand starting from the trough of 2009 - and

Page 25 of 105 3.6% growth in price (room-rates). Occupancy over the next five years is expected to lose 0.4% annually, as supply rises by 3.8% per year. If supply should grow 300+ rooms over forecast (+10%), without demand also growing faster than forecast, average individual hotel REVPAR would decline by 9% versus forecast, dropping from the forecast REVPAR of $69 to $63 in 2019.

Page 26 of 105 LODGING MARKET PROJECTION: WILLOWBROOK AREA # Room 1 Total Htls nites Rooms Year & and # sold Revenue % 2 $ 3 $ 4 % Growth Vs Yr Ago Quarter Mtls Rooms 000's $000's Occ. Rate RevPar Sply Real ADR $Rev 114 29 2,485 137 10,997 60.1 79.99 48.10 4.2 8.0 4.0 12.3 121 28 2,508 158 12,561 70.0 79.45 55.65 4.2 8.0 4.0 12.3 122 29 2,525 155 13,185 67.5 84.96 57.39 4.2 8.0 4.0 12.3 123 29 2,623 164 12,955 67.9 79.02 53.69 4.2 8.0 4.0 12.3 124 31 2,609 142 11,723 59.0 82.79 48.83 5.0 3.0 3.5 6.6 131 30 2,633 163 13,391 68.7 82.23 56.50 5.0 3.0 3.5 6.6 132 31 2,651 160 14,056 66.3 87.93 58.27 5.0 3.0 3.5 6.6 133 31 2,754 169 13,810 66.7 81.78 54.51 5.0 3.0 3.5 6.6 134 33 2,740 146 12,498 57.9 85.68 49.58 5.0 3.0 3.5 6.6 141 32 2,765 166 14,137 66.7 85.10 56.81 5.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 142 33 2,784 163 14,839 64.4 91.01 58.58 5.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 143 33 2,892 172 14,580 64.7 84.65 54.81 5.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 144 34 2,822 149 13,194 57.3 88.68 50.82 3.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 151 33 2,848 169 14,924 66.1 88.08 58.22 3.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 152 34 2,867 166 15,665 63.7 94.19 60.04 3.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 153 34 2,978 176 15,392 64.1 87.61 56.17 3.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 154 35 2,907 152 13,929 56.7 91.79 52.08 3.0 2.0 3.5 5.6 161 34 2,891 172 15,678 66.1 91.17 60.26 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 162 35 2,910 169 16,457 63.7 97.49 62.14 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 163 35 3,023 178 16,169 64.1 90.68 58.14 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 164 36 2,950 154 14,632 56.7 95.00 53.91 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 171 35 2,934 175 16,470 66.1 94.36 62.37 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 172 36 2,954 171 17,288 63.7 100.90 64.32 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 173 36 3,068 181 16,986 64.1 93.85 60.17 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 174 37 2,995 156 15,372 56.7 98.32 55.79 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 181 36 2,978 177 17,303 66.1 97.66 64.55 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 182 37 2,998 174 18,162 63.7 104.43 66.57 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 183 37 3,114 184 17,845 64.1 97.13 62.28 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 184 38 3,040 159 16,148 56.7 101.77 57.75 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 191 36 3,023 180 18,177 66.1 101.08 66.81 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 192 38 3,043 177 19,079 63.7 108.09 68.90 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 193 38 3,161 186 18,746 64.1 100.53 64.46 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 194 39 3,085 161 16,964 56.7 105.33 59.77 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 201 37 3,068 183 19,095 66.1 104.61 69.15 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 202 39 3,089 179 20,043 63.7 111.87 71.31 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 203 39 3,208 189 19,693 64.1 104.05 66.72 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 204 40 3,131 163 17,821 56.7 109.01 61.86 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 211 38 3,114 185 20,060 66.1 108.28 71.57 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 212 40 3,135 182 21,056 63.7 115.79 73.81 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 213 40 3,257 192 20,688 64.1 107.70 69.05 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 214 41 3,178 166 18,722 56.7 112.83 64.03 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 221 39 3,161 188 21,074 66.1 112.07 74.08 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 222 41 3,182 185 22,120 63.7 119.84 76.39 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 223 41 3,305 195 21,734 64.1 111.46 71.47 1.5 1.5 3.5 5.1 9yr CGR % 2.8% 2.5% 6.2% -0.2% 3.6% 3.3% '5yrs 3.8% 3.3% 7.1% -0.4% 3.6% 3.1% HISTORY CGR%Past9yr 6.1% 6.2% 9.2% 0.1% 2.8% 2.9% 4yrs 6.9% 4.0% 3.9% -2.7% -0.1% -2.8% 1yr 4.2% 14.2% 18.4% 9.5% 3.7% 13.6% 1. Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual revenues) 2. Occupancy nights sold divided by nights available for sale. 3. Avg. price for roomnights sold; Directories, Surveys, & experience. 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

Page 27 of 105 7. Overall, the local market REVPAR index history has fluctuated from a low of 88% of the market in 2001/2002 to 96% in the latest year: MARKET REVPAR HISTORY Year & Total Local Local/Total Market Quarter Mkt Area Market Index Annualized 014 40.27 36.08 90 021 45.55 39.04 86 022 46.89 41.55 89 023 42.39 36.90 87 88 024 38.47 36.32 94 031 40.35 37.55 93 032 42.64 39.07 92 033 40.67 36.96 91 92 034 37.14 36.63 99 041 46.51 45.11 97 042 42.93 42.41 99 043 42.50 37.90 89 96 044 37.26 36.15 97 051 43.25 42.45 98 052 48.13 44.00 91 053 50.93 46.13 91 94 054 56.00 52.57 94 061 56.35 51.50 91 062 55.87 52.31 94 063 53.41 50.08 94 93 064 50.30 49.90 99 071 58.44 56.30 96 072 62.61 61.12 98 073 58.40 55.69 95 97 074 55.67 55.85 100 081 62.56 60.34 96 082 66.14 65.89 100 083 63.24 60.20 95 98 084 69.23 68.55 99 091 60.71 51.68 85 092 53.07 47.85 90 093 47.01 42.66 91 91 094 42.82 41.35 97 101 48.94 44.08 90 102 52.36 47.22 90 103 48.28 42.76 89 91 104 44.55 44.63 100 111 53.19 51.64 97 112 59.13 53.23 90 113 52.19 49.80 95 96 CGR% 9 yrs 2.0% 2.9% 4yrs -2.3% -2.8% 2yrs -4.7% -2.8% 1yr 8.7% 13.6%

Page 28 of 105 8. The REVPAR forecast calls for the local market REVPAR index to initially fall, before it stabilizes just below current levels: MARKET REVPAR PROJECTION Year & Total Local Local/Total Market Quarter Mkt Area Market Index Annualized 114 48.84 46.09 94 121 55.64 53.33 96 122 61.85 55.00 89 123 54.59 51.45 94 93 124 50.80 46.75 92 131 57.86 54.09 93 132 64.33 55.78 87 133 56.78 52.19 92 91 134 52.57 47.42 90 141 59.89 54.33 91 142 66.58 56.03 84 143 58.76 52.42 89 89 144 53.89 48.56 90 151 61.39 55.64 91 152 68.24 57.37 84 153 60.23 53.68 89 88 154 55.24 49.72 90 161 62.92 57.53 91 162 69.95 59.33 85 163 61.74 55.50 90 89 164 56.62 51.41 91 171 64.49 59.48 92 172 71.70 61.34 86 173 63.28 57.39 91 90 174 58.03 53.16 92 181 66.11 61.50 93 182 73.49 63.43 86 183 64.86 59.34 91 91 184 59.48 54.97 92 191 67.76 63.60 94 192 75.33 65.58 87 193 66.49 61.36 92 91 194 60.97 56.84 93 201 69.45 65.76 95 202 77.21 67.81 88 203 68.15 63.44 93 92 204 62.49 58.77 94 211 71.19 67.99 96 212 79.14 70.12 89 213 69.85 65.60 94 93 214 64.06 60.77 95 221 72.97 70.31 96 222 81.12 72.50 89 223 71.60 67.83 95 94 224 65.82 62.44 95 231 74.98 72.24 96 232 83.35 74.50 89 233 73.57 69.70 95 94 CGR% 9 Yrs 3.1% 2.7% First 5 Yrs 3.6% 2.2%

Page 29 of 105 9. A graph of the REVPAR history and projection for the local and wider markets shows the recent recovery trend of overall REVPAR, and our future expectations. Note that in the projection, local market REVPAR does not return to 2007/2008 levels until roughly 2020:

Page 30 of 105 10. The occupancy projection for the Willowbrook Area Market is reasonable: our projection is for the local market to fall to the 63% equilibrium level by 2015:

Page 31 of 105 11. Graphing the Room Nights Sold history and projection also shows the reasonable nature of the expectations for the local market, given a normal level of population growth and investment expected in the area, as well as an expected slow national economic recovery:

Page 32 of 105 PROJECT REVPAR - DEVELOPMENT OF INDICES Within the above market REVPAR forecast, the expected performance of the proposed hotel is based on six factors. All six factors are independent and modify the market's projected REVPAR average to reflect the subject property's particular characteristics. First, what is the Base Value? It is the effect of the Brand, including specified product quality levels. Second, what is the effect of the brand's overall Age on its average performance? Third, what is the effect of the project's Size, or room-count, on results? Fourth, are there any Other adjustments needed to account for various factors, including under- or over-supply in the product's Segment in which the project will compete? Fifth, what is the effect of the normal Life Cycle patterns on the project (e.g. the effect of the project's Newness compared to older competition on its unstoppable way to obsolescence)? And sixth, what is the likely influence of the selected Site on results? 1. The Base Value factor sets property type/brand/product quality for a La Quinta Hotel in this type of market at 88% of the market average REVPAR. This valuation is based on the actual REVPAR performance of all 218 La Quinta Hotels currently operating in the Exhibit IV market. 10 These hotels produced a REVPAR of $42.47 in the year ending September 30, 2011, compared to the Exhibit IV market average REVPAR of $48.26, as follows: $42.47 / $48.26 = 0.88 or 88% This sample of La Quinta Hotel firmly grounds the basic REVPAR performance that can be expected when operating such a hotel in a comparable market, such as the proposed location. 2. The second adjustment factor, Brand Aging, is set at 1.10 (110%), an increase in performance projections because of the age of the 218 La Quinta hotels in the Exhibit IV market. La Quinta hotels were built on average in 1994, making the brand fairly old in terms of age when compared to other successful limited service brands. This factor adjusts for the effect 10. Texas Excluding Luxury hotels.

Page 33 of 105 of the average age of the existing hotels on the brand's current performance. 11 The brand age adjustment, or life-cycle adjustment, for other brands examined includes: BRAND AGING: TEXAS MARKETS Average Brand Aging Brand Opening Adjustment Comfort Inn 2000 1.01 Best Western 1992 1.15 Holiday Inn Hotel 1990 1.20 3. The property Size factor - reflecting room count - calls for a significant performance adjustment for this property, as we add a +9% premium (109% factor). The average La Quinta hotel in the Exhibit IV market has 97 rooms, significantly more than the subject, at 77 units, giving this hotel an advantage. The size factor assigns a premium if the property is smaller than average and a penalty to the property if it is larger than average. The size adjustment is necessary because demand is not affected by the number of rental rooms offered, as the individual consumer only needs one room: customers do not care whether a hotel offers 100, 125 or 150 rooms and their purchasing behavior will be the same regardless of how many rooms the property offers. Keeping a project conservatively sized assures a higher per-unit revenue yield, particularly in very competitive markets like the local area. The highly-positive effect on revenues and return on capital due to building small, and not 'over-sizing' projects is best explained by the following study, a study that can be replicated with any brand, in almost any situation. The net effect of building small is to run higher occupancy and rate, thereby increasing brand REVPAR by building a below-average number of rental units. A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF HOTEL SIZE ON PERFORMANCE IN THE TEXAS HOTEL INDUSTRY THE CASE FOR DOWNSIZING NEW HOTELS 12 Source Strategies, Inc., has long contended that the number of rooms a developer offers in a new property is one of the key factors in determining a venture's relative success or failure. It is every bit as important to size a hotel project properly as it is to select the appropriate brand, and to have chosen to develop in a suitable market and location. 11. Point #5, below, adjusts for the physical life-cycle of the subject property, a different and additional consideration. 12. Analyzed and compiled by Douglas W. Sutton and Bruce H. Walker.

Page 34 of 105 For the purposes of this study, we analyzed two separate samplings of hotels. We first looked at Comfort Inns across Texas as a selected brand sampling; then we examined all branded hotels built during a set period of time for a wider sampling. 1) COMFORT INN - ANALYSIS OF SIZING AND ITS IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE In our initial analysis, we selected a group [55 properties] of Texas Comfort Inn branded properties ranging in size from 36 to 75 rooms. The following chart of performance statistics clearly illustrates the fact that on average, the smaller property will perform better, in terms of REVPAR and occupancy, than a larger property of the same brand: 12 Months Ending September 30, 1999 Rooms Occupancy Rate REVPAR 36-40 66.9 55.25 36.95 41-45 65.3 57.34 37.45 46-50 66.5 57.38 38.17 51-55 62.8 56.02 35.20 56-60 61.8 54.26 33.55 61-65 56.6 55.33 31.33 66-70 44.6 45.71 20.41 71-75 43.8 44.20 19.38 Combined: 52 63.2 55.46 35.03 Further, properties with lower room counts were clearly able to sustain a higher level of occupancy. Average occupancy ranged from 66.9% for properties of 36-40 rooms, downward to a much lower 43.8% average occupancy for properties in the 71-75 room size bracket. The above chart and graph clearly illustrate that developers often miss the mark, building more rooms than 'optimum'. 'Optimum' is defined as generating the highest return on invested capital,

Page 35 of 105 and is closely tied to occupancy and REVPAR. Analyzing the above data provides a measure of the effect of over-building. For the typical range of rooms for Comfort Inn projects occupancy dropped 23 points (a full 35%) from 67% to 44% as room counts escalated. The key question is, 'how to apply this principle to a given hotel project.' Naturally, each project would have to be judged on its individual merits, but looking at an 'average' project for a single brand and product is very revealing. BRANDED HOTELS - ANALYSIS OF SIZING AND ITS IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE In our second analysis, we looked at a sampling [91 properties] of Texas branded hotels of less than 135 rooms which were constructed from 1970-1975. For our analysis we examined performance results from the year 1985 when all subject hotels were 10 to 15 years old, to well into their aging life cycles. The following table of performance statistics from 1985 for branded properties throughout Texas clearly illustrates the downward curve, with a pronounced and methodical erosion of performance as room counts increased: # of Hotels Rooms Occupancy Rate REVPAR 2 00-44 70.0 37.88 26.50 3 45-59 73.9 36.13 26.71 7 60-74 66.8 31.10 20.77 14 75-89 62.7 31.65 19.86 29 90-104 60.9 32.42 19.75 16 105-119 57.8 26.25 15.18 20 120-134 55.5 29.35 16.28 Combined: 91 98 59.8 30.34 18.14 The following graph provides a clear picture of descending performance as room counts increase. Average occupancy ranged from 70% for properties of 44 rooms or less, downward to a much lower 55.5% average occupancy for properties in the 120-134 size bracket, after peaking at 73.9% in the 45-59 size range.

Page 36 of 105 The data is clear: in almost every case small hotels outperform larger ones. Common sense explains this occurrence: a successful 100 room hotel will inevitably prompt the development of one or more new, small hotels of similar quality in the immediate area. In a competitive market environment, the smaller hotel has a distinct advantage and wins - almost every time. The fact remains that if one builds a smaller than average property for a given brand, results should be improved over the average: the converse of this fact is also true. 4. Fourth, the Segment or Other adjustment factor is set at 125% (1.25), with a premium given for several reasons. The hotel is being built to much higher than average standards for this brand due to the construction of the new La Quinta Prototype. A typical new La Quinta costs approximately $70,000 per key, excluding land, while this hotel is costing $86,753 per key. With expanded rooms, suites, and mini-suites, and enhanced public spaces, we expect this hotel to perform above the level of a typical La Quinta. The attractiveness of the extra space in suite and mini-suite product offers consumers greater value and comfort. The family appreciates the higher 'sleeping' capacity of a suite unit and its inherent economy, including a free breakfast. With microwave kitchen facilities, coffeemaker and a small refrigerator, preparation of both snacks and dinners is an option, creating extra value and convenience.

