FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY: Springhill Suites by Marriott, Resort XxxxxXxxx xxx XXxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxx Universal City, Texas 78148

Page 1 of 102 November 9, 2011 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY: Springhill Suites by Marriott, Resort XxxxxXxxx xxx XXxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxx Universal City, Texas 78148 This study has been prepared to determine the financial feasibility of building and operating a 90 unit Springhill Suites hotel on the IH-35 service road, adjacent to and having an association with the Olympia Hills Golf Course, in Universal City, Texas. The property is expected to open in July of 2013. The site is convenient to the Forum at Olympia Parkway, nearby interstate highways (IH-35, IH-1604, and IH-10), Randolph AFB, and to the many businesses, restaurants and other amenities in the immediate area. Project quality is set to meet the physical and operating standards of the Springhill Suites brand, a product of the Marriott Corporation. All projections herein are based on operating this hotel as a Springhill Suites by Marriott, and retaining the brand name in good standing at the time of an assumed sale after 10 years. Actual market acceptance for a Springhill Suites by Marriott has been quantified versus market averages, and has been assumed in developing this study. Operating costs are set at the level of similar 'Mini-Suite hotels in the region. KEY FINDING: Developing and opening a Springhill Suites Hotel at this site should generate an unleveraged, pre-tax return on total invested capital approaching 16%, with a return on equity of 30%. This return on invested capital also assumes that improvements are completed at the estimated cost of $90,000 per unit, plus $1,348,182 for land. This is a good hotel investment. Project details follow: PO Box 120055, San Antonio, TX 78212 210-734-3434 Fax 210-735-7970 www.sourcestrategies.org

Page 2 of 102 Total Investment Land Cost $ 1,348,182 for 3.095 acres Improvements Budget $ 8,100,000 @ $90,000 per key Total Investment $ 9,448,182 Pre-Tax Project Return 15.64% 1 Pre-Tax Return on Equity 30.10% 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 and beyond. See the Market section for more details. With a July 2013 opening, cash flow market projections for the Springhill Suites Hotel Universal City, 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 62.8% $103.66* $65.11 $2,256,542 $1,060,945 Year II 70.3% $110.92 $77.96 $2,701,780 $1,356,085 Year III 72.3% $116.46 $84.15 $2,916,506 $1,488,964 Year IV 72.3% $119.96 $86.68 $3,004,002 $1,521,617 Year V 73.0% $122.35 $89.28 $3,094,122 $1,479,354 Year VI 72.5% $124.80 $90.42 $3,133,723 $1,468,714 Year VII 72.3% $126.67 $91.58 $3,173,832 $1,501,101 Year VIII 72.4% $128.07 $92.75 $3,214,454 $1,524,129 Year IX 72.6% $129.47 $93.94 $3,255,596 $1,465,728 Year X 72.5% $130.90 $94.91 $3,289,261 $12,639,334*** *Year I ADR equates to approximately $100 in current market dollars.**before Income Tax & Financing expense, but reflecting $1,770,826 in reserves for capital expenditures / property renovation ($19,676 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 40% equity and 60% debt at a 6% pre-tax debt cost; calculated weighted average.

Page 3 of 102 The above cash flow, assuming a Year 10 sale, has been discounted at the rate of 15.64% to a present value of $9,446,172, equaling the total budgeted investment of $9,448,182. This 15.64% is the project's unleveraged return, provided capital is kept at this level. An estimated capital budget for construction and FF&E of $90,000 per unit 'turn-key' costs for a hotel of this size and quality is above average for this brand and quality of product, in our experience, but reflects enhanced public spaces around the hotel. 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%) $76.5 $6,885 $1,348 $8,233 18.35% 36.88% (90%) $81.0 $7,290 $1,348 $8,638 17.38% 34.45% (95%) $85.5 $7,695 $1,348 $9,043 16.48% 32.20% BUDGET $90.0 $8,100 $1,348 $9,448 15.64% 30.10% (105%) $94.5 $8,505 $1,348 $9,853 14.84% 28.10% (110%) $99.0 $8,910 $1,348 $10,258 14.10% 26.25% (115%) $103.5 $9,315 $1,348 $10,663 13.39% 24.47% 3. Discounted Cash Flow / Internal Rate of Return.

Page 4 of 102 Year III 2015/2016 Room Revenues $2,764,461 Total Revenues $2,916,506 Income Before Fixed Costs $1,754,289 (60.2%) Net Income Before Tax & Fin. $1,374,600 (47.1%) Cash Flow Before Financing $1,488,964 (51.1%) 4 Occupancy % 72.3% Average Daily Rate $116.46 $ REVPAR $ 84.15 Per Occupied Room Cost $ 48.96 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 Universal City Area Market 5 reflect a mixture of old and some new hotels. The average hotel room in the local market is 19 years old, more than half of the way through the life cycle of the typical hotel building, and past its peak performing years. The typical hotel building becomes stylistically and structurally obsolete after 30 years, though this figure is larger for high-rise/concrete structures. Most tellingly, the local market has 620 hotel rooms built before 1990 (and 647 rooms built since 2004), with these older, too large properties pulling down the overall market performance. 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 slowly. After mixed results in the past 12 months as new supply was 4. Before deductions of loan principal and interest, before income tax deductions, and before any equity payout. 5. Zipcodes 78233/154/108/247/266/154/148, north from IH-35 & IH-410 through Schertz.