Page 37 of 105 All this is an equally valuable asset to the business traveler. The dual attraction of mini-suite hotels to both leisure and business travelers is what keeps the occupancy high on both weekends and weekdays; it is the most appropriate product type of all to build in today's lodging market, especially where high-priced demand is strong. 5. Fifth, the Aging Adjustment factor reflects the standard hotel life cycle: 92% (-8%) in Year I; 107% for Year II; 112% for Years III through V; followed by a 1.67% annual decline in the REVPAR index starting in Year VI. We assume the building and interior will be like new. The aging factor also mirrors extensive studies of hotel life-cycles conducted by Source Strategies, Inc.'s principal, Bruce Walker, when heading the Holiday Corporation's strategic planning department (1979-83). It also reflects recent research on the life cycles of 25,000 Texas hotel rooms, developed from 1980 through 1982, and then again in 1990 through 1992, with each group's performance versus the market tracked to the present (MarketShare newsletter, "The Hotel Life Cycle - It's Very Real" published September 1994). 6. The last factor, Site, is set at 0.90 (90%), or just below average for the local market, and very close to the average of the nearby competition. The site is convenient to all area attractions and to nearby highway corridors. As we have selected a broad local area market around the property for our analysis, it is our determination that the value of the subject s location is near that of many other existing hotel sites in the area. With the evaluation of the current sites around this location, we have an easy analysis of the site potential. The site values for this property, as well as for nearby existing competitors have been developed by quantifying the influence site has had on their performance. Applying known adjustment factors to existing properties, except for a site factor, lets us solve for the site value itself. Source Strategies' site methodology 'backs into' the value of the site by matching actual performance against known factors, using the site factor as the 'plugged number.' The differences between the closest key competitors appear to be both explainable and reasonable. The site value is 'plugged' so that projected REVPAR versus market approaches the actual REVPAR over the past 12 months. Overall, current performance of nearby existing competition and the supply change would indicate that a 90 site value for the La Quinta hotel would be a responsible estimate:

Page 38 of 105 COMPETITION DERIVATION Hilton Wingate Homewood Holiday Candlewd Data in 2010/11 $ Garden Inn Suites Inn Suites Base: Name & Quality 1.53 0.92 1.64 1.00 0.88 x Brand Age Adjustment 0.94 0.97 0.97 1.20 0.92 x Site Value Adjustment 1.16 0.95 1.15 0.96 0.83 x Size Adjustment 0.93 1.01 1.13 1.06 1.05 x Other Adjustments 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 x Newness Adjustment 1.03 0.99 0.96 0.94 1.12 = Performance Factor 160% 84% 198% 58% 79% x Market REVPAR $49.82 $49.82 $49.82 $49.82 $49.82 = Projected Performance $79.93 $42.05 $98.72 $28.68 $39.35 Actual REVPAR 2011 $79.81 $42.17 $98.69 $28.80 $39.28 Index (Proj. Vs Actual) 100 100 100 100 100 Units in Above Subject 171 89 72 158 83 Average Units 137 92 100 187 95 Size Adjustment (33%) -7 1 13 6 5 Year Built 2002 2000 1998 1997 2009 Combining all six factors that affect a hotel's REVPAR performance, we calculate that the proposed hotel's REVPAR will achieve 133% of the market average REVPAR in Years III- V, declining slowly thereafter: LA QUINTA HOTEL DERIVATION zata in 2011 $ s Year I Year II Year III Base: Name & Quality 0.88 0.88 0.88 x Brand Age Adjustment 1.10 1.10 1.10 x Site Value Adjustment 0.90 0.90 0.90 x Size Adjustment 1.09 1.09 1.09 x Other Adjustments 1.25 1.25 1.25 x Newness Adjustment 0.92 1.07 1.12 = Performance Factor 109% 127% 133% x Market REVPAR $49.82 $49.82 $49.82 = Projected Performance $54.24 $63.08 $66.03

Page 39 of 105 COMBINING THE ABOVE MARKET REVPAR PROJECTION AND THE HOTEL'S REVPAR INDEX TO DEVELOP REVENUES, OCCUPANCY, AND RATE Using the projected Year III REVPAR index of 133%, the above process generates a theoretical REVPAR of $66.03 (in latest year market dollars). This is the result of the Year III performance index of 133% (1.33) multiplied by the current market average REVPAR of $49.82. Therefore, if the property were open today and were in its third year of operation, it should theoretically be operating at the following level against the latest year's market results: a $66.03 REVPAR computes to gross room revenues of approximately $1,855,773 ($66.03 times 77 units times 365 days). Please note that the actual effect on the market due to the introduction of this project and other new hotels is fully reflected in subsequent pro forma market projections and financials. In the latest year's dollars, this projection for the project's Year III revenue breaks down seasonally as follows: Quarter First Second Third Fourth Year III Room Revenues $470,599 $490,706 $464,127 $430,341 $1,855,773 % of Year 25.4% 26.4% 25.0% 23.2% 100 Seasonal Index 103 106 99 92 100 REVPAR$ $67.91 $70.03 $65.52 $60.75 $66.03 Source Strategies, Inc.'s projections of a reasonable rate and occupancy mix, a split of the La Quinta Inn & Suite's REVPAR for occupancy and rate, in latest year dollars, would be as follows: Quarter First Second Third Fourth Year III ADR - $ $89.41 $95.80 $89.41 $80.29 $88.64 Occupancy % 75.9% 73.1% 73.3% 75.7% 74.5% REVPAR$ $67.91 $70.03 $65.52 $60.75 $66.03

Page 40 of 105 Tests For REASONABILITY Comparisons can be made to assess the reasonable nature of the above market and subject projections: 1. Individual property projections depend importantly on the projection of local market REVPAR - forecast to rise at a reasonable, conservative rate through 2019, starting at the current level. Over the next nine years market REVPAR is projected to grow 3.3% per year. REVPAR encompasses the net effects of supply and demand. Over the next nine years, we are comfortable with the 2.5% real compound growth projected for the local market, higher than the projected net supply growth of 2.8% annually, and resulting in the return to the expected equilibrium occupancy level of 63% by the middle years of our projection. 2. The derived Base Value of 0.88% (88%) for a La Quinta Hotel in the Exhibit IV market area is reasonable when compared to the Base Values of other hotels in these same markets. The hierarchy of REVPAR indices for various brands is shown below: REVPAR Index Comparison 13 Homewood Suites 164 Holiday Inn 153 Holiday Express 124 La Quinta 88 Candlewood Suites 88 Super 8 44 3. Developing actual adjustment factors for the existing properties - so that their projected REVPAR equals actual REVPAR - indicates why the REVPAR index projection has a high probability of being achieved. The REVPAR differences between the closest key competitors appear to be both explainable and reasonable, using the standard, Source Strategies' adjustment factor quantification. For each property, revenues are driven first by chain name affiliation and product type, and are further adjusted for size, segment, hotel age and site location. The REVPAR Index is then multiplied by the actual local area market average to generate dollar REVPAR. We also include the theoretical Year III performance of the subject hotel, as follows: 13 Unadjusted for physical aging of each brand.

Page 41 of 105 REVPAR COMPARISON LA QUINTA Hilton Wingate Homewood Holiday Data in 2010/11 $ Yr III Garden Inn Suites Inn Base: Name & Quality 0.88 1.53 0.92 1.64 1.00 x Brand Age Adjustment 1.10 0.94 0.97 0.97 1.20 x Site Value Adjustment 0.90 1.16 0.95 1.15 0.96 x Size Adjustment 1.09 0.93 1.01 1.13 1.06 x Other Adjustments 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 x Newness Adjustment 1.12 1.03 0.99 0.96 0.94 = Performance Factor 133% 160% 84% 198% 58% x Market REVPAR $49.82 49.82 49.82 49.82 49.82 = Projected Performance $66.03 79.93 42.05 98.72 28.68 Actual Past Year n/a 79.81 42.17 98.69 28.80 Index (Proj. Vs. Actual n/a 100 100 100 100 4. The projected REVPAR performance of the La Quinta versus the local market average reflects the fact that this hotel s physical quality will be high, with the highest performance in its segment, and with unfulfilled demand for Hilton products in downtown Houston:

Page 42 of 105 5. The graphically projected Occupancy performance of the La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel versus the local market average reflects the fact that this hotel will be well above the overall market average because of its brand, location, smaller than average size, and its newness: 6. In the overall market, any new hotel will have an inordinate advantage over the old; the playing field here is not level as the lodging consumer almost always votes for 'new' versus old. The average hotel room in the local market is only 10 years old, in the early middle of the life cycle of the typical hotel building. The typical hotel building becomes stylistically and structurally obsolete after 30 years, though this figure is larger for typical downtown highrise/concrete structures which undergo complete remodeling. The local market has 1,160 rooms built since 2000, and only 253 rooms built before 1995. There is typically a wide and dramatic gap between the performance of new and older properties, with the typical hotel in the area either being relatively new and competitive or older and on its way to closure.

Page 43 of 105 WILLOWBROOK AREA MARKET PROPERTIES Year # Open Rooms Local Hotel 2011 38 BEST VALUE INN & SUITES 2010 87 HOLIDAY EXPRESS-WEST RD 2010 81 HAMPTON INN & SUITES 2009 32 PALACE INN JONES RD 2009 83 CANDLEWOOD SUITES 2009 123 ELEMENT HOUSTON VINTAGE 2009 121 VALUE PLACE 2008 55 COMFORT SUITES 2006 114 STAYBRIDGE SUITES 2004 50 BEST WESTERN N SAM HOUSTON 2003 67 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 2002 171 HILTON GARDEN INN HOTEL 2002 96 RESIDENCE INN WILLOWBROOK 2001 42 SUPER 8 FMR BEST VALUE FMR RAM 2000 89 WINGATE INN HOTEL OF WILLOWCHA 2000 64 COMFORT SUITES 2000 126 COURTYARD COMPAQ 126 UNITS MIN 2000 128 TOWNPLACE INN COMPAQ 128 UNITS 2000 76 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES FMR HAW 1999 121 INTOWN SUITES MILLS ROAD 1998 40 SUPER 8 FMR HOLIDAY EXPRESS 1998 104 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA #60 1998 75 WILLOWBROOK HAMPTON INN 1998 72 HOMEWOOD WILLOWBROOK 1997 155 HOLIDAY INN COMPAQ FMR EXPR 1995 137 HOMESTEAD STUDIO SUITES 1982 49 TOMBALL INN 1982 67 CHAMPIONS LODGE

Page 44 of 105 PRO FORMA: Applying the project derivation factor (133% Years III-V) to the quarterly local market REVPAR forecast results in the following progression: PROJECT REVPAR PROJECTION Subject/ Year & Local Subject Market Index Quarter Market Hotel Qtr Year 131 56.50 61.58 109 132 58.27 63.51 109 133 54.51 59.42 109 134 49.58 54.04 109 109 141 56.81 72.14 127 142 58.58 74.40 127 143 54.81 69.60 127 144 50.82 64.54 127 127 151 58.22 77.44 133 152 60.04 79.86 133 153 56.17 74.71 133 154 52.08 69.27 133 133 161 60.26 80.15 133 162 62.14 82.65 133 163 58.14 77.33 133 164 53.91 71.70 133 133 171 62.37 82.95 133 172 64.32 85.55 133 173 60.17 80.03 133 174 55.79 74.21 133 133 181 64.55 84.42 131 182 66.57 87.06 131 183 62.28 81.45 131 184 57.75 75.52 131 131 191 66.81 85.92 129 192 68.90 88.60 129 193 64.46 82.89 129 194 59.77 76.86 129 129 201 69.15 87.44 126 202 71.31 90.17 126 203 66.72 84.36 126 204 61.86 78.22 126 126 211 71.57 88.99 124 212 73.81 91.77 124 213 69.05 85.86 124 214 64.03 79.61 124 124 221 74.08 90.56 122 222 76.39 93.40 122 223 71.47 87.38 122 224 65.79 80.43 122 122 231 76.11 91.50 120 232 78.49 94.36 120 233 73.43 88.28 120 234 67.59 81.26 120 120 CGR% 9 Yrs 0.3% 1.3% First 5 Yrs 2.9% 5.9% -CGR% measured from open date-

Page 45 of 105 This REVPAR forecast is then extended to room revenues - multiplying REVPAR by the number of days in each quarter and by the number of rooms in the project - and to occupancy, estimated rate and to roomnights sold: RESULTING PROJECTION: La Quinta Inn & Suites Resulting Aver. Room- Year& Room Annual % Daily nghts Annual Basis Quarter Revenues Basis Occ Rate Sold RMNTES Occ. Rate 131 $426,772 62.8 $98.00 4,355 132 $445,007 60.5 $105.00 4,238 133 $420,904 60.6 $98.00 4,295 134 $382,830 $1,675,513 61.4 $88.00 4,350 17,238 61.3% $97.20 141 $499,948 72.5 $99.47 5,026 142 $521,309 69.8 $106.58 4,891 143 $493,073 70.0 $99.47 4,957 144 $457,179 $1,971,510 72.3 $89.32 5,118 19,993 71.1% $98.61 151 $536,631 75.9 $101.96 5,263 152 $559,560 73.1 $109.24 5,122 153 $529,252 73.3 $101.96 5,191 154 $490,724 $2,116,168 75.7 $91.55 5,360 20,937 74.5% $101.08 161 $555,413 76.3 $105.02 5,289 162 $579,145 73.5 $112.52 5,147 163 $547,776 73.6 $105.02 5,216 164 $507,900 $2,190,234 76.0 $94.30 5,386 21,038 74.9% $104.11 171 $574,853 76.7 $108.17 5,315 172 $599,415 73.8 $115.89 5,172 173 $566,948 74.0 $108.17 5,241 174 $525,676 $2,266,892 76.4 $97.13 5,412 21,140 75.2% $107.23 181 $585,037 75.8 $111.41 5,251 182 $610,034 72.9 $119.37 5,110 183 $576,992 73.1 $111.41 5,179 184 $534,989 $2,307,051 75.5 $100.04 5,348 20,888 74.3% $110.45 191 $595,401 76.0 $113.08 5,265 192 $620,841 73.1 $121.16 5,124 193 $587,213 73.3 $113.08 5,193 194 $544,467 $2,347,922 75.7 $101.54 5,362 20,944 74.5% $112.10 201 $605,949 76.2 $114.78 5,279 202 $631,839 73.3 $122.98 5,138 203 $597,616 73.5 $114.78 5,207 204 $554,112 $2,389,516 75.9 $103.07 5,376 21,000 74.7% $113.79 211 $616,683 76.4 $116.50 5,293 212 $643,033 73.5 $124.82 5,152 213 $608,203 73.7 $116.50 5,221 214 $563,928 $2,431,848 76.1 $104.61 5,391 21,056 74.9% $115.49 221 $627,608 76.6 $118.25 5,308 222 $654,424 73.7 $126.69 5,165 223 $618,978 73.9 $118.25 5,235 224 $569,760 $2,470,770 75.7 $106.18 5,366 21,073 75.0% $117.25 231 $634,098 76.2 $120.02 5,283 232 $661,192 73.4 $128.59 5,142 233 $625,378 73.6 $120.02 5,211 234 $575,652 $2,496,320 75.4 $107.77 5,341 20,977 74.6% $119.00 241 $640,655 76.3 $121.22 5,285 242 $668,029 73.4 $129.88 5,143 243 $631,845 73.6 $121.22 5,212 244 $568,961 $2,509,490 75.4 $108.85 5,227 20,868 74.2% $120.26 CGR% 9 Yrs 1.3% -0.6% -0.5% -0.6% First 5 Yrs 5.9% 3.3% 2.6% 3.3% -CGR% measured from open date-

Page 46 of 105 OPERATING COSTS 14 Profitability and returns reflect the above revenue projections and the following other critical assumptions: operating costs per occupied room approximate Limited Service hotels of similar size, rate, and occupancy and include appropriate fixed, semi-fixed and variable costs (Smith Travel Research's 2011 Host Report for year 2010 data, and Source Strategies, Inc.). Estimates of operating costs take into account the lower costs of the West South Central United States, which had an average Per Occupied Room Cost of $43.08 (including 5% royalties) in 2010 in Limited Service hotels - versus a national average of $49.67 - or 86.7% of the U.S. average. The following cost comparisons have all been adjusted to reflect this 13% lower-cost environment that may be expected in operating a hotel in the West South Central Region. While the new La Quinta prototype does include a full service bar and lounge, we have not provided the performance characteristics of this operation as it is new to the La Quinta chain. We assume that any F&B operations will be a break even venture, and have treated this aspect of the project as an additional amenitie. Rooms only Operating Costs per Occupied Room (before Fixed Charges and excluding Food and Beverage expenses) are estimated at $41.05 for Year I ($707,647 divided by 17,238 roomnights sold); $42.06 for Year II ($840,824 divided by 19,993), and $43.24 for Year III ($905,375 divided by 20,937. These numbers compare to industry-wide data as follows: a) $61.74 in the Host Report for Urban hotels, 2010 edition (average rate of $130.66), adjusted to Southwest. This POR cost translates to $65.50 when inflated to Year 2013 dollars. b) $54.44 in the Host Report for Upscale hotels, 2010 edition (average rate of $111.24), adjusted to Southwest. This POR cost translates to $57.70 when inflated to Year 2013 dollars. c) $59.60 in the Host Report for Resort hotels, 2010 edition (average rate of $114.41), adjusted to Southwest. This POR cost translates to $63.23 when inflated to Year 2013. d) $36.53 in the Host Report for Mid-Priced hotels in 2010 (average rate of $76.13), adjusted to Southwest. This POR cost translates to $39.92 when inflated to Year 2013 dollars 14 The calculation of the statistic of Operating Costs Per Occupied Room (before fixed/capital costs are deducted) is typically the important cost to examine carefully because it is highly stable and predictable, regardless of occupancy and rate. Looking at costs on a percentage basis can be highly misleading because of the high variability in average room revenues.

Page 47 of 105 - Versus room revenues: a necessary marketing expense of 7% in Year I and thereafter. Marketing includes reservation and advertising fees, sales expense, local advertising and the always important outdoor billboards. An annual royalty fee of 4% has been applied, and no annual management fee has been charged. A reserve for renovations is taken and subtracted from projected cash flows annually; such renovation reserves amount to $1,377,058 in the first ten years ($17,884 per unit). Reserves insure that future revenue streams continue by maintaining product quality at excellent levels as required by the franchisor. Reserves are based on an extensive 2001 study, CapEx, by the International Society of Hospitality Consultants. The study shows that required reserves average 5.5% over a 20 year period. - Total capital of $8,350,000 is allocated for the development of the project. The estimated total turn-key cost (excluding land) of $86,753 per unit is higher than typical for a hotel of this size and quality, in our experience. Should capital needs vary, then returns would change proportionately. The estimates of necessary capital include: Total Investment Land & Building Cost $ 1,670,000 for 3.4 acres Improvements Budget $ 6,680,000 @ $86,753 per key Total Investment $ 8,350,000 The pro forma profit and cash flow statements are shown overleaf:

Page 48 of 105 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES HOTEL Land Value: $1,670,000 Starts 1/1/13 #Rooms: 77 CostPerKey: $86,753 QUARTER: First Second Third Fourth Year Rmnites Sold 4,355 4,238 4,295 4,350 17,238 Rmnites Avail 6,930 7,007 7,084 7,084 28,105 Occupancy % 62.8% 60.5% 60.6% 61.4% 61.3% Avg Rate $98.00 $105.00 $98.00 $88.01 $97.20 REVPAR $61.58 $63.51 $59.42 $54.04 $59.62 % Revenues Room Revenues $426,772 $445,007 $420,904 $382,830 $1,675,513 95.2% Misc. Sales 21,339 22,250 21,045 19,142 83,776 4.8% Total Sales $448,111 $467,257 $441,949 $401,972 $1,759,289 100.0% Operating Expe-Payroll Administration 20,165 21,027 19,888 18,089 79,168 4.5% Housekeeping 17,420 16,952 17,180 17,400 68,952 3.9% Laundry 6,533 6,357 6,443 6,525 25,857 1.5% Front Desk 21,775 21,190 21,475 21,750 86,190 4.9% Misc. 4,481 4,673 4,419 4,020 17,593 1.0% Taxes/Benefits 7,037 7,020 6,940 6,778 27,776 1.6% Total Payroll 77,411 77,218 76,345 74,562 305,536 17.4% -Room Expense S:Linen & Laun 5,008 4,874 4,939 5,003 19,824 1.1% CompFood&Bev. 13,065 12,714 12,885 13,050 51,714 2.9% Total Room 18,073 17,588 17,824 18,053 71,538 4.1% -Other Expense Phone/Telecom. 6,464 6,464 6,464 6,464 25,857 1.5% Elec/Utility 13,065 12,714 12,885 13,050 51,714 2.9% Maint. & Repai 8,962 9,345 8,839 8,039 35,186 2.0% Total Other 28,491 28,523 28,188 27,554 112,757 6.4% -Gen & Admin Adver. & Sales 29,874 31,150 29,463 26,798 117,286 6.7% Royalty 17,071 17,800 16,836 15,313 67,021 3.8% Credit Card 8,535 8,900 8,418 7,657 33,510 1.9% Tot Admin & Ge 55,480 57,851 54,718 49,768 217,817 12.4% -Total Operati 179,456 181,180 177,075 169,936 707,647 40.2% Expenses Gross Oper. 268,655 286,077 264,874 232,036 1,051,642 59.8% Profit -Fixed Charges Insurance 15,394 15,394 15,394 15,394 61,575 3.5% Property Tax 18,370 18,370 18,370 18,370 73,480 4.2% DeprecSL 39Yrs 42,821 42,821 42,821 42,821 171,282 9.7% Tot Capital Ex 76,584 76,584 76,584 76,584 306,337 17.4% Net Income Bef 192,070 209,493 188,290 155,451 745,304 42.4% Tax & Financing Depreciat. Add 42,821 42,821 42,821 42,821 171,282 9.7% Renovation Res (20,165) (21,027) (19,888) (18,089) (79,168) -4.5% Cash Flow Befo 214,726 231,287 211,223 180,183 837,419 47.6% Tax & Financing -see following 2 pages for the next 9 years-

Page 49 of 105 LA QUINTA HOTEL Compound #Rooms: 77 Growth Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yr 2-10 Rmnites Sold 19,993 20,937 21,038 21,140 20,888 20,944 21,000 21,056 21,073 2.3% Rmnites Avail 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 0.0% Occupancy % 71.1% 74.5% 74.9% 75.2% 74.3% 74.5% 74.7% 74.9% 75.0% 2.3% Avg Rate* $98.61 $101.07 $104.11 $107.23 $110.45 $112.10 $113.79 $115.49 $117.25 2.1% REVPAR $70.15 $75.30 $77.93 $80.66 $82.09 $83.54 $85.02 $86.53 $87.91 4.4% RoomRevenues 1,971,510 2,116,168 2,190,234 2,266,892 2,307,051 2,347,922 2,389,516 2,431,848 2,470,770 4.4% Misc. Sales 98,576 105,808 109,512 113,345 115,353 117,396 119,476 121,592 123,539 4.4% Total Sales 2,070,086 2,221,976 2,299,746 2,380,237 2,422,404 2,465,318 2,508,992 2,553,440 2,594,309 4.4% Operating Expense - Payroll Administration 94,575 102,012 105,579 109,274 111,210 114,854 118,616 122,500 126,277 5.3% Housekeeping 82,371 88,848 91,955 95,173 96,860 100,033 103,309 106,692 109,982 5.3% Laundry 30,889 33,318 34,483 35,690 36,322 37,512 38,741 40,010 41,243 5.3% Front Desk 102,964 111,060 114,944 118,966 121,075 125,041 129,137 133,366 137,477 5.3% Miscellaneous 21,017 22,669 23,462 24,283 24,713 25,523 26,359 27,222 28,062 5.3% Taxes/Benefits 33,182 35,791 37,042 38,339 39,018 40,296 41,616 42,979 44,304 5.3% Total Payroll 364,998 393,699 407,466 421,725 429,199 443,260 457,778 472,769 487,345 5.3% -Room Expense Linen & Laundry 23,682 25,544 26,437 27,362 27,847 28,759 29,701 30,674 31,620 5.3% CompFood&Bev. 61,778 66,636 68,966 71,380 72,645 75,025 77,482 80,019 82,486 5.3% Total Room 85,460 92,180 95,403 98,742 100,492 103,784 107,184 110,693 114,106 5.3% -Other Expense Phone Lines 30,889 33,318 34,483 35,690 36,322 37,512 38,741 40,010 41,243 5.3% Electric/Util. 61,778 66,636 68,966 71,380 72,645 75,025 77,482 80,019 82,486 5.3% Repairs & Maint 41,402 44,440 45,995 47,605 48,448 49,306 50,180 51,069 51,886 4.4% Total Other 134,069 144,394 149,444 154,674 157,415 161,843 166,403 171,098 175,616 5.0% -Gen & Admin Adver. & Sales 138,006 148,132 153,316 158,682 161,494 164,355 167,266 170,229 172,954 4.4% Royalty 78,860 84,647 87,609 90,676 92,282 93,917 95,581 97,274 98,831 4.4% Credit Card 39,430 42,323 43,805 45,338 46,141 46,958 47,790 48,637 49,415 4.4% Total G & A 256,296 275,102 284,730 294,696 299,917 305,230 310,637 316,140 321,200 4.4% -TotOperExp. 840,824 905,375 937,044 969,837 987,022 1,014,117 1,042,002 1,070,700 1,098,267 5.0% GrossOpProfit 1,229,262 1,316,602 1,362,701 1,410,399 1,435,381 1,451,201 1,466,990 1,482,740 1,496,041 4.0%

Page 50 of 105 Compound #Rooms: 77 Growth Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yr 2-10 Rmnites Sold 19,993 20,937 21,038 21,140 20,888 20,944 21,000 21,056 21,073 2.3% Rmnites Avail 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 28,105 0.0% Occupancy % 71.1% 74.5% 74.9% 75.2% 74.3% 74.5% 74.7% 74.9% 75.0% 2.3% Avg Rate* $98.61 $101.07 $104.11 $107.23 $110.45 $112.10 $113.79 $115.49 $117.25 2.1% REVPAR $70.15 $75.30 $77.93 $80.66 $82.09 $83.54 $85.02 $86.53 $87.91 4.4% RoomRevenues 1,971,510 2,116,168 2,190,234 2,266,892 2,307,051 2,347,922 2,389,516 2,431,848 2,470,770 4.4% Misc. Sales 98,576 105,808 109,512 113,345 115,353 117,396 119,476 121,592 123,539 4.4% Total Sales 2,070,086 2,221,976 2,299,746 2,380,237 2,422,404 2,465,318 2,508,992 2,553,440 2,594,309 4.4% IncomeBefore 1,229,262 1,316,602 1,362,701 1,410,399 1,435,381 1,451,201 1,466,990 1,482,740 1,496,041 4.0% Fixed Charges -Fixed Charges Insurance 63,422 65,325 67,285 69,303 71,382 73,524 75,730 78,001 80,342 3.0% Property Tax 75,684 77,955 80,294 82,702 85,183 87,739 90,371 93,082 95,875 3.0% Depr. SL 39 Yrs 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 0.0% Total Fixed Ch. 310,389 314,562 318,860 323,288 327,848 332,545 337,383 342,366 347,498 1.4% Income Before 918,873 1,002,040 1,043,841 1,087,112 1,107,533 1,118,656 1,129,607 1,140,374 1,148,543 4.9% Tax & Financing Depr. AddBack 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 171,282 0.0% RenovReserve (68,313) (71,103) (82,791) (147,575) (164,723) (145,454) (130,468) (178,741) (308,723) 16.3% Cash Before 1,021,842 1,102,219 1,132,332 1,110,819 1,114,092 1,144,484 1,170,422 1,132,915 1,011,102 2.1% Tax & Financing

Page 51 of 105 December 13, 2011 OPINION This report is based on independent opinion, surveys and research from sources considered reliable. No representation is made as to accuracy or completeness and no contingent liability of any kind can be accepted. The study projections are dependent on the developer building and operating a La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel, including certain amenities, and spending the appropriate operating funds necessary to generate projected revenues, most especially budgeted funds for aforementioned amenities and for marketing, including a listing in the American Automobile Association Texas Tourbook. It is our opinion that this report fairly and conservatively represents the room revenues, profitability and return on investment performance that can be achieved by developing and operating a 77 unit La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel at the aforementioned site in the northwest Houston Willowbrook area, Houston, Texas. Please contact us with any questions at (210) 734-3434. Respectfully submitted, Todd Walker, Senior Vice President Bruce H. Walker, President PO Box 120055 134 Laurel Heights, San Antonio, TX 78212 210-734-3434 Fax 210-735-7970 www.sourcestrategies.org

Page 52 of 105 EXHIBITS: I Houston Metro & Local Market Histories, Aggregated Basis II Local Market: By Segment and Brand, Past Five Years, Annual Basis III Individual Hotel/Motel Histories For the Local Market IV Texas Excluding Luxury Segment V The Case For Downsizing Hotels VI Start-up Performance of New Hotels VII CAPEX Study of Capital Expenditures VIII Preparer Qualifications and Client List IX Source Strategies Database Methodology X Hotel Brand Report Newsletter

EXHIBIT I HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON METRO # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 014 608 61,197 3,251.5 226,711 57.8 69.73 40.27 *TOTAL 2001 3,251.5 226,711 57.8 69.73 40.27 021 616 61,620 3,459.1 252,629 62.4 73.03 45.55 022 632 62,747 3,537.7 267,756 62.0 75.69 46.89 023 639 63,735 3,463.1 248,560 59.1 71.77 42.39 024 638 62,800 3,159.5 222,255 54.7 70.34 38.47 *TOTAL 2002 13,619.4 991,200 59.5 72.78 43.29 031 648 63,761 3,228.4 231,542 56.3 71.72 40.35 032 656 63,911 3,384.3 247,968 58.2 73.27 42.64 033 664 65,292 3,454.4 244,316 57.5 70.73 40.67 034 668 65,147 3,203.5 222,596 53.4 69.49 37.14 *TOTAL 2003 13,270.6 946,422 56.3 71.32 40.18 041 678 67,003 3,565.5 280,471 59.1 78.66 46.51 042 697 67,698 3,559.2 264,500 57.8 74.31 42.93 043 708 68,951 3,653.4 269,577 57.6 73.79 42.50 044 704 68,311 3,361.2 234,179 53.5 69.67 37.26 *TOTAL 2004 14,139.4 1,048,726 57.0 74.17 42.26 051 718 68,688 3,680.2 267,384 59.5 72.65 43.25 052 727 68,927 3,919.6 301,858 62.5 77.01 48.13 053 740 70,046 4,253.7 328,201 66.0 77.16 50.93 054 735 69,096 4,480.5 355,990 70.5 79.45 56.00 *TOTAL 2005 16,334.0 1,253,433 64.7 76.74 49.63 061 734 68,683 4,257.5 348,341 68.9 81.82 56.35 062 747 69,093 4,009.0 351,260 63.8 87.62 55.87 063 754 70,361 4,111.1 345,703 63.5 84.09 53.41 064 748 69,845 3,782.8 323,247 58.9 85.45 50.30 *TOTAL 2006 16,160.5 1,368,552 63.7 84.68 53.95 071 749 69,865 4,280.0 367,443 68.1 85.85 58.44 072 762 69,865 4,188.2 398,083 65.9 95.05 62.61 073 766 71,196 4,227.3 382,507 64.5 90.49 58.40 074 770 70,793 3,940.9 362,570 60.5 92.00 55.67 *TOTAL 2007 16,636.5 1,510,603 64.7 90.80 58.76 081 775 71,647 4,271.3 403,399 66.2 94.44 62.56 082 796 72,806 4,266.9 438,201 64.4 102.70 66.14 083 802 74,098 4,392.0 431,089 64.4 98.15 63.24 084 768 71,653 4,652.8 456,341 70.6 98.08 69.23 *TOTAL 2008 17,583.0 1,729,030 66.4 98.34 65.29 Page 53 of 105

HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON METRO # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 091 755 71,886 4,169.9 392,796 64.5 94.20 60.71 092 789 73,604 3,639.8 355,484 54.3 97.67 53.07 093 814 76,073 3,626.5 328,997 51.8 90.72 47.01 094 803 76,378 3,482.0 300,900 49.6 86.42 42.82 *TOTAL 2009 14,918.1 1,378,176 54.9 92.38 50.68 101 824 77,629 3,953.8 341,934 56.6 86.48 48.94 102 848 79,296 4,045.6 377,814 56.1 93.39 52.36 103 851 80,750 4,112.7 358,635 55.4 87.20 48.28 104 839 79,705 3,700.6 326,679 50.5 88.28 44.55 *TOTAL 2010 15,812.7 1,405,061 54.6 88.86 48.51 111 845 80,634 4,389.9 386,008 60.5 87.93 53.19 112 879 82,073 4,522.2 441,654 60.5 97.66 59.13 113 878 83,518 4,496.2 401,013 58.5 89.19 52.19 *TOTAL 2011 13,408.2 1,228,676 59.8 91.64 54.83 *TOTAL 155,133.9 ********* 60.1 84.36 50.67 Page 54 of 105 1. Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual room revenues) 2. Occupancy: nights sold divided by nights available for sale(x 100) 3. Average price for each roomnight sold;from Directories and surveys 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

Page 55 of 105 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 014 16 1,348 76.3 4,475 61.5 58.67 36.08 *TOTAL 2001 76.3 4,475 61.5 58.67 36.08 021 16 1,353 80.5 4,754 66.1 59.08 39.04 022 17 1,406 85.6 5,316 66.9 62.13 41.55 023 17 1,596 87.8 5,418 59.8 61.69 36.90 024 19 1,562 85.9 5,219 59.8 60.74 36.32 *TOTAL 2002 339.8 20,707 62.9 60.95 38.33 031 19 1,621 86.7 5,479 59.4 63.17 37.55 032 19 1,611 89.9 5,727 61.3 63.74 39.07 033 18 1,689 93.4 5,744 60.1 61.48 36.96 034 19 1,652 92.8 5,567 61.1 59.97 36.63 *TOTAL 2003 362.8 22,517 60.5 62.06 37.54 041 19 1,682 99.0 6,829 65.4 68.99 45.11 042 19 1,682 99.2 6,491 64.8 65.43 42.41 043 19 1,756 94.9 6,122 58.7 64.52 37.90 044 20 1,724 95.6 5,734 60.3 59.99 36.15 *TOTAL 2004 388.6 25,176 62.2 64.78 40.31 051 20 1,734 107.8 6,625 69.1 61.47 42.45 052 20 1,732 107.1 6,935 68.0 64.73 44.00 053 20 1,806 116.6 7,665 70.2 65.73 46.13 054 20 1,729 121.1 8,362 76.2 69.02 52.57 *TOTAL 2005 452.7 29,587 70.9 65.36 46.31 061 20 1,734 118.0 8,037 75.6 68.08 51.50 062 21 1,747 111.2 8,316 69.9 74.79 52.31 063 21 1,920 122.5 8,846 69.3 72.22 50.08 064 21 1,843 112.8 8,461 66.6 74.98 49.90 *TOTAL 2006 464.6 33,660 70.3 72.45 50.91 071 21 1,848 125.1 9,364 75.2 74.85 56.30 072 21 1,846 124.0 10,267 73.8 82.79 61.12 073 21 1,920 124.1 9,836 70.3 79.23 55.69 074 21 1,843 117.2 9,470 69.1 80.79 55.85 *TOTAL 2007 490.5 38,936 72.1 79.39 57.22 081 22 1,903 123.2 10,334 71.9 83.90 60.34 082 22 1,902 122.2 11,404 70.6 93.34 65.89 083 22 1,975 124.7 10,938 68.6 87.72 60.20 084 22 1,898 131.0 11,971 75.0 91.35 68.55 *TOTAL 2008 501.1 44,647 71.5 89.10 63.72