Page 5 of 102 absorbed into the market, occupancy is expected to continue to rise, in the short term and overall, towards an equilibrium level of 57% by 2012. 6 Further, REVPAR in this market is projected to grow by 3.6% annually over the next nine years, reflecting a continuing market recovery and the replacement of obsolete hotel product. Detailed local market history and projections commence on page 16. UNIVERSAL CITY AREA MARKET Year Occupancy % $ REVPAR 2002 52.3% $ 24.36 2004 54.6% $ 25.35 2006 56.4% $ 32.78 2008 54.5% $ 34.53 2011 53.6% $ 28.85 7 Projected 2012 57.0% $ 31.69 2019 57.0% $ 37.74 Historical Annual Compound Growth Rates Past 9 Year Average 0.4% 1.8% Past 4 Year Average -1.0% -3.4% Past Year Average -0.9% -2.1% Future Annual Compound Growth Rates Next 9 Years 0.7% 3.6% Next 5 Years 1.3% 4.0% 2. Versus the local market's REVPAR dollar projections, the REVPAR index of the proposed Springhill Suites Hotel ramps upwards, peaking at 240% 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. SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL DERIVATION Data in 2011 $ s Year I Year II Year III Base: Name & Quality 1.60 1.60 1.60 x Brand Age Adjustment 0.91 0.91 0.91 x Site Value Adjustment 1.25 1.25 1.25 x Size Adjustment 1.07 1.07 1.07 x Other Adjustments 1.10 1.10 1.10 x Newness Adjustment 0.92 1.07 1.12 = Performance Factor 197% 229% 240% x Market REVPAR $28.85 $28.85 $28.85 = Projected Performance $56.84 $66.11 $69.20 6. Early data for the 3 rd Quarter of 2011 indicate a +10% jump in REVPAR for the average property. This data has been applied in the local market projection. 7. 12 months ending June 30, 2011.

Page 6 of 102 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 well above the market average. The hotel's REVPAR index starts in Year I at 197% of the market, rises to it s peak of 240% 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, high-quality mini-suite hotel products from Smith Travel Research Host Reports operating statistics, inflated at 3% per annum. See page 46 for details. 4. The hotel is expected to operate with significant ties to the Olympia Hills Golf & Conference Center, with a dedicated paved path suitable for golf cart/shuttle vehicles from the hotel to the center, and with golf vacation packages and room packages specially available to hotel guests. The course itself currently sees 37,000 rounds of golf annually.

Page 7 of 102 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 San Antonio 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 Universal City 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 57% 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 102 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 Springhill Suites Hotels in similar areas 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. 8 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 8 Study detailed in size factor derivation in analysis section.

Page 9 of 102 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. As a renovated property, this factor is slightly different. 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 102 between 1980 and 1982 (study published in September 1994 issues of MarketShare 9 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. 9 Now Hotel Brand Report.

Page 11 of 102 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 102 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 102 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 102 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 4,525 393,150 21,015 1,780,717 59.4 84.74 50.33 2.0 10.5 15.3 8.4 112 4,752 399,144 21,940 1,942,092 60.4 88.52 53.47 1.6 9.3 12.6 7.5 CGR% 28 yrs 3.0% 2.8% 5.8% -0.2% 2.9% 2.6% 20yrs 3.0% 2.8% 5.6% -0.2% 2.7% 2.5% 10yrs 2.8% 2.2% 4.0% -0.5% 1.8% 1.2% 5yrs 3.4% 1.7% 3.4% -1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 1yr 2.9% 10.2% 12.2% 7.2% 1.9% 9.2% 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 102 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 113 4,955 403,648 22,063 1,934,415 59.4 $87.68 $52.09 1.0 6.0 5.0 11.3 114 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 Projection Begins $10 $0 Year

Page 16 of 102 Market REVPAR History & Forecast: 2. Over the past nine years, the San Antonio Metro Market has shown an average annual real growth of 3.3% (room-nights sold), annual growth of 4.7% in total room revenues, and a 0.9% annual gain in REVPAR; note that the severe recession of 2009 depressed the longterm performance numbers. Occupancy fell 0.4% per year over the nine years. Supply rose by 3.8% per year, with room rates also rising 1.3% annually. Over the past four years, a gain of 3.9% per year in demand was coupled with higher levels of supply growth, at +5.8% annually. Revenues over this period rose an average of 2.2% per year, while REVPAR slipped 3.4% annually. Room rates fell 1.6% per year. Occupancy decreased over the last four years by 1.8% per year. Over the last two years, demand rose by 7% annually. Results also were good due to a lower 6.3% annual increase in supply. These results caused occupancy to rise by 0.6% annually, though REVPAR still fell 2.1% year over year due to room rates falling 2.7% per year. Yearly revenues rose 4.1%. Most recent history, the 12 months ending June 2011, show even more positive results. Real demand rose by 9%, rates rose by 2.3%, revenues rose by 11.4%; occupancy gained 2.9%, as supply still grew by 6%. REVPAR gained 5.1% for the average hotel. For comparison, revenues rose 9.1% for the state of Texas in the latest year. San Antonio Metro market occupancy averaged 58.1%, above the 57% for the overall state of Texas.