Page 56 of 105 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 091 23 1,960 112.2 9,116 63.6 81.24 51.68 092 25 2,192 114.8 9,546 57.5 83.16 47.85 093 25 2,266 115.7 8,893 55.5 76.85 42.66 094 27 2,261 114.5 8,602 55.0 75.14 41.35 *TOTAL 2009 457.2 36,156 57.7 79.09 45.63 101 26 2,297 124.0 9,113 60.0 73.48 44.08 102 27 2,332 127.3 10,021 60.0 78.69 47.22 103 27 2,447 132.7 9,627 59.0 72.54 42.76 104 27 2,385 127.3 9,792 58.0 76.91 44.63 *TOTAL 2010 511.4 38,553 59.2 75.38 44.65 111 27 2,407 146.4 11,186 67.6 76.39 51.64 112 28 2,423 143.7 11,737 65.2 81.69 53.23 113 28 2,517 151.8 11,531 65.5 75.98 49.80 *TOTAL 2011 441.9 34,454 66.1 77.98 51.53 *TOTAL 4,486.8 328,869 65.1 73.30 47.70 1. Roomnights sold (derived from est. rate and actual room revenues) 2. Occupancy: nights sold divided by nights available for sale(x 100) 3. Average price for each roomnight sold;from Directories and surveys 4. $ Revenue per available room per day (room sales per day)

Page 57 of 105 EXHIBIT II PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS CANDLWOOD 1.1 3.4 19 3.4 1,190 2.7 63.3 62.07 39.28 HILT GARD 1.2 7.0 42 7.4 4,981 11.3 67.9 117.59 79.81 HOLID INN 1.2 6.4 29 5.2 1,629 3.7 51.8 55.58 28.80 HOMEWOOD 1.1 3.0 19 3.3 2,593 5.9 72.1 136.85 98.69 WINGATE 1.1 3.7 20 3.6 1,370 3.1 63.0 66.91 42.17 TOT NEARBY 5.6 23.4 130 22.9 11,764 26.6 62.6 90.30 56.54 RESIDENCE 1.1 3.9 25 4.3 3,097 7.0 70.3 125.65 88.38 STAYBRIDG 1.1 4.7 28 4.9 2,821 6.4 67.3 100.80 67.81 OTH SUITE 1.1 5.1 31 5.4 3,702 8.4 67.9 121.37 82.46 TOT SUITES 3.3 13.7 83 14.6 9,620 21.7 68.4 115.72 79.15 COURTYARD 1.1 5.2 33 5.7 3,524 8.0 71.2 108.26 77.05 COMFO STE 2.1 4.9 27 4.8 1,855 4.2 63.2 67.58 42.72 TOWNPLACE 1.1 5.2 31 5.4 2,328 5.3 66.6 75.38 50.18 TOT MIN STE 3.2 10.1 58 10.2 4,183 9.5 64.9 71.71 46.57 BEST WEST 1.1 2.1 10 1.8 842 1.9 56.6 81.46 46.14 HAMPTON 2.2 6.4 39 6.8 4,140 9.4 68.1 106.81 72.70 HOLID EXP 1.1 3.4 17 3.0 1,693 3.8 56.0 100.05 56.08 LA QUINTA 2.1 5.9 32 5.6 2,573 5.8 61.5 80.20 49.29 TOT LTD SVE 6.4 17.7 98 17.2 9,247 20.9 62.3 94.27 58.69 EXT AMERI 1.1 4.3 25 4.4 1,054 2.4 65.8 42.19 27.76 HOMESTEAD 1.1 5.6 32 5.7 1,071 2.4 64.7 33.11 21.41 INTOWN ST 1.1 5.0 31 5.4 903 2.0 69.7 29.34 20.44 VALUE PLC 1.1 5.0 32 5.7 963 2.2 73.3 29.74 21.80 TOT EXT STA 4.5 19.9 120 21.2 3,990 9.0 68.3 33.12 22.63 BEST VALU 1.0.6 2.3 106.2 38.8 53.30 20.66 SUPER 8 2.1 3.4 17 3.0 921 2.1 57.1 53.90 30.78 TOT BUDGET 3.1 3.9 19 3.4 1,027 2.3 54.4 53.84 29.30 TOT CHAINS 25 2.3 93.9 542 95.2 43,356 98.0 65.0 80.00 51.98 TOT INDEP 3.1 6.1 27 4.8 890 2.0 50.4 32.73 16.48 TOT MARKET 28 2.4 100.0 569 100.0 44,247 100 64.1 77.74 49.82 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 58 of 105 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS CANDLWOOD 1.1 2.8 10 2.0 615 1.6 43.2 60.60 26.18 HILT GARD 1.2 7.3 41 8.2 4,832 12.9 65.6 118.01 77.41 HOLID INN 1.2 6.7 26 5.2 1,485 4.0 45.6 56.99 26.00 HOMEWOOD 1.1 3.1 17 3.5 2,231 6.0 66.5 127.62 84.90 WINGATE 1.1 3.8 20 3.9 1,343 3.6 60.6 68.24 41.36 TOT NEARBY 5.6 23.7 114 22.9 10,506 28.1 56.7 91.90 52.07 RESIDENCE 1.1 4.1 24 4.8 2,919 7.8 69.0 120.79 83.32 STAYBRIDG 1.1 4.9 25 5.0 2,492 6.7 60.5 99.07 59.90 OTH SUITE 1.1 5.3 28 5.6 3,124 8.4 61.7 112.87 69.59 TOT SUITES 3.3 14.3 77 15.4 8,536 22.8 63.4 110.85 70.23 COURTYARD 1.1 5.6 31 6.2 3,166 8.5 64.9 101.67 66.04 COMFO STE 2.1 5.1 24 4.8 1,593 4.3 55.5 66.13 36.68 TOWNPLACE 1.1 5.4 24 4.8 1,715 4.6 52.0 71.19 36.99 TOT MIN STE 3.2 10.5 48 9.7 3,309 8.9 53.7 68.66 36.84 BEST WEST 1.1 2.1 10 2.0 856 2.3 55.8 84.02 46.89 HAMPTON 2.1 4.5 24 4.8 2,519 6.7 61.6 106.31 65.48 LA QUINTA 3.2 8.5 39 7.9 2,947 7.9 54.5 74.80 40.77 TOT LTD SVE 6.4 15.1 73 14.7 6,321 16.9 56.8 86.27 49.01 EXT AMERI 1.1 4.5 24 4.9 1,075 2.9 64.5 43.88 28.31 HOMESTEAD 1.1 5.9 33 6.6 1,169 3.1 65.5 35.67 23.37 INTOWN ST 1.1 5.2 26 5.3 728 1.9 59.9 27.52 16.49 OTHER EXT 1.1 5.2 26 5.2 645 1.7 58.5 24.96 14.61 TOTAL 4.5 20.7 110 22.0 3,617 9.7 62.1 33.01 20.52 SUPER 8 2.1 3.5 15 3.1 895 2.4 51.0 58.70 29.92 TOT CHAINS 24 2.2 93.5 469 94.0 36,350 97.3 58.9 77.55 45.65 TOT INDEP 3.2 6.5 30 6.0 1,012 2.7 53.4 33.99 18.15 TOT MARKET 27 2.3 100.0 499 100.0 37,363 100 58.5 74.95 43.85 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 59 of 105 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS HILT GARD 1.2 8.2 39 8.3 4,759 12.0 62.9 121.24 76.25 HOLID INN 1.2 7.6 35 7.4 2,584 6.5 60.6 73.91 44.81 HOMEWOOD 1.1 3.5 17 3.7 2,284 5.8 66.5 130.68 86.92 WINGATE 1.1 4.3 21 4.3 1,628 4.1 63.4 79.06 50.11 TOT NEARBY 4.5 23.6 112 23.7 11,255 28.5 62.8 100.24 62.93 RESIDENCE 1.1 4.6 25 5.4 3,357 8.5 72.3 132.43 95.80 STAYBRIDG 1.1 5.5 27 5.7 2,990 7.6 64.7 111.05 71.86 OTH SUITE 1.1 3.0 7 1.4 809 2.0 30.4 118.05 35.94 TOT SUITES 3.3 13.1 59 12.5 7,156 18.1 59.6 121.02 72.17 COURTYARD 1.1 6.0 30 6.3 3,300 8.3 65.4 110.36 72.14 COMFO STE 2.1 5.7 26 5.6 2,283 5.8 60.7 86.62 52.55 TOWNPLACE 1.1 6.1 27 5.8 2,472 6.3 59.1 90.21 53.29 TOT MIN STE 3.2 11.8 54 11.3 4,754 12.0 59.8 88.45 52.93 BEST WEST 1.1 2.4 12 2.6 1,191 3.0 67.2 97.17 65.28 HAMPTON 1.1 3.6 19 4.0 2,374 6.0 69.6 124.60 86.71 HOLID EXP 0.0.5 2.5 183.5 58.4 85.29 49.83 LA QUINTA 3.2 8.2 38 8.1 3,456 8.7 61.7 89.97 55.51 TOT LTD SVE 5.3 14.7 72 15.2 7,204 18.2 64.4 100.24 64.58 EXT AMERI 1.1 5.0 26 5.6 1,304 3.3 69.8 49.24 34.35 HOMESTEAD 1.1 6.6 31 6.5 1,227 3.1 61.3 40.02 24.54 INTOWN ST 1.1 5.8 32 6.7 1,051 2.7 71.6 33.21 23.79 TOTAL 3.4 17.4 89 18.7 3,582 9.1 67.2 40.35 27.11 SUPER 8 1.0 2.0 11 2.3 701 1.8 69.5 65.74 45.72 TOT CHAINS 19 1.8 88.6 426 90.0 37,952 96.0 63.4 89.01 56.43 LT $60ADR 4.2 11.4 47 10.0 1,573 4.0 54.8 33.24 18.21 TOT MARKET 24 2.1 100.0 474 100.0 39,525 100 62.4 83.44 52.08 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax rooms revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 60 of 105 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS HILT GARD 1.2 9.0 44 9.1 5,735 13.6 70.8 129.75 91.89 HOLID INN 1.2 8.3 41 8.5 2,936 7.0 71.8 70.88 50.91 HOMEWOOD 1.1 3.8 19 3.9 2,748 6.5 73.2 142.91 104.56 WINGATE 1.1 4.7 19 3.9 1,559 3.7 58.5 81.97 47.99 TOT NEARBY 4.5 25.7 124 25.4 12,978 30.8 69.3 104.77 72.56 RESIDENCE 1.1 5.0 27 5.6 3,607 8.6 77.5 132.88 102.95 STAYBRIDG 1.1 6.0 28 5.8 3,128 7.4 68.3 110.10 75.16 TOT SUITES 2.2 11.0 56 11.4 6,735 16.0 72.5 121.23 87.87 COURTYARD 1.1 6.6 33 6.7 3,894 9.2 71.6 118.89 85.13 COMFO STE 2.1 5.5 25 5.1 2,096 5.0 64.7 84.43 54.63 TOWNPLACE 1.1 6.7 34 7.0 2,811 6.7 73.2 82.65 60.49 TOT MIN STE 3.2 12.2 59 12.1 4,907 11.6 69.3 83.40 57.84 BEST WEST 1.1 2.6 13 2.7 1,205 2.9 72.7 90.83 66.04 HAMPTON 1.1 3.9 19 4.0 2,356 5.6 70.8 121.50 86.07 HOLID EXP 1.0 2.1 10 2.0 844 2.0 66.6 86.88 57.82 LA QUINTA 2.1 7.5 38 7.8 3,364 8.0 72.6 88.79 64.45 TOT LTD SVE 5.3 16.2 80 16.5 7,770 18.4 71.4 96.80 69.12 EXT AMERI 1.1 5.5 29 6.0 1,455 3.5 76.9 49.87 38.34 HOMESTEAD 1.1 7.2 34 7.0 1,534 3.6 68.4 44.83 30.67 INTOWN ST 1.1 6.3 31 6.4 1,099 2.6 70.8 35.16 24.88 TOTAL 3.4 19.0 95 19.4 4,088 9.7 71.6 43.19 30.94 SUPER 8 1.0 2.2 11 2.2 697 1.7 70.5 64.47 45.44 TOT CHAINS 19 1.8 92.9 457 93.7 41,069 97.4 70.7 89.92 63.58 LT $60ADR 3.1 7.1 30 6.3 1,077 2.6 61.4 35.33 21.69 TOT MARKET 22 1.9 100.0 487 100.0 42,146 100 70.0 86.50 60.59 * All figures annualized. Included taxed and est non-tax rooms revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 61 of 105 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS HILT GARD 1.2 9.2 46 9.5 5,139 13.9 73.5 112.09 82.33 HOLID INN 1.2 8.5 30 6.2 1,896 5.1 52.1 63.12 32.88 HOMEWOOD 1.1 3.9 20 4.1 2,494 6.8 76.2 124.61 94.91 WINGATE 1.1 4.8 22 4.6 1,458 3.9 69.0 65.05 44.88 TOT NEARBY 4.5 26.3 118 24.4 10,987 29.7 66.2 92.87 61.43 RESIDENCE 1.1 5.1 29 5.9 3,243 8.8 81.9 113.06 92.56 STAYBRIDG 1.1 6.1 28 5.8 2,560 6.9 67.9 90.63 61.52 TOT SUITES 2.2 11.3 57 11.8 5,803 15.7 74.3 101.94 75.71 COURTYARD 1.1 6.7 35 7.2 3,648 9.9 76.2 104.68 79.76 COMFO STE 1.1 3.4 17 3.6 1,379 3.7 73.7 80.11 59.02 TOWNPLACE 1.1 6.8 33 6.8 2,439 6.6 71.2 73.90 52.58 TOT MIN STE 2.2 10.2 50 10.4 3,817 10.3 72.0 76.03 54.74 BEST WEST 1.1 2.7 13 2.7 971 2.6 71.6 74.28 53.20 HAMPTON 1.1 4.0 22 4.5 2,197 5.9 79.9 100.41 80.25 HOLID EXP 1.0 2.1 11 2.3 890 2.4 75.6 80.66 60.95 LA QUINTA 2.1 7.7 38 7.9 2,992 8.1 73.4 78.10 57.33 TOT LTD SVE 5.3 16.5 84 17.4 7,050 19.1 75.0 83.63 62.71 EXT AMERI 1.1 5.6 29 5.9 1,290 3.5 75.9 44.77 33.98 HOMESTEAD 1.1 7.3 37 7.6 1,667 4.5 73.5 45.32 33.33 INTOWN ST 1.1 6.5 34 7.1 1,166 3.2 77.5 34.05 26.40 TOTAL 3.4 19.4 100 20.6 4,122 11.2 75.6 41.30 31.20 SUPER 8 1.0 2.3 10 2.1 492 1.3 66.5 48.28 32.09 TOT CHAINS 18 1.7 92.7 455 93.9 35,920 97.2 72.1 79.01 56.94 LT $60ADR 3.1 7.3 30 6.1 1,018 2.8 60.0 34.18 20.51 TOT MARKET 21 1.9 100.0 484 100.0 36,938 100 71.2 76.26 54.28 * All figures annualized. Included taxed and est non-tax rooms revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

EXHIBIT III HOTEL MARKET: HOUSTON WILLOWBROOK AREA E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 8049 N SAM HOUS 77064 BEST WESTERN N SAM HOUSTON 04 1.025 20064 50 BWEST 231,673 236,209 1.020 74.03 69 51.35 20071 50 BWEST 257,199 263,410 1.024 74.75 78 58.54 20072 50 BWEST 257,859 260,000 1.008 81.98 70 57.14 20073 50 BWEST 258,933 260,228 1.005 79.52 71 56.57 20074 50 BWEST 249,427 259,740 1.041 81.03 70 56.47 20081 50 BWEST 268,437 274,862 1.024 83.89 73 61.08 20082 50 BWEST 309,901 311,739 1.006 93.83 73 68.51 20083 50 BWEST 340,142 358,936 1.055 103.51 75 78.03 20084 50 BWEST 300,186 337,269 1.124 102.49 72 73.32 20091 50 BWEST 246,911 274,447 1.112 93.66 65 60.99 20092 50 BWEST 321,748 328,489 1.021 100.03 72 72.20 20093 50 BWEST 240,954 251,148 1.042 91.07 60 54.60 20094 50 BWEST 165,955 172,583 1.040 81.81 46 37.52 20101 50 BWEST 206,921 214,667 1.037 80.29 59 47.70 20102 50 BWEST 254,871 258,551 1.014 89.35 64 56.82 20103 50 BWEST 201,354 209,988 1.043 83.63 55 45.65 20104 50 BWEST 191,797 196,630 1.025 83.98 51 42.75 20111 50 BWEST 196,562 200,506 1.020 76.78 58 44.56 20112 50 BWEST 244,325 249,283 1.020 85.57 64 54.79 20113 50 BWEST 189,340 195,641 1.033 79.12 54 42.53 16939 STATE HIG 77064 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA #60 98 1.950 20064 104 EXTSA 218,724 280,227 1.281 42.34 69 29.29 20071 104 EXTSA 266,873 325,495 1.220 42.75 81 34.78 20072 104 EXTSA 297,752 364,403 1.224 49.60 78 38.50 20073 104 EXTSA 257,425 347,009 1.348 47.04 77 36.27 20074 104 EXTSA 229,702 290,175 1.263 45.90 66 30.33 20081 104 EXTSA 301,846 356,209 1.180 46.65 82 38.06 20082 104 EXTSA 274,710 395,327 1.439 55.33 75 41.77 20083 104 EXTSA 277,268 413,662 1.492 51.18 84 43.23 20084 104 EXTSA 303,936 418,581 1.381 51.18 85 43.75 20091 104 EXTSA 259,042 361,999 1.478 49.62 78 38.68 20092 104 EXTSA 160,017 287,864 1.799 50.91 60 30.42 20093 104 EXTSA 152,374 235,638 1.546 43.99 56 24.63 20094 104 EXTSA 142,729 253,427 1.776 43.68 61 26.49 20101 104 EXTSA 164,862 273,625 1.660 42.88 68 29.23 20102 104 EXTSA 163,175 268,220 1.644 45.39 62 28.34 20103 104 EXTSA 146,080 279,247 1.912 43.66 67 29.19 20104 104 EXTSA 136,977 256,631 1.874 42.50 63 26.82 20111 104 EXTSA 142,464 276,978 1.944 41.58 71 29.59 20112 104 EXTSA 116,140 234,343 2.018 41.45 60 24.76 20113 104 EXTSA 198,818 285,999 1.438 43.12 69 29.89 9120 WEST RD 77064 HOLIDAY EXPRESS-WEST RD 10 1.040 20104 70 HIEXP 274,746 277,705 1.011 108.30 40 43.12 20111 87 HIEXP 408,720 411,217 1.006 99.28 53 52.52 Page 62 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 9120 WEST RD 77064 HOLIDAY EXPRESS-WEST RD 10 1.040 20112 87 HIEXP 483,074 507,680 1.051 102.88 62 64.13 20113 87 HIEXP 489,372 496,488 1.015 93.97 66 62.03 7311 W GREENS R 77064 RESIDENCE INN WILLOWBROOK 02 1.450 20064 96 RESID 578,965 742,907 1.283 107.92 78 84.12 20071 96 RESID 623,896 800,749 1.283 106.71 87 92.68 20072 96 RESID 680,035 886,486 1.304 130.26 78 101.48 20073 96 RESID 602,004 827,756 1.375 126.35 74 93.72 20074 96 RESID 574,833 849,999 1.479 128.75 75 96.24 20081 96 RESID 640,365 920,582 1.438 132.74 80 106.55 20082 96 RESID 722,331 970,268 1.343 139.53 80 111.07 20083 96 RESID 602,539 866,509 1.438 130.12 75 98.11 20084 96 RESID 526,896 1,096,667 2.081 138.50 90 124.17 20091 96 RESID 510,846 765,679 1.499 129.44 68 88.62 20092 96 RESID 527,746 789,234 1.495 134.88 67 90.34 20093 96 RESID 443,881 705,194 1.589 124.49 64 79.85 20094 96 RESID 539,384 688,319 1.276 118.38 66 77.93 20101 96 RESID 529,391 701,746 1.326 116.20 70 81.22 20102 96 RESID 600,616 816,382 1.359 127.69 73 93.45 20103 96 RESID 550,262 712,934 1.296 120.33 67 80.72 20104 96 RESID 588,711 708,710 1.204 123.94 65 80.24 20111 96 RESID 544,202 773,903 1.422 122.21 73 89.57 20112 96 RESID 614,576 820,010 1.334 132.13 71 93.87 20113 96 RESID 466,245 794,261 1.704 124.29 72 89.93 10750 N GESSNER 77064 STAYBRIDGE SUITES 06 1.200 20064 114 STAYB 531,321 637,585.000 84.19 72 60.79 20071 114 STAYB 654,226 716,221 1.095 86.78 80 69.81 20072 114 STAYB 613,420 805,014 1.312 106.48 73 77.60 20073 114 STAYB 529,995 726,093 1.370 101.85 68 69.23 20074 114 STAYB 553,235 679,062 1.227 100.73 64 64.75 20081 114 STAYB 649,421 778,226 1.198 104.94 72 75.85 20082 114 STAYB 659,767 838,170 1.270 117.37 69 80.80 20083 114 STAYB 628,780 832,135 1.323 117.01 68 79.34 20084 114 STAYB 495,094 805,368 1.627 117.00 66 76.79 20091 114 STAYB 663,861 766,200 1.154 109.56 68 74.68 20092 114 STAYB 628,196 740,918 1.179 112.41 64 71.42 20093 114 STAYB 598,200 677,776 1.133 104.89 62 64.62 20094 114 STAYB 535,857 592,630 1.106 99.74 57 56.51 20101 114 STAYB 574,404 621,786 1.082 95.74 63 60.60 20102 114 STAYB 615,502 691,157 1.123 105.67 63 66.62 20103 114 STAYB 489,707 586,674 1.198 94.90 59 55.94 20104 114 STAYB 469,828 626,151 1.333 97.75 61 59.70 20111 114 STAYB 596,707 699,055 1.172 95.61 71 68.13 20112 114 STAYB 615,289 759,066 1.234 108.40 67 73.17 20113 114 STAYB 617,048 737,182 1.195 101.36 69 70.29 4726 FM 1960 RD 77069 CHAMPIONS LODGE 82 1.850 20064 67 63,589 99,581 1.566 28.13 57 16.16 Page 63 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 4726 FM 1960 RD 77069 CHAMPIONS LODGE 82 1.850 20071 67 64,309 110,294 1.715 27.13 67 18.29 20072 67 66,436 113,396 1.707 27.89 67 18.60 20073 67 68,632 103,840 1.513 27.44 61 16.85 20074 67 66,631 121,462 1.823 30.00 66 19.71 20081 67 66,375 119,365 1.798 29.77 66 19.80 20082 67 55,030 102,909 1.870 29.34 58 16.88 20083 67 64,784 118,914 1.836 29.25 66 19.29 20084 67 77,013 126,188 1.504 31.25 66 20.47 20091 67 49,017 94,778 1.934 28.17 56 15.72 20092 67 51,050 91,595 1.794 28.24 53 15.02 20093 67 33,877 80,971 2.390 25.72 51 13.14 20094 67 42,123 90,760 2.155 25.15 59 14.72 20101 67 44,954 86,954 1.934 24.69 58 14.42 20102 67 44,462 86,908 1.955 25.78 55 14.25 20103 67 48,466 79,487 1.640 24.17 53 12.90 20104 67 41,016 72,958 1.779 24.90 48 11.84 20111 67 39,200 84,593 2.158 25.33 55 14.03 20112 67 41,621 81,181 1.950 25.21 53 13.31 20113 67 56,156 99,311 1.768 25.13 64 16.11 13223 CHAMPIONS 77069 HOMESTEAD STUDIO SUITES 95 1.700 20064 137 HOMES 221,265 381,415 1.724 45.46 67 30.26 20071 137 HOMES 217,188 364,665 1.679 44.89 66 29.58 20072 137 HOMES 271,236 471,295 1.738 47.80 79 37.80 20073 137 HOMES 237,985 394,817 1.659 43.17 73 31.32 20074 137 HOMES 238,142 366,353 1.538 43.07 67 29.07 20081 137 HOMES 241,129 357,211 1.481 43.74 66 28.97 20082 137 HOMES 305,768 410,419 1.342 48.10 68 32.92 20083 137 HOMES 286,653 399,814 1.395 44.37 71 31.72 20084 137 HOMES 323,157 420,827 1.302 45.37 74 33.39 20091 137 HOMES 154,370 203,426 1.318 38.27 43 16.50 20092 137 HOMES 235,083 319,140 1.358 39.27 65 25.60 20093 137 HOMES 190,707 283,921 1.489 35.72 63 22.53 20094 137 HOMES 176,322 270,903 1.536 35.82 60 21.49 20101 137 HOMES 131,849 297,954 2.260 35.16 69 24.16 20102 137 HOMES 192,034 312,665 1.628 37.28 67 25.08 20103 137 HOMES 160,929 287,196 1.785 34.42 66 22.79 20104 137 HOMES 118,358 256,999 2.171 33.50 61 20.39 20111 137 HOMES 120,234 278,836 2.319 32.77 69 22.61 20112 137 HOMES 151,178 273,370 1.808 33.95 65 21.93 20113 137 HOMES 152,916 261,565 1.711 32.25 64 20.75 8719 FM 1960 RD 77070 CANDLEWOOD SUITES 09 1.270 20094 9 CANDL 48,271 49,614 1.056 75.68 79 59.92 20101 83 CANDL 135,471 172,048.000 64.46 36 23.03 20102 83 CANDL 168,156 196,100 1.166 59.76 43 25.96 20103 83 CANDL 182,062 197,136 1.083 55.67 46 25.82 Page 64 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 8719 FM 1960 RD 77070 CANDLEWOOD SUITES 09 1.270 20104 83 CANDL 205,827 217,034 1.054 57.34 50 28.42 20111 83 CANDL 206,995 272,755 1.318 56.09 65 36.51 20112 83 CANDL 294,755 364,009 1.235 70.04 69 48.19 20113 83 CANDL 147,576 336,209 2.278 63.09 70 44.03 21222 TOMBALL P 77070 COMFORT SUITES 00 1.020 20064 64 COMFS 321,366 322,632 1.004 80.46 68 54.79 20071 64 COMFS 340,188 343,157 1.009 77.58 77 59.58 20072 64 COMFS 376,938 381,461 1.012 85.92 76 65.50 20073 64 COMFS 335,329 336,670 1.004 79.53 72 57.18 20074 64 COMFS 315,301 320,358 1.016 81.04 67 54.41 20081 64 COMFS 367,595 371,426 1.010 85.89 75 64.48 20082 64 COMFS 448,045 455,034 1.025 87.61 89 78.13 20083 64 COMFS 267,051 352,766 1.321 83.25 72 59.91 20084 64 COMFS 424,080 491,369 1.159 97.54 86 83.45 20091 64 COMFS 270,755 327,893 1.135 92.64 61 56.93 20092 64 COMFS 254,546 264,806 1.040 88.83 51 45.47 20093 64 COMFS 237,989 244,195 1.026 81.88 51 41.47 20094 64 COMFS 246,680 250,653 1.016 73.95 58 42.57 20101 64 COMFS 222,742 224,148 1.006 68.71 57 38.91 20102 64 COMFS 231,975 233,352 1.006 69.46 58 40.07 20103 64 COMFS 195,966 199,885.000 63.61 53 33.95 20104 64 COMFS 227,647 235,092 1.033 65.52 61 39.93 20111 64 COMFS 251,889 255,741 1.015 65.06 68 44.40 20112 64 COMFS 263,020 268,164 1.020 71.04 65 46.04 20113 64 COMFS 245,338 250,541 1.021 65.61 65 42.55 11050 LOUETTA R 77070 COURTYARD COMPAQ 126 UNITS 00 1.010 20064 115 COURT 759,329 770,719 1.015 99.38 73 72.85 20071 117 COURT 858,591 865,861 1.008 99.87 82 82.23 20072 116 COURT 959,905 960,868 1.001 119.11 76 91.03 20073 153 COURT 1,088,237 1,099,119.000 112.18 70 78.08 20074 115 COURT 855,694 871,591 1.019 114.31 72 82.38 20081 117 COURT 832,586 833,680 1.001 113.45 70 79.17 20082 116 COURT 1,046,816 1,052,671 1.006 128.69 77 99.72 20083 153 COURT 1,103,383 1,136,170 1.030 118.32 68 80.72 20084 115 COURT 924,523 939,418 1.016 120.31 74 88.79 20091 117 COURT 728,870 739,514 1.015 109.87 64 70.23 20092 116 COURT 710,443 729,791 1.027 112.73 61 69.14 20093 153 COURT 882,110 891,088 1.010 100.23 63 63.31 20094 139 COURT 714,700 717,160 1.003 100.21 56 56.08 20101 117 COURT 752,999 778,098 1.033 97.38 76 73.89 20102 116 COURT 733,284 733,953 1.001 107.63 65 69.53 20103 153 COURT 934,108 937,249 1.003 102.11 65 66.58 20104 115 COURT 767,268 769,610 1.003 108.68 67 72.74 20111 117 COURT 912,355 921,274 1.010 111.16 79 87.49 20112 116 COURT 824,977 826,340 1.002 112.49 70 78.28 Page 65 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 11050 LOUETTA R 77070 COURTYARD COMPAQ 126 UNITS 00 1.010 20113 153 COURT 997,870 1,007,178 1.009 102.33 70 71.55 14555 VINTAGE P 77070 ELEMENT HOUSTON VINTAGE 09 1.085 20092 123 ELEMT 337,022 339,534 1.007 129.53 23 30.33 20093 123 ELEMT 432,655 469,431.000 110.90 37 41.48 20094 123 ELEMT 603,311 636,359 1.055 105.44 53 56.24 20101 123 ELEMT 687,265 741,489 1.079 108.41 62 66.98 20102 123 ELEMT 847,876 919,945.000 121.14 68 82.19 20103 123 ELEMT 806,440 826,317 1.025 114.58 64 73.02 20104 123 ELEMT 777,951 830,822 1.068 118.02 62 73.42 20111 123 ELEMT 901,292 924,305 1.026 120.91 69 83.50 20112 123 ELEMT 804,496 1,012,511 1.259 129.44 70 90.46 20113 123 ELEMT 861,532 934,454 1.085 116.83 71 82.58 7979 WILLOW CHA 77070 HILTON GARDEN INN HOTEL 02 1.020 20064 171 HILTG 1,113,380 1,146,697 1.030 110.50 66 72.89 20071 171 HILTG 1,322,436 1,348,340 1.020 111.37 79 87.61 20072 171 HILTG 1,397,318 1,431,675 1.025 121.89 75 92.00 20073 171 HILTG 1,152,095 1,232,742 1.070 116.00 68 78.36 20074 171 HILTG 1,235,441 1,251,686 1.013 120.75 66 79.56 20081 171 HILTG 1,383,285 1,409,793 1.019 122.82 75 91.60 20082 171 HILTG 1,557,935 1,581,313 1.015 137.67 74 101.62 20083 171 HILTG 1,452,756 1,492,650 1.027 137.24 69 94.88 20084 171 HILTG 1,465,941 1,491,869 1.018 134.53 70 94.83 20091 171 HILTG 1,062,951 1,100,530 1.039 113.51 63 71.51 20092 171 HILTG 1,114,704 1,142,111 1.025 122.68 60 73.40 20093 171 HILTG 1,006,416 1,024,398 1.018 111.84 58 65.12 20094 171 HILTG 1,086,998 1,125,584 1.035 117.11 61 71.55 20101 171 HILTG 1,207,211 1,229,764 1.019 117.89 68 79.91 20102 171 HILTG 1,274,373 1,289,191 1.012 123.28 67 82.85 20103 171 HILTG 1,167,541 1,187,298 1.017 113.66 66 75.47 20104 171 HILTG 1,116,685 1,146,749 1.027 118.45 62 72.89 20111 171 HILTG 1,293,120 1,336,798 1.034 117.82 74 86.86 20112 171 HILTG 1,271,715 1,298,901 1.021 122.09 68 83.47 20113 171 HILTG 1,183,300 1,198,768 1.013 112.08 68 76.20 18818 TOMBALL P 77070 HOLIDAY INN COMPAQ FMR EXP 97 1.016 20064 158 HOLID 389,004 397,471 1.022 61.80 44 27.34 20071 158 HOLID 495,337 498,694 1.007 59.59 59 35.07 20072 158 HOLID 612,566 614,752 1.004 69.13 62 42.76 20073 158 HOLID 534,817 541,235 1.012 63.18 59 37.23 20074 158 HOLID 630,596 636,086 1.009 62.75 70 43.76 20081 158 HOLID 651,546 661,971.000 64.26 72 46.55 20082 158 HOLID 865,081 879,329 1.016 83.12 74 61.16 20083 158 HOLID 752,499 758,758 1.008 72.90 72 52.20 20084 158 HOLID 875,077 942,202 1.077 84.64 77 64.82 20091 158 HOLID 691,353 721,143 1.043 70.43 72 50.71 Page 66 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 18818 TOMBALL P 77070 HOLIDAY INN COMPAQ FMR EXP 97 1.016 20092 158 HOLID 538,892 546,275 1.014 70.21 54 37.99 20093 158 HOLID 372,409 374,490 1.006 64.42 40 25.76 20094 158 HOLID 377,327 382,991 1.015 61.25 43 26.35 20101 158 HOLID 338,933 342,580 1.011 56.49 43 24.09 20102 155 HOLID 412,604 415,618 1.007 57.11 52 29.47 20103 155 HOLID 339,258 343,832 1.013 53.18 45 24.11 20104 155 HOLID 380,888 386,982.000 56.84 48 27.14 20111 155 HOLID 434,605 443,584 1.021 55.59 57 31.80 20112 155 HOLID 408,951 415,619 1.016 56.57 52 29.47 20113 155 HOLID 381,054 383,191 1.006 53.35 50 26.87 7655 FM 1960 RD 77070 HOMEWOOD WILLOWBROOK 98 1.220 20064 72 HOMEW 496,900 580,482 1.168 122.42 72 87.63 20071 72 HOMEW 517,390 640,214 1.237 120.93 82 98.80 20072 72 HOMEW 512,675 680,643 1.328 137.27 76 103.88 20073 72 HOMEW 531,966 616,549 1.159 133.15 70 93.08 20074 72 HOMEW 563,998 643,491 1.141 138.23 70 97.15 20081 72 HOMEW 584,715 717,697 1.227 141.47 78 110.76 20082 72 HOMEW 616,082 785,269 1.275 152.56 79 119.85 20083 72 HOMEW 439,042 601,357 1.370 138.13 66 90.78 20084 72 HOMEW 85,927 581,132 6.763 134.51 65 87.73 20091 72 HOMEW 455,584 621,160 1.363 131.39 73 95.86 20092 72 HOMEW 444,258 578,692 1.303 134.80 66 88.32 20093 72 HOMEW 422,550 503,349 1.191 121.51 63 75.99 20094 72 HOMEW 474,611 560,051 1.180 127.89 66 84.55 20101 72 HOMEW 492,830 570,429 1.157 125.53 70 88.03 20102 72 HOMEW 492,043 634,205 1.289 137.12 71 96.80 20103 72 HOMEW 420,799 466,398 1.108 118.53 59 70.41 20104 72 HOMEW 455,067 596,436 1.311 129.30 70 90.04 20111 72 HOMEW 552,055 666,514 1.207 135.47 76 102.86 20112 72 HOMEW 537,230 692,174 1.288 144.63 73 105.64 20113 72 HOMEW 512,672 638,325 1.245 137.74 70 96.37 8735 FM 1960 RD 77070 INTOWN SUITES MILLS ROAD 99 5.000 20064 121 INTOW 55,116 279,117 5.064 35.70 70 25.07 20071 121 INTOW 58,974 298,778 5.066 34.42 80 27.44 20072 121 INTOW 64,070 297,374 4.641 32.40 83 27.01 20073 121 INTOW 73,017 312,513 4.280 33.08 85 28.07 20074 121 INTOW 55,910 275,854 4.934 36.46 68 24.78 20081 121 INTOW 58,446 293,070 5.014 35.19 76 26.91 20082 121 INTOW 65,878 266,423 4.044 34.55 70 24.20 20083 121 INTOW 52,246 263,398 5.041 34.44 69 23.66 20084 121 INTOW 72,051 296,295 4.112 34.44 77 26.62 20091 121 INTOW 55,086 273,752 4.970 33.39 75 25.14 20092 121 INTOW 61,861 254,024 4.106 34.26 67 23.07 20093 121 INTOW 41,892 226,480 5.406 30.53 67 20.34 20094 121 INTOW 32,908 186,016 5.653 29.03 58 16.71 Page 67 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 8735 FM 1960 RD 77070 INTOWN SUITES MILLS ROAD 99 5.000 20101 121 INTOW 40,282 164,687 4.088 26.53 57 15.12 20102 121 INTOW 41,005 160,916 3.924 26.82 54 14.61 20103 121 INTOW 36,135 216,853 6.001 27.61 71 19.48 20104 121 INTOW 37,557 217,107 5.781 29.37 66 19.50 20111 121 INTOW 43,049 226,017 5.250 28.73 72 20.75 20112 121 INTOW 40,949 233,878 5.711 30.59 69 21.24 20113 121 INTOW 51,107 225,713 4.416 28.70 71 20.28 9727 PINE PASS 77070 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 09 1.065 20092 55 LAQUN 159,429 195,215 1.224 85.85 45 39.00 20093 55 LAQUN 142,611 161,745 1.134 79.42 40 31.97 20094 55 LAQUN 108,080 123,520 1.143 71.24 34 24.41 20101 55 LAQUN 134,848 143,099 1.061 67.27 43 28.91 20102 55 LAQUN 156,094 165,767 1.062 65.87 50 33.12 20103 55 LAQUN 125,662 132,686 1.056 50.07 52 26.22 18828 STATE HIG 77070 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES FMR 00 1.120 20064 76 LAQUN 391,060 445,204 1.138 82.18 77 63.67 20071 76 LAQUN 441,754 472,881 1.070 82.51 84 69.13 20072 76 LAQUN 421,279 488,631 1.160 95.10 74 70.65 20073 76 LAQUN 389,917 403,564 1.035 86.82 66 57.72 20074 76 LAQUN 429,765 441,629 1.028 90.51 70 63.16 20081 76 LAQUN 464,990 473,952 1.019 93.79 74 69.29 20082 76 LAQUN 498,052 510,147 1.024 100.83 73 73.76 20083 76 LAQUN 452,502 489,948 1.083 100.52 70 70.07 20084 76 LAQUN 497,246 521,236 1.048 100.51 74 74.55 20091 76 LAQUN 338,617 363,988 1.075 86.79 61 53.21 20092 76 LAQUN 331,452 348,626 1.052 86.68 58 50.41 20093 76 LAQUN 347,321 351,666 1.013 83.11 61 50.30 20094 76 LAQUN 368,414 370,260 1.005 83.93 63 52.95 20101 76 LAQUN 324,533 332,640 1.025 77.08 63 48.63 20102 76 LAQUN 343,210 349,237 1.018 82.01 62 50.50 20103 76 LAQUN 213,653 221,047 1.035 78.51 40 31.61 20104 76 LAQUN 212,450 229,046 1.078 76.22 43 32.76 20111 76 LAQUN 235,735 240,957 1.022 74.55 47 35.23 20112 76 LAQUN 288,913 318,761 1.103 77.25 60 46.09 20113 76 LAQUN 297,871 342,612 1.150 73.96 66 49.00 11275 JONES RD 77070 PALACE INN JONES RD 09 1.020 20091 32 81,440 83,069.000 50.50 57 28.84 20092 32 91,309 94,773 1.038 56.99 57 32.55 20093 32 92,174 98,017 1.063 54.65 61 33.29 20094 32 90,765 94,422 1.040 53.92 59 32.07 20101 32 95,007 98,432 1.036 52.93 65 34.18 20102 32 94,551 97,942 1.036 55.64 60 33.63 20103 32 92,972 94,798 1.020 53.26 60 32.20 20104 32 81,404 83,943 1.031 53.11 54 28.51 Page 68 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 11275 JONES RD 77070 PALACE INN JONES RD 09 1.020 20111 32 79,492 84,161 1.059 51.95 56 29.22 20112 32 91,470 93,357 1.021 54.45 59 32.06 20113 32 78,265 79,861 1.020 50.00 54 27.13 18836 STATE HIG 77070 SUPER 8 FMR BEST VALUE FMR 01 1.160 20064 42 SUPR8 105,712 114,671 1.085 47.06 63 29.68 20071 42 SUPR8 99,397 113,965 1.147 44.89 67 30.15 20072 42 SUPR8 122,739 139,190 1.134 55.09 66 36.42 20073 42 SUPR8 126,689 144,045 1.137 55.86 67 37.28 20074 42 SUPR8 133,602 151,877 1.137 56.92 69 39.31 20081 42 SUPR8 145,624 161,010 1.106 58.11 73 42.60 20082 42 SUPR8 179,163 187,663 1.047 69.60 71 49.10 20083 42 SUPR8 148,945 196,042 1.316 73.37 69 50.74 20084 42 SUPR8 188,771 202,209 1.071 73.37 71 52.33 20091 42 SUPR8 167,284 176,461 1.055 63.39 74 46.68 20092 42 SUPR8 168,636 172,731 1.024 65.03 69 45.19 20093 42 SUPR8 148,134 149,439 1.009 60.61 64 38.67 20094 42 SUPR8 112,261 134,161 1.195 57.64 60 34.72 20101 42 SUPR8 126,033 135,188 1.073 56.58 63 35.76 20102 42 SUPR8 118,721 137,761 1.160 60.74 59 36.04 20103 42 SUPR8 107,804 126,906 1.177 58.16 56 32.84 20104 42 SUPR8 93,366 104,634 1.124 59.90 45 27.08 20111 42 SUPR8 120,669 129,484 1.073 53.31 64 34.26 20112 42 SUPR8 136,471 146,027 1.070 57.31 67 38.21 20113 42 SUPR8 126,802 142,122 1.121 55.59 66 36.78 11040 LOUETTA R 77070 TOWNPLACE INN COMPAQ 128 U 00 1.400 20064 116 TOWNP 385,729 496,049 1.286 74.21 63 46.48 20071 119 TOWNP 455,326 562,802 1.236 71.55 73 52.55 20072 118 TOWNP 480,737 590,372 1.228 77.67 71 54.98 20073 155 TOWNP 622,051 914,473.000 81.06 79 64.13 20074 116 TOWNP 523,867 638,265 1.407 75.98 79 59.81 20081 119 TOWNP 584,707 689,265 1.179 83.51 77 64.36 20082 119 TOWNP 582,868 708,500 1.216 88.28 74 65.43 20083 155 TOWNP 626,243 774,837 1.237 83.03 65 54.34 20084 116 TOWNP 735,141 909,496 1.237 105.52 81 85.22 20091 119 TOWNP 345,303 457,437 1.325 82.92 52 42.71 20092 118 TOWNP 392,594 550,604 1.402 85.07 60 51.28 20093 155 TOWNP 409,698 554,041 1.352 81.58 48 38.85 20094 116 TOWNP 324,534 378,319 1.166 75.02 47 35.45 20101 119 TOWNP 338,810 394,361 1.164 71.19 52 36.82 20102 118 TOWNP 346,528 432,692 1.249 71.97 56 40.30 20103 155 TOWNP 395,660 510,019 1.289 67.96 53 35.77 20104 116 TOWNP 394,493 492,966 1.250 72.10 64 46.19 20111 119 TOWNP 551,649 642,772 1.165 79.23 76 60.02 20112 118 TOWNP 347,331 584,025 1.681 80.34 68 54.39 20113 155 TOWNP 484,227 607,759 1.255 70.17 61 42.62 Page 69 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 13616 PERRY RD 77070 VALUE PLACE 09 5.000 20091 65 62,297 91,192 1.464 26.79 58 15.59 20092 121 81,317 147,901 1.819 26.95 50 13.43 20093 121 VALUP 58,684 169,620 2.890 25.18 61 15.24 20094 121 VALUP 33,689 139,192 4.132 23.66 53 12.50 20101 121 VALUP 40,912 143,655 3.511 23.23 57 13.19 20102 121 VALUP 52,130 178,304 3.420 27.05 60 16.19 20103 121 VALUP 37,016 183,880 4.968 25.61 64 16.52 20104 121 VALUP 31,338 177,302 5.658 25.55 62 15.93 20111 121 VALUP 54,490 232,955 4.275 27.92 77 21.39 20112 121 VALUP 39,559 262,281 6.630 31.09 77 23.82 20113 121 VALUP 49,722 290,089 5.834 33.55 78 26.06 7645 FM 1960 RD 77070 WILLOWBROOK HAMPTON INN 98 1.040 20064 75 HAMPT 500,748 513,025 1.025 95.43 78 74.35 20071 75 HAMPT 587,148 591,125 1.007 101.66 86 87.57 20072 75 HAMPT 596,590 605,019 1.014 113.76 78 88.65 20073 75 HAMPT 532,947 554,265.000 110.35 73 80.33 20074 75 HAMPT 520,805 531,567 1.021 112.45 69 77.04 20081 75 HAMPT 596,785 613,099 1.027 116.76 78 90.83 20082 75 HAMPT 666,367 673,014 1.010 132.53 74 98.61 20083 75 HAMPT 490,149 538,615 1.099 124.14 63 78.06 20084 75 HAMPT 413,622 715,799 1.731 131.13 79 103.74 20091 75 HAMPT 516,476 603,075 1.168 123.26 72 89.34 20092 75 HAMPT 509,477 525,478 1.031 126.46 61 76.99 20093 75 HAMPT 512,165 529,450 1.034 116.42 66 76.73 20094 75 HAMPT 421,667 438,534.000 110.71 57 63.56 20101 75 HAMPT 443,947 451,954 1.018 103.75 65 66.96 20102 75 HAMPT 500,865 506,048 1.010 115.11 64 74.15 20103 75 HAMPT 430,600 542,418 1.260 112.64 70 78.61 20104 75 HAMPT 442,725 445,691 1.007 111.80 58 64.59 20111 75 HAMPT 515,685 523,896 1.016 109.35 71 77.61 20112 75 HAMPT 514,834 531,746 1.033 113.30 69 77.91 20113 75 HAMPT 447,155 450,038 1.006 105.25 62 65.22 9050 MILLS RD 77070 WINGATE INN HOTEL OF WILLO 00 1.026 20064 89 WINGT 345,422 354,403.000 67.52 64 43.28 20071 89 WINGT 374,657 384,398.000 63.96 75 47.99 20072 89 WINGT 413,207 423,950.000 71.20 74 52.35 20073 89 WINGT 314,557 322,735.000 62.42 63 39.42 20074 89 WINGT 351,767 362,916 1.032 66.13 67 44.32 20081 89 WINGT 398,370 405,763 1.020 88.94 57 50.66 20082 89 WINGT 365,000 380,000 1.023 1 88.63 53 46.92 20083 89 WINGT 396,977 410,142 1.033 87.65 57 50.09 20084 89 WINGT 455,596 460,108 1.010 84.45 67 56.19 20091 89 WINGT 403,506 410,334 1.017 78.46 65 51.23 20092 89 WINGT 398,943 408,440 1.024 80.50 63 50.43 Page 70 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ HOUSTON 9050 MILLS RD 77070 WINGATE INN HOTEL OF WILLO 00 1.026 20093 89 WINGT 346,530 348,806 1.007 72.10 59 42.60 20094 89 WINGT 337,856 341,979 1.012 68.56 61 41.77 20101 89 WINGT 349,714 353,393 1.011 67.29 66 44.12 20102 89 WINGT 364,020 373,485.000 72.12 64 46.11 20103 89 WINGT 267,679 274,639.000 64.31 52 33.54 20104 89 WINGT 307,766 315,768.000 65.42 59 38.56 20111 89 WINGT 342,029 346,054 1.012 67.02 64 43.20 20112 89 WINGT 363,748 374,012 1.028 71.01 65 46.18 20113 89 WINGT 326,275 333,973 1.024 64.03 64 40.79 TOMBALL 13636 MICHEL RD 77375 COMFORT SUITES 08 1.040 20081 55 COMFS 152,362 158,456.000 84.35 38 32.01 20082 55 COMFS 183,258 190,588.000 86.04 44 38.08 20083 55 COMFS 204,969 247,685 1.208 81.79 60 48.95 20084 55 COMFS 328,641 342,670 1.043 86.78 78 67.72 20091 55 COMFS 199,211 204,430 1.026 77.36 53 41.30 20092 55 COMFS 216,988 224,432 1.034 81.44 55 44.84 20093 55 COMFS 172,658 182,884 1.059 74.09 49 36.14 20094 55 COMFS 183,613 189,741 1.051 63.58 59 37.50 20101 55 COMFS 174,018 185,664 1.067 62.40 60 37.51 20102 55 COMFS 155,644 163,363 1.050 64.83 50 32.64 20103 55 COMFS 139,052 146,404 1.053 59.46 49 28.93 20104 55 COMFS 173,061 185,434 1.071 66.50 55 36.65 20111 55 COMFS 185,282 203,582 1.099 64.07 64 41.13 20112 55 COMFS 227,000 236,391 1.041 75.20 63 47.23 20113 55 COMFS 213,930 220,395 1.030 68.09 64 43.56 1437 KEEFER RD 77375 SUPER 8 FMR HOLIDAY EXPRES 98 1.025 20064 40 HIEXP 205,420 210,090 1.023 80.34 71 57.09 20071 40 HIEXP 221,186 228,211 1.032 78.59 81 63.39 20072 40 HIEXP 235,396 238,186 1.012 85.93 76 65.44 20073 40 HIEXP 230,794 233,102 1.010 84.32 75 63.34 20074 40 HIEXP 238,551 242,858 1.018 85.92 77 65.99 20081 40 HIEXP 237,254 243,388 1.026 85.26 79 67.61 20082 40 HIEXP 227,134 232,147 1.022 92.55 69 63.78 20083 40 HIEXP 116,305 125,789 1.082 82.26 42 34.18 20084 40 HIEXP 178,900 183,372.000 2 85.25 58 49.83 20094 40 SUPR8 72,747 74,531 1.025 62.94 32 20.25 20101 40 SUPR8 95,781 98,176.000 61.78 44 27.27 20102 40 SUPR8 92,829 95,150.000 60.83 43 26.14 20103 40 SUPR8 91,257 93,538.000 53.41 48 25.42 20104 40 SUPR8 93,484 95,821.000 53.06 49 26.04 20111 40 SUPR8 112,202 115,007.000 51.90 62 31.95 20112 40 SUPR8 100,937 103,460.000 52.85 54 28.42 20113 40 SUPR8 82,579 84,643.000 46.12 50 23.00 603 W MAIN 77375 TOMBALL EXECUTIVE INN 79 1.400 20064 19 38,377 39,655 1.033 40.56 56 22.69 Page 71 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ TOMBALL 603 W MAIN 77375 TOMBALL EXECUTIVE INN 79 1.400 20071 19 40,374 42,890 1.062 39.10 64 25.08 20072 19 42,714 47,925 1.122 43.69 63 27.72 20073 19 33,325 41,490 1.245 42.38 56 23.74 20074 19 38,181 47,120 1.234 43.46 62 26.96 20081 19 40,644 48,110 1.184 42.68 66 28.13 20082 19 37,583 45,990 1.224 43.53 61 26.60 20083 19 42,673 45,625 1.069 43.39 60 26.10 20084 19 50,919 55,205 1.084 45.39 70 31.58 20091 19 24,385 28,383 1.164 39.16 42 16.60 20092 19 19,791 25,750 1.301 38.94 38 14.89 20093 19 22,268 25,650 1.152 36.37 40 14.67 20094 19 21,784 24,065 1.105 33.80 41 13.77 30130 STATE HIG 77375 TOMBALL INN 82 1.060 20064 50 110,371 116,993.000 43.22 59 25.43 20071 50 78,603 83,319.000 39.06 47 18.52 20072 50 118,664 125,784.000 43.75 63 27.64 20073 50 103,969 110,207.000 40.26 60 23.96 20074 50 118,590 125,705.000 44.38 62 27.33 20081 50 100,460 106,488.000 38.19 62 23.66 20082 50 75,388 79,911.000 39.78 44 17.56 20083 50 108,554 115,067.000 39.66 63 25.01 20084 50 144,136 152,784.000 39.65 84 33.21 20091 50 72,225 76,559.000 36.50 47 17.01 20092 50 69,786 73,973.000 37.45 43 16.26 20093 50 53,351 56,552.000 35.92 34 12.29 20094 49 41,125 43,593.000 32.50 30 9.67 20101 49 54,937 58,233.000 31.90 41 13.20 20102 49 69,986 74,185.000 32.25 52 16.64 20103 49 77,684 82,345.000 30.90 59 18.27 20104 49 27,281 28,918.000 31.83 20 6.41 20111 49 57,808 61,276.000 29.00 48 13.89 20112 49 54,074 57,318.000 29.00 44 12.85 20113 49 60,000 63,600.000 1 28.13 50 14.11 22420 PARK RD 77377 BEST VALUE INN & SUITES 11 1.220 20112 18 BVALU 28,441 28,716.000 53.00 33 17.53 20113 38 BVALU 63,416 77,351 1.220 53.35 41 22.13 14100 MEDICAL C 77377 HAMPTON INN & SUITES 10 1.025 20102 40 HAMPT 168,489 170,645 1.013 96.98 48 46.88 20103 81 HAMPT 400,213 409,065 1.022 92.87 59 54.89 20104 81 HAMPT 501,889 505,265 1.007 100.43 68 67.80 20111 81 HAMPT 502,490 512,965 1.021 96.37 73 70.37 20112 81 HAMPT 573,656 580,505 1.012 111.47 71 78.76 20113 81 HAMPT 583,729 589,448 1.010 108.13 73 79.10 14000 MEDICAL C 77377 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 03 1.030 20064 67 LAQUN 288,717 296,142 1.026 73.14 66 48.04 Page 72 of 105