Page 17 of 102 LODGING MARKET HISTORY: SAN ANTONIO 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 013 336 32,199 1,765 153,774 59.6 87.10 51.91 014 327 31,155 1,462 122,539 51.0 83.83 42.75 021 329 31,307 1,798 154,304 63.8 85.82 54.76 022 350 32,175 1,965 177,041 67.1 90.08 60.47 023 348 33,023 1,840 160,909 60.6 87.43 52.96 2.6 4.2 0.4 4.6 024 342 32,307 1,521 127,112 51.2 83.57 42.77 3.7 4.1-0.3 3.7 031 340 32,538 1,734 143,243 59.2 82.62 48.91 3.9-3.6-3.7-7.2 032 358 33,071 1,967 172,159 65.4 87.52 57.21 2.8 0.1-2.8-2.8 033 358 33,821 1,935 166,162 62.2 85.86 53.40 2.4 5.2-1.8 3.3 034 349 32,699 1,578 127,021 52.5 80.48 42.22 1.2 3.8-3.7-0.1 041 348 32,700 1,798 150,002 61.1 83.43 50.97 0.5 3.7 1.0 4.7 042 365 33,208 1,931 171,352 63.9 88.74 56.70 0.4-1.8 1.4-0.5 043 370 34,166 1,924 169,169 61.2 87.91 53.82 1.0-0.6 2.4 1.8 044 360 33,238 1,653 142,643 54.0 86.30 46.65 1.6 4.7 7.2 12.3 051 361 33,404 1,858 160,133 61.8 86.17 53.26 2.2 3.4 3.3 6.8 052 383 34,165 2,117 207,676 68.1 98.11 66.80 2.9 9.6 10.6 21.2 053 386 34,863 2,112 195,703 65.8 92.68 61.02 2.0 9.7 5.4 15.7 054 376 34,139 1,781 164,434 56.7 92.32 52.35 2.7 7.8 7.0 15.3 061 374 34,331 2,016 191,566 65.2 95.05 62.00 2.8 8.5 10.3 19.6 062 397 34,855 2,064 223,285 65.1 108.20 70.40 2.0-2.5 10.3 7.5 063 404 35,826 2,187 220,219 66.4 100.68 66.81 2.8 3.6 8.6 12.5 064 390 34,762 1,789 181,124 55.9 101.22 56.63 1.8 0.5 9.6 10.1 071 389 35,122 2,048 208,348 64.8 101.72 65.91 2.3 1.6 7.0 8.8 072 408 35,724 2,045 230,005 62.9 112.48 70.75 2.5-0.9 4.0 3.0 073 413 36,773 2,167 226,020 64.1 104.30 66.81 2.6-0.9 3.6 2.6 074 397 36,038 1,807 186,466 54.5 103.17 56.24 3.7 1.0 1.9 2.9 081 399 36,392 2,086 223,037 63.7 106.92 68.10 3.6 1.8 5.1 7.1 082 427 38,277 2,220 256,420 63.7 115.52 73.62 7.1 8.6 2.7 11.5 083 431 39,135 2,274 249,613 63.2 109.75 69.33 6.4 5.0 5.2 10.4 084 406 38,446 1,810 200,282 51.2 110.64 56.62 6.7 0.2 7.2 7.4 091 407 39,015 1,987 189,063 56.6 95.15 53.84 7.2-4.8-11.0-15.2 092 429 39,969 2,138 206,750 58.8 96.71 56.84 4.4-3.7-16.3-19.4 093 436 41,297 2,254 213,703 59.3 94.80 56.25 5.5-0.9-13.6-14.4 094 409 40,513 1,783 171,410 47.8 96.16 45.99 5.4-1.5-13.1-14.4 101 417 41,836 2,198 203,264 58.4 92.49 53.98 7.2 10.6-2.8 7.5 102 454 43,336 2,387 234,358 60.5 98.17 59.43 8.4 11.7 1.5 13.4 103 465 44,663 2,553 247,641 62.1 97.00 60.27 8.2 13.3 2.3 15.9 104 428 43,535 1,950 195,055 48.7 100.03 48.70 7.5 9.4 4.0 13.8 111 434 43,929 2,349 224,591 59.4 95.60 56.81 5.0 6.9 3.4 10.5 112 469 44,856 2,543 248,867 62.3 97.86 60.97 3.5 6.5-0.3 6.2 CGR% Past 9 yrs 3.8% 3.3% 4.7% -0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 4yrs 5.8% 3.9% 2.2% -1.8% -1.6% -3.4% 2yrs 6.3% 7.0% 4.1% 0.6% -2.7% -2.1% 1yr 6.0% 9.0% 11.4% 2.9% 2.3% 5.1% 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 102 3. In the future, overall San Antonio Metro market occupancy is projected to return to the estimated long-term equilibrium occupancy level of 60% by 2012. For the next nine years, real demand (room nights sold) is projected at an average 2.6% growth rate, above the projected net supply growth of 2.2%. With 2% average daily rate inflation, market gross revenues should gain 4.7%, and REVPAR should rise 2.4% 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 San Antonio 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 44,246 rooms currently to 54,244 in 2020, 23% higher and representing 9,998 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 2.8% per annum over the next five years (compared to 0.9% REVPAR average growth of the past nine years). Revenues are