E 3 YR AVG CITY ADDR ZIP S EST 4 OP ADJ 1 ---- ---- --- T AVG. % -- ----- # TAXABLE GROSS ADJ 1 DAILY OCC $ 5 YRQ RMS BRAND REVENUE REVENUE FACTOR 2 RATE EST REVPAR --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ TOMBALL 14000 MEDICAL C 77377 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 03 1.030 20071 67 LAQUN 297,702 308,180 1.035 70.52 72 51.11 20072 67 LAQUN 334,457 340,349 1.018 73.41 76 55.82 20073 67 LAQUN 309,731 313,758 1.013 71.21 71 50.90 20074 67 LAQUN 355,902 361,751 1.016 79.02 74 58.69 20081 67 LAQUN 315,930 340,559 1.078 78.43 72 56.48 20082 67 LAQUN 326,453 346,727 1.062 80.00 71 56.87 20083 67 LAQUN 303,517 399,452 1.223 83.74 77 64.80 20084 67 LAQUN 438,608 480,504 1.096 99.53 78 77.95 20091 67 LAQUN 328,597 370,900 1.129 89.72 69 61.51 20092 67 LAQUN 317,565 365,327 1.150 92.05 65 59.92 20093 67 LAQUN 270,605 296,604 1.096 83.72 57 48.12 20094 67 LAQUN 245,696 272,357 1.109 79.61 55 44.19 20101 67 LAQUN 263,174 298,035 1.132 74.22 67 49.43 20102 67 LAQUN 226,723 259,172 1.143 78.19 54 42.51 20103 67 LAQUN 245,366 278,919 1.137 73.03 62 45.25 20104 67 LAQUN 309,847 332,088 1.072 78.83 68 53.88 20111 67 LAQUN 303,614 320,736 1.056 77.10 69 53.19 20112 67 LAQUN 375,461 383,757 1.022 90.25 70 62.94 20113 67 LAQUN 391,942 404,745 1.033 90.74 72 65.66 ENDNOTES: 1. FACTOR USED TO ADJUST TAXABLE TO GROSS REVENUES. AREA FACTOR USED IF PROPERTY DOES NOT PROVIDE GROSS. TAXABLE IS 89% OF GROSS STATEWIDE. 2. A NUMBER OR A 'Y' INDICATES QUARTERS REVENUES ARE ESTIMATED. 3. ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY RATE (IE 60-85% OF RACK SINGLE) 4. Occupancy derived from calculated roomnights sold (gross room revenues divided by Average Daily Rate), divided by roomnights available. 5. Total REVenues Per Available Room per day, or 'REVPAR'; Prepared from State Comptroller, chain directories and private records. Includes all quarterly reports exceeding $14,000 (otherwise omitted). Page 73 of 105