Page 19 of 102 forecast to grow by 5.7% per year on the strength of 3.6% growth in real demand and 2.1% growth in price (room-rates). Occupancy over the next five years is expected to rise by 0.7% per year, as supply rises 2.9% per year. If supply should grow 5,400 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 $71 to $65 by 2020. 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 102 SAN ANTONIO 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 113 486 46,226 2,719 269,804 63.9 99.23 63.44 3.5 6.5 2.3 8.9 114 447 45,059 2,077 212,515 50.1 102.33 51.27 3.5 6.5 2.3 9.0 121 454 45,467 2,502 244,693 61.1 97.80 59.80 3.5 6.5 2.3 9.0 122 488 46,202 2,709 271,151 64.4 100.11 64.49 3.0 6.5 2.3 9.0 123 506 47,613 2,828 286,208 64.6 101.22 65.34 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.1 124 466 46,410 2,160 225,436 50.6 104.38 52.80 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.1 131 472 46,831 2,602 259,570 61.7 99.75 61.59 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.1 132 508 47,588 2,817 287,637 65.0 102.11 66.42 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.1 133 526 49,041 2,898 299,230 64.2 103.24 66.32 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.5 134 484 47,803 2,214 235,694 50.3 106.46 53.59 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.5 141 491 48,235 2,667 271,381 61.4 101.75 62.51 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.5 142 528 49,015 2,887 300,724 64.7 104.16 67.42 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.6 143 545 50,267 2,971 312,845 64.2 105.30 67.65 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 144 501 48,998 2,269 246,418 50.3 108.59 54.66 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.6 151 508 49,441 2,734 283,729 61.4 103.78 63.76 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 152 547 50,241 2,959 314,407 64.7 106.24 68.77 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 153 564 51,524 3,045 327,080 64.2 107.41 69.00 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 154 519 50,223 2,326 257,630 50.3 110.77 55.76 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 161 526 50,677 2,802 296,638 61.4 105.86 65.04 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 162 566 51,497 3,033 328,713 64.7 108.36 70.14 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.6 163 584 52,812 3,121 341,962 64.2 109.56 70.38 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 164 538 51,478 2,384 269,352 50.3 112.98 56.87 2.5 2.5 2.0 4.5 171 542 51,691 2,858 308,622 61.4 107.98 66.34 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 172 583 52,527 3,094 341,993 64.7 110.53 71.55 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 173 602 53,868 3,184 355,777 64.2 111.75 71.79 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 174 554 52,508 2,432 280,234 50.3 115.24 58.01 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 181 553 52,208 2,887 317,943 61.4 110.14 67.67 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 182 595 53,052 3,125 352,321 64.7 112.74 72.98 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 183 614 54,407 3,216 366,521 64.2 113.99 73.22 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 184 565 53,033 2,456 288,697 50.3 117.55 59.17 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 191 565 52,730 2,916 327,545 61.4 112.34 69.02 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 192 607 53,582 3,156 362,961 64.7 115.00 74.44 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 193 626 54,951 3,248 377,590 64.2 116.26 74.69 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 194 576 53,563 2,481 297,415 50.3 119.90 60.35 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 201 576 53,257 2,945 337,437 61.4 114.59 70.40 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 202 619 54,118 3,188 373,922 64.7 117.30 75.93 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 203 639 55,501 3,280 388,994 64.2 118.59 76.18 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 204 588 54,099 2,505 306,397 50.3 122.29 61.56 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 211 588 53,790 2,974 347,627 61.4 116.88 71.81 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 212 632 54,659 3,220 385,215 64.7 119.64 77.45 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 213 652 56,056 3,313 400,741 64.2 120.96 77.71 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 214 600 54,640 2,530 315,650 50.3 124.74 62.79 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 221 599 54,328 3,004 358,126 61.4 119.22 73.24 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 222 645 55,206 3,252 396,848 64.7 122.03 78.99 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 9yr CGR % 2.2% 2.6% 4.7% 0.4% 2.0% 2.4% 5yrs 2.9% 3.6% 5.7% 0.7% 2.1% 2.8% HISTORY CGR% Past 9yrs 3.8% 3.3% 4.7% -0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 4yrs 5.8% 3.9% 2.2% -1.8% -1.6% -3.4% 1yr 6.0% 9.0% 11.4% 2.9% 2.3% 5.1% 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 102 LOCAL MARKET PERFORMANCE 4. The subject hotel s market of the local Universal City Area 10 currently generates a REVPAR of $29 compared to the Texas average of $49: PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: UNIVERSAL CITY AREA #* EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR COMFO STE 1.1 3.1 13 3.5 837 4.3 60.7 66.21 40.22 HAWTHORN UNIV CITY.1 5.5 23 6.3 1,111 5.7 61.5 48.54 29.85 TOT MIN STE 2.2 8.6 36 9.8 1,948 10.0 61.2 54.82 33.57 BEST WEST 1.1 3.8 11 3.1 489 2.5 44.5 43.07 19.15 COMFORT SELMA 1.1 4.7 15 4.2 942 4.8 47.8 61.41 29.34 FAIRFIELD SCHERTZ.1 6.4 27 7.5 1,884 9.6 63.3 69.15 43.74 HAMPTON SCHERTZ.1 5.3 24 6.5 2,075 10.6 65.8 88.20 58.02 HOL EXPRESS SELMA.1 4.5 21 5.7 2,097 10.7 67.9 100.77 68.40 LA QUINTA 2.2 11.7 47 12.8 3,187 16.3 58.8 68.40 40.24 TOT LTD SVE 7.7 36.4 145 39.9 10,675 54.6 58.8 73.68 43.33 VALUE PLC 1.1 6.5 31 8.5 962 4.9 69.7 31.22 21.78 DAYS INN 2.1 6.4 22 6.0 955 4.9 50.0 43.99 22.00 MOTEL 6 1.1 6.1 25 7.0 842 4.3 61.8 33.01 20.40 QUALITY 1.1 4.0 9 2.6 448 2.3 35.0 47.37 16.60 RODEWAY 1.1 4.8 13 3.7 358 1.8 40.8 26.71 10.90 SUPER 8 2.2 9.6 35 9.7 1,542 7.9 54.0 43.96 23.73 TOT BUDGET 7.6 30.9 105 29.0 4,145 21.2 50.2 39.42 19.79 TOT CHAINS 17 1.5 82.4 316 87.2 17,730 90.7 56.7 56.04 31.77 LOW PRICE INDEP 4.3 17.6 47 12.8 1,813 9.3 39.0 38.93 15.19 TOTAL MARKET 21 1.9 100.0 363 100.0 19,543 100 53.6 53.85 28.85 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60). 10 Zipcodes 78233/154/108/247/266/154/148.

Page 22 of 102 Local Market REVPAR History & Forecast: 5. Over the past nine years, the local Universal City Area Market has shown real growth (room-nights sold) of 4%, and annual growth of 5.4% in total room revenues, and a 1.8% annual gain in REVPAR; note that the severe recession of 2009 depressed the long-term performance numbers. Occupancy rose 0.4% per year over the nine years. Supply rose by 3.5% per year, with room rates flat. Over the past four years, 9% annual demand gains were coupled with a large gain in supply of 10.1% annually. Revenues over this period rose an average of 6.3% per year, while REVPAR fell 3.4% annually. Room rates fell 2.3% per year. Occupancy decreased over the last four years by 1% per year. Over the last two years, demand rose by 10% annually, and supply rose 9%. Rates fell 4.2% per year, and yearly revenues rose 5.2%. These results caused occupancy to rise by 0.7% annually, followed by REVPAR falling 3.8% per year. Most recent history, the 12 months ending June 30, 2011, shows a slow recovery stuttering with the amount of new supply still entering the market, and the impact of too many low priced, budget hotels. Real demand rose an impressive 9.4%, rates fell by 1.2%, revenues rose by 8% and occupancy fell by 0.9%. With a supply increase of 10.5%, REVPAR fell 2.1%. Market occupancy averaged 53.6% versus 57% for the state.

Page 23 of 102 LODGING MARKET HISTORY: UNIVERSAL CITY 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 013 15 1,356 71 3,725 56.8 52.56 29.86 014 15 1,356 47 2,025 38.0 42.76 16.23 021 15 1,356 65 2,926 53.6 44.72 23.97 022 15 1,356 72 3,481 58.2 48.50 28.21 023 15 1,356 70 3,476 55.8 49.92 27.86 0.0-1.8-5.0-6.7 024 15 1,355 52 2,172 41.7 41.82 17.43-0.1 9.5-2.2 7.3 031 15 1,355 62 2,626 50.5 42.61 21.53-0.1-5.8-4.7-10.3 032 15 1,304 69 3,343 57.9 48.70 28.17-3.8-4.3 0.4-4.0 033 15 1,304 73 3,578 61.0 48.89 29.83-3.8 5.2-2.1 2.9 034 14 1,194 50 2,076 45.2 41.77 18.90-11.9-4.2-0.1-4.4 041 14 1,193 59 2,510 55.1 42.41 23.38-12.0-3.9-0.5-4.4 042 14 1,193 64 3,111 58.5 48.95 28.66-8.5-7.4 0.5-6.9 043 14 1,193 67 3,363 61.0 50.25 30.64-8.5-8.6 2.8-6.0 044 14 1,193 48 2,054 43.8 42.73 18.71-0.1-3.2 2.3-1.1 051 14 1,179 62 2,664 58.0 43.29 25.10-1.2 3.9 2.1 6.1 052 14 1,179 61 3,024 56.4 49.94 28.18-1.2-4.7 2.0-2.8 053 14 1,179 69 3,692 63.8 53.39 34.04-1.2 3.4 6.2 9.8 054 15 1,208 56 2,739 50.5 48.78 24.64 1.3 16.6 14.2 33.3 061 15 1,276 65 3,317 56.4 51.20 28.88 8.2 5.4 18.3 24.5 062 15 1,276 68 4,264 58.3 62.96 36.72 8.2 11.7 26.1 41.0 063 15 1,276 76 4,632 64.8 60.85 39.46 8.2 10.0 14.0 25.5 064 15 1,236 52 2,933 45.8 56.38 25.79 2.3-7.3 15.6 7.1 071 15 1,236 62 3,407 55.5 55.22 30.62-3.1-4.8 7.9 2.7 072 16 1,306 68 4,323 57.0 63.78 36.38 2.4 0.1 1.3 1.4 073 16 1,317 78 4,914 64.0 63.40 40.56 3.2 1.8 4.2 6.1 074 17 1,340 62 3,693 50.4 59.42 29.95 8.4 19.4 5.4 25.9 081 19 1,467 73 4,369 55.0 60.17 33.09 18.7 17.7 9.0 28.2 082 19 1,467 76 4,980 57.2 65.25 37.30 12.3 12.5 2.3 15.2 083 19 1,467 85 5,659 62.6 66.96 41.93 11.4 9.0 5.6 15.2 084 18 1,508 60 3,611 43.6 59.74 26.03 12.5-2.7 0.5-2.2 091 19 1,610 75 3,978 51.9 52.90 27.45 9.7 3.6-12.1-8.9 092 19 1,660 80 4,414 53.0 55.09 29.22 13.2 5.0-15.6-11.4 093 19 1,660 91 5,132 59.5 56.51 33.60 13.2 7.5-15.6-9.3 094 19 1,615 67 3,666 45.0 54.85 24.67 7.1 10.6-8.2 1.5 101 19 1,678 83 4,306 55.2 51.63 28.51 4.2 10.9-2.4 8.2 102 20 1,766 91 4,986 56.5 54.94 31.02 6.4 13.2-0.3 13.0 103 21 1,840 104 5,836 61.6 55.95 34.47 10.8 14.9-1.0 13.7 104 21 1,840 69 3,796 40.7 55.13 22.42 13.9 3.1 0.5 3.5 111 21 1,840 88 4,478 53.2 50.83 27.04 9.7 5.6-1.5 4.0 112 22 1,904 102 5,433 58.7 53.41 31.36 7.8 12.1-2.8 9.0 CGR% Past 9 yrs 3.5% 4.0% 5.4% 0.4% 1.5% 1.8% 4yrs 10.1% 9.0% 6.3% -1.0% -2.3% -3.4% 2yrs 9.0% 10.0% 5.2% 0.7% -4.2% -3.8% 1yr 10.5% 9.4% 8.0% -0.9% -1.2% -2.1% Wider Market History CGR% Past 9yrs 3.8% 3.3% 4.7% -0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 4yrs 5.8% 3.9% 2.2% -1.8% -1.6% -3.4% 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 24 of 102 6. Overall market occupancy is projected to recover as the general economy continues to rebound. This translates to a gain in occupancies to the long-term equilibrium level of 57%, relatively quickly (by 2012). REVPAR should grow 3.6% annually in the period, coupled with revenue growth of 6.4% annually, 2.8% annual rate increases, and a 0.7% annual occupancy gains. Over the next nine years, real demand (room nights sold) is projected at an average 3.4% growth rate, with supply rising 2.7%. 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 Universal City 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 1,856 rooms currently to 2,357 in 2020, 27% higher and representing 501 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 4% per annum over the next five years. Revenues during this upcoming period are forecast to grow at 7.9% per year on the strength of 5% growth in real demand starting from the trough of 2009 - and

Page 25 of 102 2.7% growth in price (room-rates). Occupancy over the next five years is expected to gain 1.3% annually, as supply rises by 3.7% per year. If supply should grow 240 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 $41 to $37 in 2020.