Page 74 of 105 EXHIBIT IV PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: TEXAS EXCLUDING LUXURY HOTELS # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS HILTON 26 10.5 2.7 2,357 2.9 338,839 5.0 61.6 143.75 88.54 HYATT 11 6.7 1.7 1,519 1.8 246,403 3.6 62.2 162.17 100.90 INT-C 3 1.2.3 272.3 37,722.6 62.0 138.52 85.91 MARRIOTT 27 11.1 2.9 2,583 3.1 378,647 5.5 63.9 146.61 93.70 OMNI 11 4.3 1.1 1,026 1.2 147,960 2.2 65.0 144.25 93.79 RENAISSAN 6 2.4.6 531.6 75,617 1.1 60.7 142.30 86.36 TOT UPSCALE 84 36.2 9.3 8,289 10.1 1,225,188 17.9 62.8 147.82 92.80 EMBASSY 22 5.1 1.3 1,254 1.5 176,831 2.6 67.5 141.05 95.21 HOMEWOOD 43 4.3 1.1 1,073 1.3 122,998 1.8 68.9 114.67 79.07 RESIDENCE 57 6.5 1.7 1,643 2.0 189,564 2.8 69.3 115.37 79.91 STAYBRIDG 27 2.9.7 694.8 70,643 1.0 66.6 101.78 67.81 SUMMERFLD 8 1.1.3 271.3 28,901.4 67.6 106.54 72.02 OTH SUITE 16 3.3.9 798 1.0 106,753 1.6 65.4 133.80 87.48 TOT SUITES 173 23.1 6.0 5,733 7.0 695,691 10.2 67.9 121.36 82.34 ALOFT 7 1.0.3 234.3 28,288.4 65.7 120.65 79.30 COURTYARD 73 9.7 2.5 2,266 2.8 237,733 3.5 63.8 104.91 66.91 CROWNPLZA 15 5.0 1.3 1,050 1.3 97,488 1.4 57.7 92.86 53.61 DOUBLTREE 10 2.9.7 658.8 72,683 1.1 62.9 110.44 69.48 HILT GARD 41 5.6 1.5 1,317 1.6 151,569 2.2 64.0 115.12 73.69 HOLID INN 56 10.6 2.7 2,180 2.7 187,713 2.7 56.2 86.09 48.37 HYATT PLC 21 2.6.7 613.7 65,203 1.0 63.4 106.34 67.43 INDIGO 4.5.1 110.1 11,895.2 55.4 108.47 60.13 RADIS HTL 11 2.5.6 492.6 42,715.6 54.4 86.85 47.25 SHERATON 12 5.2 1.3 1,149 1.4 131,133 1.9 60.3 114.17 68.85 WYNDHAM 8 1.9.5 422.5 42,429.6 61.9 100.45 62.18 OTHER MUP 7 1.0.3 234.3 23,227.3 64.6 99.06 64.03 TOT MID/UPS 264 48.6 12.5 10,725 13.1 1,092,076 16.0 60.5 101.82 61.59 CAMBRIA S 1.1.0 23.0 1,990.0 50.7 85.36 43.27 CANDLWOOD 51 4.8 1.2 1,113 1.4 73,904 1.1 64.1 66.41 42.54 COMFO STE 117 7.9 2.0 1,650 2.0 124,795 1.8 57.0 75.62 43.11 HAWTHORN 16 1.6.4 336.4 25,223.4 57.3 75.17 43.08 SPRNGHILL 31 3.5.9 800 1.0 74,718 1.1 62.4 93.46 58.33 TOWNPLACE 24 2.6.7 620.8 52,879.8 65.5 85.27 55.89 OTHER MIN 12 1.1.3 242.3 17,397.3 61.2 71.89 43.97 TOT MIN STE 251 21.6 5.6 4,784 5.8 370,906 5.4 60.7 77.54 47.03 BEST WEST 247 15.4 4.0 3,212 3.9 228,668 3.3 57.1 71.19 40.66 CNTRY INN 19 1.3.3 282.3 20,202.3 59.3 71.71 42.50 COMFO INN 79 5.2 1.4 1,031 1.3 67,950 1.0 53.8 65.89 35.46 DRURY INN 19 3.0.8 698.8 64,059.9 63.2 91.81 57.98 FAIRFIELD 58 4.9 1.3 1,129 1.4 94,706 1.4 62.5 83.85 52.43 HAMPTON 156 13.4 3.4 3,116 3.8 308,438 4.5 63.9 98.97 63.22 HOLID EXP 211 16.6 4.3 3,829 4.7 361,123 5.3 63.2 94.31 59.61 LA QUINTA 218 21.1 5.4 4,559 5.5 326,968 4.8 59.2 71.72 42.47 SLEEP INN 32 2.1.5 421.5 26,859.4 56.2 63.75 35.85 WINGATE 12 1.0.3 222.3 16,753.2 58.6 75.37 44.17 TOT LTD SVE1,050 84.1 21.7 18,500 22.5 1,515,726 22.2 60.3 81.93 49.39

Page 75 of 105 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: TEXAS EXCLUDING LUXURY HOTELS # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- BUDG STES 11 4.0 1.0 976 1.2 32,930.5 66.9 33.72 22.58 EXT AMERI 44 4.6 1.2 1,133 1.4 54,347.8 66.8 47.99 32.07 HOMESTEAD 15 2.0.5 492.6 21,221.3 68.5 43.15 29.57 INTOWN ST 30 3.9 1.0 947 1.2 31,008.5 67.2 32.73 22.00 STUDIO + 6.6.1 132.2 5,880.1 64.6 44.66 28.87 STUDIO 6 27 3.0.8 723.9 28,974.4 64.9 40.10 26.04 VALUE PLC 36 4.3 1.1 1,089 1.3 34,768.5 69.4 31.94 22.16 OTHER EXT 28 3.3.9 739.9 26,901.4 60.9 36.38 22.15 TOT EXT STA 197 25.7 6.6 6,230 7.6 236,028 3.5 66.4 37.88 25.16 BAYMONT 31 2.5.6 457.6 25,551.4 50.2 55.93 28.10 BEST VALU 110 7.2 1.8 1,293 1.6 47,861.7 49.4 37.02 18.30 BUDGETEL 1.1.0 11.0 523.0 29.6 48.41 14.32 CLARION 7.9.2 163.2 8,385.1 49.8 51.43 25.63 DAYS INN 142 9.3 2.4 1,769 2.2 89,692 1.3 52.0 50.70 26.34 ECONOLODG 53 3.1.8 536.7 24,079.4 47.3 44.93 21.24 HO JO 31 2.5.6 444.5 21,199.3 48.5 47.72 23.16 MICROTEL 22 1.4.4 286.3 14,555.2 56.0 50.97 28.54 MOTEL 6 120 11.5 3.0 2,568 3.1 105,369 1.5 61.1 41.03 25.08 QUALITY 69 5.6 1.4 1,036 1.3 58,929.9 51.0 56.87 29.01 RAMADA 37 3.6.9 601.7 30,821.5 45.5 51.29 23.36 RED ROOF 25 3.0.8 597.7 26,903.4 53.9 45.08 24.30 RODEWAY 30 1.8.5 305.4 12,533.2 47.7 41.05 19.57 SUPER 8 161 9.4 2.4 1,808 2.2 92,564 1.4 52.9 51.20 27.10 TRAVELODG 25 1.9.5 335.4 15,231.2 49.0 45.46 22.29 OTHER BUD 86 4.3 1.1 753.9 30,963.5 48.0 41.11 19.73 TOT BUDGET 949 68.0 17.5 12,962 15.8 605,158 8.9 52.2 46.69 24.38 TOT CHAINS 2,974 308.2 79.5 67,405 82.0 5,755,439 84.2 59.9 85.39 51.17 INDEPENDENTS $100+ ADR 380 16.8 4.3 3,250 4.0 520,623 7.6 53.1 160.19 85.07 $60-99ADR 262 11.9 3.1 2,082 2.5 172,548 2.5 47.9 82.87 39.72 LT $60ADR 991 49.5 12.8 9,104 11.1 328,144 4.8 50.4 36.04 18.15 TOTAL INDEP 1,641 79.7 20.5 14,774 18.0 1,077,161 15.8 50.8 72.91 37.03 TOT MARKET 4,614387.9 100.0 82,178 100.0 6,832,601 100 58.0 83.14 48.26 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 76 of 105 EXHIBIT V A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF HOTEL SIZE ON PERFORMANCE IN THE TEXAS HOTEL INDUSTRY THE CASE FOR DOWNSIZING NEW HOTELS 11/30/99 By Douglas W. Sutton and Bruce H. Walker Source Strategies has long contended that the number of rooms a developer offers in a new property is one of the key factors in determining a venture's relative success or failure. It is every bit as important to size a hotel project properly as it is to select the appropriate brand, and to develop in a suitable market and location. We have previously conducted extensive studies of the lodging market that support our hotel sizing contention, and we have taken this opportunity to re-examine the issue using our extensive database of hotel and motel performance for the State of Texas. Before delving into the numbers that define the role of room count in a hotel's performance, we should first highlight the basic industry theory of 'rightsizing' a property. The premise offered by many inexperienced developers is "If I can make a profit constructing a 50 room hotel in a given market, it would be twice as profitable to develop 100 rooms." In virtually all cases nothing could be farther from the truth. At some point adding rooms to a project reaches a point of diminishing returns, and the investment in the additional rooms cannot be economically justified. To illustrate this point, mentally divide our hypothetical 100 room project into two 50 room hotels. The initial 50 rooms may perform very well, with occupancies over 70% and a very strong rate structure. However, the second 50 rooms are only utilized when there is overflow from the first hotel because its rooms are 100% occupied. Effectively, the second 50 rooms may only attain an occupancy of 30% or less. This low level of occupancy may prompt the general manager to lower rates to bolster occupancy, but this is a losing battle. Ultimately, overbuilding causes REVPAR erosion in the property, and in the market as a whole. Today's developers and lenders would not seriously consider involvement in a 50 room project operating at this low level, but often times they accomplish the same end by pushing for more rooms in a project than the market can effectively support. If we now mentally put these two 50 room properties back together (one operating at 70%, the other at 30% occupancy), what we end up with is an oversized 100 room hotel that is running a mediocre 50% occupancy.

Page 77 of 105 Over-sizing a hotel makes it difficult, if not impossible, to be competitive in a marketplace. There are a finite number of roomnights sold to be divided among existing hotels in the market, and developing a more conservatively sized property helps insure that a profitable level of those roomnights can be captured. Building a hotel is not the 'Field of Dreams'... If you build it - they won't come... With the exception of destination resorts and some unique convention hotels, people do not go someplace because there is a hotel. Rather, they stay in a hotel because they want to be near someplace. Builders who construct too many rooms usually put themselves in unenviable financial situations. Many hotels which we see put up for sale were developed with far too many rooms. The owners, having had difficulty getting a return on their investment, are often trying to get out from under a bad investment. There are even drastic cases of properties bulldozing entire wings to provide additional parking, because those extra rooms are a financial burden, remaining unsold the vast majority of the time. Now that we've outlined the basic economic benefits of 'building small', let's look into hotel performance numbers and see if they support this development principle. We analyzed two separate hotel samplings: First we will look at Comfort Inns across Texas as a selected brand sampling. Then we will look at all branded hotels built during a given period of time for a more diverse sampling. COMFORT INN - ANALYSIS OF SIZING AND ITS IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE In our initial analysis, we selected a sampling of Texas Comfort Inn branded properties ranging in size from 36 to 75 rooms; they are all 'Limited Service' hotels. We excluded those properties located in exclusive, higher priced markets, since they would naturally support larger room counts while maintaining strong performance levels and would distort the findings. The resulting sample included 55 Comfort Inn hotels located across Texas. The following chart of performance statistics from the latest year on file (12 months ending September 30, 1999) clearly illustrates the consistent curve, showing marked declines in performance as room count increases. This decline was exhibited in all three measures shown, Occupancy, Average Daily Rate, and REVPAR:

Page 78 of 105 Year Ending 6/30/99 Results Average # of Daily Units Occupancy Rate REVPAR 36-40 66.9 55.25 36.95 41-45 65.3 57.34 37.45 46-50 66.5 57.38 38.17 51-55 62.8 56.02 35.20 56-60 61.8 54.26 33.55 61-65 56.6 55.33 31.33 66-70 44.6 45.71 20.41 71-75 43.8 44.20 19.38 Combined: 52 63.2 55.46 35.03 Looking only at occupancy, the following graph gives a clear depiction of the notable negative impact of larger room counts on a hotel's ability to maintain an acceptable level of roomnights sold. Properties with lower room counts were clearly able to sustain a higher level of occupancy. Average occupancy ranged from 66.9% for properties of 36-40 rooms, downward to a much lower 43.8% average occupancy for properties in the 71-75 room size bracket. When looking at REVPAR, the following graph follows a very similar performance curve, ranging from an average REVPAR of $36.95 for properties of 36-40 units, downward to a mediocre $19.38 average REVPAR for properties in the 71-35 unit size bracket. Note that the downward slide in both graphs did not begin until room counts exceeded 35 units. Prior to that, a mild upward trend is experienced. This appears to indicate that, on average, 50 rooms is the 'optimum' size for a Comfort Inn in Texas markets (excluding high priced areas). Of course, this is an average number for this type of market. Each project must be examined on an individual basis to determine the proper size to develop within its given market.