Page 26 of 102 LODGING MARKET PROJECTION: UNIVERSAL CITY 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 113 23 1,987 122 6,964 66.7 57.07 38.09 8.0 17.0 2.0 19.3 114 23 1,987 77 4,339 42.2 56.23 23.74 8.0 12.0 2.0 14.3 121 23 1,987 99 5,116 55.2 51.85 28.60 8.0 12.0 2.0 14.2 122 23 1,961 114 6,205 63.8 54.48 34.77 3.0 12.0 2.0 14.2 123 24 2,047 126 7,352 66.7 58.50 39.04 3.0 3.0 2.5 5.6 124 24 2,047 79 4,581 42.2 57.64 24.33 3.0 3.0 2.5 5.6 131 24 2,047 102 5,401 55.2 53.14 29.32 3.0 3.0 2.5 5.6 132 24 2,020 117 6,551 63.8 55.84 35.64 3.0 3.0 2.5 5.6 133 25 2,108 129 7,800 66.7 60.25 40.22 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 134 25 2,108 82 4,860 42.2 59.37 25.06 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 141 25 2,108 105 5,730 55.2 54.74 30.20 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 142 25 2,081 121 6,950 63.8 57.52 36.71 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 143 26 2,171 133 8,275 66.7 62.06 41.42 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 144 26 2,171 84 5,156 42.2 61.15 25.81 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 151 26 2,171 108 6,079 55.2 56.38 31.10 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 152 26 2,143 124 7,373 63.8 59.24 37.81 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 153 27 2,237 137 8,779 66.7 63.92 42.67 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 154 27 2,237 87 5,470 42.2 62.98 26.58 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 161 27 2,237 111 6,449 55.2 58.07 32.04 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 162 27 2,207 128 7,823 63.8 61.02 38.94 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 163 28 2,270 139 9,178 66.7 65.84 43.95 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 164 28 2,270 88 5,719 42.2 64.87 27.38 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 171 28 2,270 113 6,742 55.2 59.81 33.00 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 172 27 2,240 130 8,178 63.8 62.85 40.11 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 173 28 2,304 141 9,595 66.7 67.81 45.26 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 174 29 2,304 89 5,979 42.2 66.82 28.20 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 181 28 2,304 114 7,049 55.2 61.61 33.99 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 182 28 2,274 132 8,550 63.8 64.73 41.32 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 183 29 2,339 144 10,031 66.7 69.85 46.62 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 184 29 2,339 91 6,251 42.2 68.82 29.05 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 191 29 2,339 116 7,369 55.2 63.46 35.01 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 192 29 2,308 134 8,938 63.8 66.68 42.56 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 193 30 2,374 146 10,487 66.7 71.94 48.02 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 194 30 2,374 92 6,535 42.2 70.89 29.92 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 201 30 2,374 118 7,704 55.2 65.36 36.06 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 202 30 2,343 136 9,345 63.8 68.68 43.83 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 203 30 2,409 148 10,964 66.7 74.10 49.46 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 204 31 2,409 94 6,832 42.2 73.01 30.82 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 211 30 2,409 120 8,054 55.2 67.32 37.14 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 212 30 2,378 138 9,769 63.8 70.74 45.15 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 213 31 2,446 150 11,462 66.7 76.32 50.94 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 214 32 2,446 95 7,142 42.2 75.21 31.74 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 221 31 2,446 121 8,420 55.2 69.34 38.26 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 222 31 2,414 140 10,213 63.8 72.86 46.50 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.5 9 yrscgr % 2.7% 3.4% 6.4% 0.7% 2.8% 3.6% 5yrs 3.7% 5.0% 7.9% 1.3% 2.7% 4.0% HISTORY CGR% Past 9yrs 3.5% 4.0% 5.4% 0.4% 1.5% 1.8% 4yrs 10.1% 9.0% 6.3% -1.0% -2.3% -3.4% 1yr 10.5% 9.4% 8.0% -0.9% -1.2% -2.1% 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 102 7. Overall, the local market REVPAR index history has remained around 50% of the San Antonio Metro average over the past 10 years: MARKET REVPAR HISTORY Year & Total Local Local/Total Market Quarter Mkt Area Market Index Annualized 013 51.91 29.86 58 014 42.75 16.23 38 021 54.76 23.97 44 022 60.47 28.21 47 46 023 52.96 27.86 53 024 42.77 17.43 41 031 48.91 21.53 44 032 57.21 28.17 49 47 033 53.40 29.83 56 034 42.22 18.90 45 041 50.97 23.38 46 042 56.70 28.66 51 49 043 53.82 30.64 57 044 46.65 18.71 40 051 53.26 25.10 47 052 66.80 28.18 42 47 053 61.02 34.04 56 054 52.35 24.64 47 061 62.00 28.88 47 062 70.40 36.72 52 50 063 66.81 39.46 59 064 56.63 25.79 46 071 65.91 30.62 46 072 70.75 36.38 51 51 073 66.81 40.56 61 074 56.24 29.95 53 081 68.10 33.09 49 082 73.62 37.30 51 53 083 69.33 41.93 60 084 56.62 26.03 46 091 53.84 27.45 51 092 56.84 29.22 51 52 093 56.25 33.60 60 094 45.99 24.67 54 101 53.98 28.51 53 102 59.43 31.02 52 55 103 60.27 34.47 57 104 48.70 22.42 46 111 56.81 27.04 48 112 60.97 31.36 51 51 CGR% 9 yrs 0.9% 1.8% 4yrs -3.4% -3.4% 2yrs -2.1% -3.8% 1yr 5.1% -2.1%

Page 28 of 102 8. The REVPAR forecast calls for the local market REVPAR index to rise over time to more typical levels versus the MSA for the length of the projection: MARKET REVPAR PROJECTION Year & Total Local Local/Total Market Quarter Mkt Area Market Index Annualized 113 63.44 38.09 60 114 51.27 23.74 46 121 59.80 28.60 48 122 64.49 34.77 54 52 123 65.34 39.04 60 124 52.80 24.33 46 131 61.59 29.32 48 132 66.42 35.64 54 52 133 66.32 40.22 61 134 53.59 25.06 47 141 62.51 30.20 48 142 67.42 36.71 54 53 143 67.65 41.42 61 144 54.66 25.81 47 151 63.76 31.10 49 152 68.77 37.81 55 53 153 69.00 42.67 62 154 55.76 26.58 48 161 65.04 32.04 49 162 70.14 38.94 56 54 163 70.38 43.95 62 164 56.87 27.38 48 171 66.34 33.00 50 172 71.55 40.11 56 54 173 71.79 45.26 63 174 58.01 28.20 49 181 67.67 33.99 50 182 72.98 41.32 57 55 183 73.22 46.62 64 184 59.17 29.05 49 191 69.02 35.01 51 192 74.44 42.56 57 55 193 74.69 48.02 64 194 60.35 29.92 50 201 70.40 36.06 51 202 75.93 43.83 58 56 203 76.18 49.46 65 204 61.56 30.82 50 211 71.81 37.14 52 212 77.45 45.15 58 56 213 77.71 50.94 66 214 62.79 31.74 51 221 73.24 38.26 52 222 78.99 46.50 59 57 CGR% 9 Yrs 2.4% 3.6% First 5 Yrs 2.8% 4.0%

Page 29 of 102 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 conservative projection, local market REVPAR does not return to 2007/2008 levels until 2015/16:

Page 30 of 102 10. The occupancy projection for the Universal City Area Market is reasonable: our projection is for the local market to rise to the 57% equilibrium level by 2012:

Page 31 of 102 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 102 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 Springhill Suites Hotel in this type of market at 160% of the market average REVPAR. This valuation is based on the actual REVPAR performance of all 16 Springhill Suites Hotels currently operating in the Exhibit IV market. 11 These hotels produced a REVPAR of $56.08 in the year ending June 30, 2011, compared to the Exhibit IV market average REVPAR of $35.08, as follows: $56.08 / $35.08 = 1.599 or 160% This sample of Springhill Suites 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 0.91 (91%), a decrease in performance projections because of the age of the 16 Springhill Suites hotels in the Exhibit IV market. These Springhill Suites hotels were built on average in 2006, making the brand fairly new in terms of age, with a significant advantage because the hotels are new. This factor adjusts for the effect of the average age of the existing hotels on the brand's current 11 Texas Excluding Major Cities, Luxury, Upscale, Suites, & Midscale Segments.

Page 33 of 102 performance. 12 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 +7% premium (107% factor). The average Springhill Suites hotel in the Exhibit IV market has 109 rooms, significantly more than the subject, at 90 units, giving this hotel a strong 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 13 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. 12 Point #5, below, adjusts for the physical life-cycle of the subject property, a different and additional consideration. 13 Analyzed and compiled by Douglas W. Sutton and Bruce H. Walker.

Page 34 of 102 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.

Page 35 of 102 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, 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 102 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 110% (1.10), with a small premium given for the fact that this hotel is going to be a mini-suite hotel, a segment underrepresented in the local market. Furthermore, with significantly upgraded exterior facilities in our per-key budget, we expect the hotel to be an above average Springhill Suites. Expectations are for the pool to be situated amidst outdoor pavilions, barbecuing areas, and facing the golf course. The pool area is expected to be significantly enhanced from a typical Springhill Suites hotel pool. We have also budgeted funds in operations for a manager s happy hour / reception. Interior improvements should also include an enhanced fitness center, and the hotel is expected to be pet friendly. 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

Page 37 of 102 decline in the REVPAR index starting in Year VI. 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 1.25 (125%), or above average for the local market, but the same as the average of the nearest competition (Holiday Express). The site is convenient to the Forum at Olympia Parkway, nearby interstate highways (IH-35, IH-1604, IH-410, and IH- 10), to Randolph AFB, and to the many businesses, restaurants and other amenities in the immediate area. 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 better than 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 would indicate that a 125% site value for the Springhill Suites Hotel would be a responsible estimate:

Page 38 of 102 DERIVATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION Hawthorn Comfort Fairfield Hampton HolExpress Data in 2010/11 $ Suites I&S I&S I&S I&S Base: Name & Quality 1.24 1.00 1.45 1.70 1.64 x Brand Age Adjustment 1.08 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.92 x Site Value Adjustment 1.02 0.93 1.00 1.05 1.25 x Size Adjustment 0.99 0.92 0.90 0.95 0.98 x Other Adjustments 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.15 x Newness Adjustment 0.76 1.12 1.12 1.08 1.12 = Performance Factor 103% 102% 152% 202% 237% x Market REVPAR $28.85 $28.85 $28.85 $28.85 $28.85 = Projected Performance $29.73 $29.33 $43.81 $58.16 $68.41 Actual REVPAR 2011 $29.85 $29.34 $43.74 $58.02 $68.40 Index (Proj. Vs Actual) 100 100 100 100 100 Units in Above Subject 102 88 118 98 84 Average Units 100 66 82 82 78 Size Adjustment (33%) -1-8 -10-5 -2 Year Built 1984 2009 2009 2005 2007 Combining all six factors that affect a hotel's REVPAR performance, we calculate that the proposed hotel's REVPAR will achieve 240% of the market average REVPAR in Years III- V, declining slowly thereafter: SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL DERIVATION Data in 2011 $ s Year I Year II Year III Base: Name & Quality 1.60 1.60 1.60 x Brand Age Adjustment 0.91 0.91 0.91 x Site Value Adjustment 1.25 1.25 1.25 x Size Adjustment 1.07 1.07 1.07 x Other Adjustments 1.10 1.10 1.10 x Newness Adjustment 0.92 1.07 1.12 = Performance Factor 197% 229% 240% x Market REVPAR $28.85 $28.85 $28.85 = Projected Performance $56.84 $66.11 $69.20

Page 39 of 102 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 240%, the above process generates a theoretical REVPAR of $69.20 (in latest year market dollars). This is the result of the Year III performance index of 240% (2.4) multiplied by the current market average REVPAR of $28.85. 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 $69.20 REVPAR computes to gross room revenues of approximately $2,273,220 ($69.20 times 90 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 Third Fourth First Second Year III Room Revenues $697,187 $434,414 $512,145 $629,474 $2,273,220 % of Year 30.7% 19.1% 22.5% 27.7% 100 Seasonal Index 122 76 91 111 100 REVPAR$ $84.20 $52.47 $63.23 $76.86 $69.20 Source Strategies, Inc.'s projections of a reasonable rate and occupancy mix, a split of the Springhill Suites Hotel's REVPAR for occupancy and rate, in latest year dollars, would be as follows: Quarter Third Fourth First Second Year III ADR - $ $115.48 $73.91 $86.84 $106.24 $95.77 Occupancy % 72.9% 71.0% 72.8% 72.3% 72.3% REVPAR$ $84.20 $52.47 $63.23 $76.86 $69.20

Page 40 of 102 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 3.6% per year. REVPAR encompasses the net effects of supply and demand. Over the next nine years, we are comfortable with the 3.4% real compound growth projected for the local market, higher than the projected net supply growth of 2.7% annually, and resulting in the return to the expected equilibrium occupancy level of 57% by the early years of our projection. 2. The derived Base Value of 1.60% (160%) for a Springhill Suites 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 14 Hampton Inn 170 Holiday Express 164 Springhill Suites 160 Comfort Inn 100 Super 8 76 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: 14. Unadjusted for physical aging of each brand.