Page 79 of 105 The above chart and graphs clearly illustrates that Developers often missed the mark, building more rooms than 'optimum.' 'Optimum' is defined as generating the highest return on invested capital, and is closely tied to occupancy and REVPAR generation. Analyzing the above data provides a measure of the effect of over building. For the typical range of rooms for Comfort Inn projects (40-75 rooms) outside of higher priced areas, the occupancy dropped 23.1 points (a full 35%) from 66.9% to 43.8% as room counts escalated. With a 35 room increase in rooms from the 36-40 room size bracket to the 71-75 room size bracket, a resulting 35% drop in occupancy is experienced. The key question, is how to apply this principle to a given hotel project. Naturally, each project would have to be judged on its individual merits, but looking at an 'average' project for a single brand and product is very revealing. All are Comfort Inns. All are very similar products in similar market environments, leaving size as the major variable in performance. In our sampling, the average project is 65 rooms in size. At this size, the average occupancy is 62.8%. If we built 36% fewer rooms (42 rooms) our average occupancy would rise a moderate 6.5% to 66.9%. Conversely, if we built 36% more than average, (71 rooms) our average occupancy plummets by 42.5% to 43.8%. Clearly there are some basic economic principles at work. Comfort Inns are conservatively-sized. Building smaller than the average of 65 rooms yields slightly higher occupancies, but the ability to charge ever higher rates as size decreases is marginal. As rates rise, some consumers perceive lost value and will stay at another property. On the other side of the coin, properties built larger than the average 65 rooms suffer serious occupancy declines. At some

Page 80 of 105 point the need for additional rooms that was envisioned by the optimistic developer is simply not there, and the extra rooms only serve to depress the overall performance of the property. BRANDED HOTELS - ANALYSIS OF SIZING AND ITS IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE In our second analysis, we selected a sampling of all Texas branded hotels constructed from 1970-1975; 91 properties across Texas, predominantly 'Full Service'. Our sampling was limited to hotels of less than 135 rooms. We once again excluded those properties located in exclusive, higher priced markets. For our analysis we examined performance results from the year 1985 when all subject hotels were 10 to 15 years old, well into their aging life cycles. The following chart of performance statistics from 1985 for branded properties throughout Texas clearly illustrates the downward curve, with definite erosion in performance measures as room count increases: 1985 Performance Results Average # of # of Daily Hotels Units Occupancy Rate REVPAR 2 00-44 70.0 37.88 26.50 3 45-59 73.9 36.13 26.71 7 60-74 66.8 31.10 20.77 14 75-89 62.7 31.65 19.86 29 90-104 60.9 32.42 19.75 16 105-119 57.8 26.25 15.18 20 120-134 55.5 29.35 16.28 Combined: 91 98 59.8 30.34 18.14 With occupancy declines being the strongest indicator of the negative impact of building too large, the following graph provides a clear picture of the descending performance slide as room counts increase. Once again, properties with lower room counts were more insulated from market competition and were therefore able to be more competitive in both favorable and depressed market environments. Average occupancy ranged from 70% for properties of 58 rooms or less, downward to a much lower 55.5% average occupancy for properties in the 120-134 room size bracket, after peaking at 73.9% in the 45-59 size range.

Page 81 of 105 As with the Comfort Inn analysis, the above data provides a measure of the effect of over building. However, since a number of varying brands are considered in this sample, the typical range in size of these projects ranges from about 40 to 135. This is a wider range than the Comfort sampling, since many of the brands in this sample typically have larger room counts than a Comfort Inn. This is partially due to some brands' ability to support higher room counts, and partially due to the tendency to overbuild in the early 1970s, when all hotels in this sample were constructed. While the 65 room average for our Comfort Inn sample is reasonably close to optimum sizing for that brand, the 98 room average for this analysis appears to be oversized. In our assessment, the optimum average number of rooms for this sampling would have been 60 to 41 rooms, depending upon brand. In 1985, this roomcount supported occupancies near 70%, with an average REVPAR of almost $27. Compare this to the average capacity of 98 rooms attaining a much lower average occupancy of 60.9% and REVPAR below $20. Clearly this lower level of performance can be attributed to over-sizing projects in the early 1970s. Looking at our average (oversized) roomcount of 98 rooms, increasing the size by 30% (135 rooms) would cause occupancy to slide 10% from 60.9% to 55.5%. On the other hand, making the average project smaller (58 rooms, or 75% smaller) would improve occupancy to 73.9%, or a healthy 21% increase. For the sake of comparison, let us assume that the average property was more appropriately sized at about 58 rooms. If the project size were increased to 135 rooms, the largest range in our sample, occupancy would suffer a significant 33% decline from optimum levels.

Page 82 of 105 Of course this assumes that locational differences are not significant. We believe this is true; the large sample and clear correlation between size and performance support this conclusion. SUMMARY The data is clear. In most cases, small hotels outperform large hotels, with the exception of higher-priced markets where competitive barriers to entry exist (e.g. lack of land, excessive land cost, building restrictions, etc.). Common sense explains this occurrence: a successful 100 room hotel will inevitably prompt the development of one or more new, small hotels of similar quality in the immediate area. In a competitive market environment, the smaller hotel has a distinct advantage and wins - almost every time.

Page 83 of 105 EXHIBIT VI START-UP PERFORMANCE OF NEW HOTELS AND MOTELS A new study by Source Strategies, Inc., utilizing all new chain hotels opened in Texas between 1990 and 1994, shows that new hotels and motels provide their peak performance in Years III through V, when they typically reach 112% of their 20- year average REVPAR performance level. In other words, the newness of a property is an advantage on the order of a 12% premium in Years III through V - versus the average REVPAR that would otherwise be expected for that property over a twenty-year period. That's because the consumer almost always picks new over old because, to them, 'new' means 'clean' and 'new' means 'value.' Perhaps this is not news to many, but it is highly important to those who forecast the performance of new properties. Here's what the graph looks like for the first twelve years for new properties opened in the moderately-good and improving markets of the 1990's. The years after peak are projected based on two major previous studies: one by Limited Service in the early 1980's and the second last year by Source Strategies, Inc. Year I at 92% of the 20 Year Average, Year II at 107%

Page 84 of 105 The study found that a property could expect a REVPAR at Year I of 92% of the twenty-year average for a project. In Year II, this would move to 107% and to 112% in Years' III through V. For example, if over the twenty-year span of the project, we expect a hypothetical new hotel to generate 105% of the market average REVPAR, this means that in Year I it would generate 97% of market (105% times 92%), and in Year II 112% (105% times Year II's 107%), and then peak at 118% for Years III-V. Study Method The underlying design for this study was to determine what effect a property's age had on its REVPAR during the first five years of operation. From two other studies, we know that properties will decline at 1.67% per year, versus the market average, over long periods of time. The second study sample consisted of all new Texas development in the early 1980's, a time of major under-supply. Consequently, the first few years performance of this group of hotels and motels was probably be overstated - versus the current, more-normal times. The current study confirmed that belief. The current study's design was to develop the REVPAR index for every new chain property (each new property's REVPAR, divided by the REVPAR of all nearby hotels and motels). Then all the resulting indices were averaged. This process was done for each year of development, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, in order to obtain data for "Year I," "Year II" and so on. These were averaged as well to obtain an over-all, average Year I result. This process produced the graph curve shown above, and is reflective of the particular mix of chain properties, a mix which produced REVPAR slightly above the market average. To eliminate the effect of a specific mix of chains, the scale was moved down slightly, so that the application of the year-by-year REVPAR indices to any project would result in averaging 100 of the first twenty years of the project.

Page 85 of 105 REVPAR OF ALL NEW CHAIN HOTELS OPENED 1990-1994 INCLUDES THEIR LOCAL MARKET AVERAGES (SAME ZIP-CODES) Opened 1990 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Year VI 9 Chain hotels 41.97 49.45 54.76 54.17 59.45 66.16 Local Market Average 35.38 37.40 39.72 39.71 43.31 48.87 Index New Chain/Market 119 132 138 136 137 135 (Peak) Opened 1991 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Year VI 8 Chain hotels 32.06 37.95 41.49 44.18 46.26 Local Market Average 29.96 31.26 32.36 33.04 33.70 est Index New Chain/Market 107 121 128 134 137 135 (Peak) Above assumes Year VI index decline of 1.67% Opened 1992 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Year VI 7 Chain hotels 25.07 36.53 39.76 41.74 Local Market Average 30.60 33.62 34.36 37.49 est est Index New Chain/Market 82 109 116 111 111 109 (Peak) Above assumes Year V is "flat" and Year VI index declines by 1.67% Opened 1993 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Year VI 16 Chain hotels 24.51 29.15 33.19 Local Market Average 30.70 31.88 35.27 est est est Index New Chain/Market 80 91 94 94 93 91 (Peak) (Peak) Above assumes Year III and IV are Peak, and Year V and Year VI index declines by 1.67% annually Opened 1994 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Year VI 29 Chain hotels 30.40 35.97 Local Market Average 38.68 41.29 est est est est Index New Chain/Market 79 87 90 89 87 86 Above assumes Year III and Year IV Peak equals Year II plus 4%, as above, and Year V and Year VI index declines by 1.67% annually Peak COMBINED INDICES Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V Year VI Average of Raw Data 93 108 113 113 113 111 Adjusted 100 over 20 years 92 107 112 112 112 110 After Year V, Declines Average 1.67% Per Annum In the sixth year and thereafter, the twenty-year average REVPAR index is diminished at a rate of 1.67% per annum in order to reflect aging and the normal life-cycle of a hotel.

Page 86 of 105 This pattern of declining performance with property aging is based on major studies of economic life-cycle patterns, studies which were conducted on a census of all 25,000 Texas rooms built between 1980 and 1982 (study published in September 1994 issues of MarketShare and the October 1994 issue of Hotel & Motel Management). These Source Strategies studies confirm a similar, major study conducted in 1982 at the Holiday corporation on 160 company-owned and companyoperated hotels.

Page 87 of 105 EXHIBIT VII CapEx: A STUDY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN THE US HOTEL INDUSTRY THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS' 2000 "CAPEX STUDY, A STUDY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN THE US HOTEL INDUSTRY" AS IT APPLIES TO LIMITED SERVICE PROPERTIES: The objective of our historical analysis in CapEx 2000 was to determine what has been spent in the past to maintain a hotel in good, competitive condition. Hotel owners and management companies were contacted to provide data for the study. Definition of CapEx "Capital Expenditure" is defined as: investments of cash or the creation of liability to acquire or improve an asset, e.g., land, buildings, building additions, site improvements, machinery, equipment; Comparatively, the "reserve for replacement" for a hotel asset has been narrowly defined as the funds set aside for the periodic replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E). The reserve was not contemplated to fund the replacement of major building components, such as roofs, elevators, and chillers. For this study the term has been defined as: the cost of replacing worn out FF&E, as well as the cost of; - updating design and decor - curing functional and economic obsolescence... - complying with franchisors' brand requirements - technology improvements - product change to meet market demands - adhering to government regulatory requirements - replacing all short and long lived building components due to wear and tear Although many equity investors frequently argue against the necessity of a reserve, particularly if the investor does not plan to hold the property for greater than five years, the requirement for and amount of reserves are typically contractual issues between ownership, lender, manager, and/or franchisor/franchisee. Significant Findings of CapEx 2000 The average amount spent per year by limited-service hotels in the survey was determined to be 5.5% of total revenue for the time period covered by CapEx 2000 (1988-1998). As these limited-service hotels have matured, CapEx has increased, underscoring one of our principal findings that CapEx requirements increase as a hotel ages. CapEx Spending is highly dependent upon a hotel's point in its life cycle. The following chart shows the range of CapEx spending (as a percentage of

total revenues) over a 25-year time period; the table following the chart Page 88 of 105 identifies the specific ranges of CapEx spending as a% of total revenues by year. Percentage Range of CapEx Spending by Year Year Range Minimum Range Maximum 1 1.65% 4.51% 2 1.72% 3.29% 3 1.48% 3.15% 4 1.31% 3.64% 5 3.21% 6.23% 6 4.80% 6.77% 7 4.15% 5.85% 8 3.60% 5.23% 9 4.83% 7.01% 10 8.43% 11.94% 11 4.66% 6.55% 12 5.42% 9.36% 13 4.66% 9.93% 14 4.66% 7.82% 15 3.35% 5.72% 16 5.12% 12.40% 17 5.10% 10.50% 18 2.51% 9.72% 19 2.93% 8.10% 20 2.37% 8.68% 21 2.37% 6.99% 22 3.20% 6.84% 23 5.07% 16.98% 24 3.45% 12.88% 25 5.05% 10.24% As the data indicates, CapEx spending increases over time for all (U.S.) hotels, with large differences in both the level of CapEx spending and timing across different hotels. The data illustrates that, over time, the minimum and maximum levels of CapEx spending generally widens as a hotel increases in age.

Page 89 of 105 For limited-service hotels, the first major increase in spending occurs in the sixth year, which likely represents the replacement of soft goods. The first major spike occurs in year 10, which is likely to be the result of a rooms and corridors renovation. Smaller spikes in CapEx spending occur in the following years, with the next major spending spike occurring in year 17, which is likely building and some mechanical renovation and replacement. The following series of tables illustrates limited-service CapEx spending levels in various demographic categories: CapEx 2000- Limited Service Hotels by Location Average Capex/Total CapEx per Location Age Revenue Room per Year All Properties 12.0 yrs 5.5% $1,111 Airport 9.8 yrs 5.4% $1,268 Urban 15.2 yrs 4.3% $ 820 Small City/Hwy 9.2 yrs 5.1% $ 773 Suburban 10.5 yrs 5.7% $1,172

Page 90 of 105 CapEx 2000- Limited Service Hotels by Average Daily Rate Average Average Capex/Total CapEx per Daily Rate Age Revenue Room per Year All Properties 12.0 yrs 5.5% $1,111 < $60 12.7 yrs 5.0% $ 687 $60-$80 12.5 yrs 6.3% $1,134 > $80 12.0 yrs 5.3% $1,570 CapEx 2000- Limited Service Hotels by Property Size Average Capex/Total CapEx per Property Size Age Revenue Room per Year All Properties 12.0 yrs 5.5% $1,111 < 100 rooms 8.7 yrs 3.3% $ 475 100-150 rooms 10.3 yrs 5.4% $1,107 > 150 rooms 20.0 yrs 6.9% $1,360 -CapEx 2000- Limited Service Hotels by Age of Property Average Capex/Total CapEx per Daily Rate Revenue Room per Year All Properties 5.5% $1,111 > 15 yrs old 6.5% $1,372 5-15 yrs old 4.8% $ 897 < 5 yrs old 3.0% $ 547 Overall, the study details the varying levels of capital required to keep a hotel competitive in its life cycle. Historically, many operators have held no more than 3-4% of gross revenues in reserve, a level which may be sufficient for FF&E replacement, but is woefully inadequate for other required expenditures. 15 15 Data compiled and organized from the CapEx report of the International Society of Hospitality Consultants, copyright 2000.

Page 91 of 105 Market Texas Tourism Office of the Governor, Economic Development & Tourism TEXAS HOTEL PERFORMANCE REPORT: FIRST QUARTER 2010 May 30, 2010 Texas lodging room revenues dropped 2.9% in the First quarter of 2010 after an 8.0% decline in the First quarter of 2090. The market lost 17.6% for all of 2009 after gaining 8.5% in 2008, 8.9% in 2007, 13% in 2006 and 15% in 2005. This First quarter 2010 decline represents an 11.2% point drop versus the First quarter of 2008, two years ago. The Fourth quarter of 2008 marked the end of four years of revenue growth levels above 8%. First quarter 2010 room revenues eroded to $1.546 billion versus $1.593 billion a year ago. Prices declined by 5.1%, on top of a 3.6% decline in the First quarter of 2009. Revenue Per Available Room per day (REVPAR) plummeted by 19.3% against the First quarter of 2008. However, the most important industry driver, roomnights sold, increased by a modest 2.4% over last year although they are still 2.8% lower than 2008 levels. Room supply in the quarter grew 6.4%, growing in response to high occupancies prior to 2009. Due to generally low returns on investment, the development pipeline should soon empty and net supply growth should cease. First quarter occupancy dropped 3.7%, from 56.9% to 54.9% (2 points), well below the 59% long-term industry average, First quarter market results indicate a probable bottoming of the severe recession but do not yet indicate a significant recovery to the normal levels enjoyed in 2008 and earlier. With the important exception of a small increase in Roomnights sold, every