Page 41 of 102 REVPAR COMPARISON Springhill Hawthorn Comfort Fairfield Hampton Data in 2010/11$ s Yr III Suites I&S I&S I&S Base: Name & Quality 1.60 1.24 1.00 1.45 1.70 x Brand Age Adjustment 0.91 1.08 1.01 0.99 0.96 x Site Value Adjustment 1.25 1.02 0.93 1.00 1.05 x Size Adjustment 1.07 0.99 0.92 0.90 0.95 x Other Adjustments 1.10 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.15 x Newness Adjustment 1.12 0.76 1.12 1.12 1.08 = Performance Factor 240% 103% 102% 152% 202% x Market REVPAR $28.85 28.85 28.85 28.85 28.85 = Projected Performance $69.20 29.73 29.33 43.81 58.16 Actual Past Year n/a 29.85 29.34 43.74 58.02 Index (Proj. Vs. Actual n/a 100 100 100 100 4. The projected REVPAR performance of the Springhill Suites Hotel versus the local market average reflects the fact that this hotel s physical quality will be very high:

Page 42 of 102 5. The graphically projected Occupancy performance of the Springhill 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:

Page 43 of 102 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 19 years old, more than half of the way through the life cycle of the typical hotel building, and past its peak performing years. The typical hotel building becomes stylistically and structurally obsolete after 30 years, though this figure is larger for high-rise/concrete structures. Most tellingly, the local market has 620 hotel rooms built before 1990, and 647 rooms built since 2004, with these older, oversized properties pulling down the overall market performance. 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. From established consumer research, we know that 'new' means 'clean,' and 'old' means 'dirty' to the consumer, with cleanliness the number one consumer selection factor in lodging.. UNIVERSAL CITY AREA MARKET PROPERTIES Year # Open Rooms Local Hotel 2009 81 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 2009 118 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES 2009 88 COMFORT INN & SUITES 2008 57 COMFORT SUITES I-35N 2008 121 VALUE PLACE HOTEL 2007 84 HOLIDAY EXPRESS 2005 98 HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1996 61 DAYS INN WINDCREST 1996 61 ATRIUM INN FMR RALTD 1995 58 DAYS INN NORTHSIDE 1995 70 BEST WESTERN I35N GARDEN INN F 1986 136 LA QUINTA INN #640 1986 59 SUPER 8 FMR BHOST/SUPR8 1985 42 RUBY INN 1985 119 SUPER 8 FMR COMFORT INN 1984 102 CLARION SUITES VENUS INVESTMEN 1983 88 MI CASA FMR ECONO LODGE I-35N 1977 74 QUALITY INN N FMR LA PALMERA/P 1973 113 MOTEL 6 #134 ZIP 1972 90 MIDTOWN I&S FMR RODEW/CLASSIC/ 1970 120 ROYAL HAWAIAN FMR CONTI/HJ/BW

Page 44 of 102 PRO FORMA: Applying the project derivation factor (240% 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 133 40.22 79.23 197 134 25.06 49.37 197 141 30.20 59.49 197 142 36.71 72.32 197 197 143 41.42 94.86 229 144 25.81 59.11 229 151 31.10 71.23 229 152 37.81 86.59 229 229 153 42.67 102.40 240 154 26.58 63.80 240 161 32.04 76.89 240 162 38.94 93.47 240 240 163 43.95 105.47 240 164 27.38 65.72 240 171 33.00 79.20 240 172 40.11 96.27 240 240 173 45.26 108.63 240 174 28.20 67.69 240 181 33.99 81.57 240 182 41.32 99.16 240 240 183 46.62 110.02 236 184 29.05 68.56 236 191 35.01 82.62 236 192 42.56 100.43 236 236 193 48.02 111.43 232 194 29.92 69.43 232 201 36.06 83.68 232 202 43.83 101.71 232 232 203 49.46 112.86 228 204 30.82 70.32 228 211 37.14 84.75 228 212 45.15 103.02 228 228 213 50.94 114.30 224 214 31.74 71.22 224 221 38.26 85.83 224 222 46.50 104.34 224 224 223 52.35 115.48 221 224 32.62 71.96 221 231 39.31 86.72 221 232 47.78 105.41 221 221 CGR% 9 Yrs 2.8% 4.2% First 5 Yrs 3.0% 6.8% -CGR% measured from open date-

Page 45 of 102 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: Springhill Suites Hotel Resulting Aver. Room- Year& Room Annual % Daily nghts Annual Basis Quarter Revenues Basis Occ Rate Sold RMNTES Occ. Rate 133 $655,992 63.4 $125.00 5,248 134 $408,746 61.7 $80.00 5,109 141 $481,884 63.3 $94.00 5,126 142 $592,280 $2,138,903 62.9 $115.00 5,150 20,634 62.8% $103.66 143 $785,426 70.9 $133.75 5,872 144 $489,396 69.0 $85.60 5,717 151 $576,964 70.8 $100.58 5,736 152 $709,143 $2,560,929 70.4 $123.05 5,763 23,089 70.3% $110.92 153 $847,848 72.9 $140.44 6,037 154 $528,291 71.0 $89.88 5,878 161 $622,819 72.8 $105.61 5,897 162 $765,503 $2,764,461 72.3 $129.20 5,925 23,737 72.3% $116.46 163 $873,284 72.9 $144.65 6,037 164 $544,140 71.0 $92.58 5,878 171 $641,504 72.8 $108.78 5,897 172 $788,468 $2,847,395 72.3 $133.08 5,925 23,737 72.3% $119.96 173 $899,482 73.6 $147.54 6,096 174 $560,464 71.7 $94.43 5,935 181 $660,749 73.5 $110.95 5,955 182 $812,122 $2,932,817 73.1 $135.74 5,983 23,970 73.0% $122.35 183 $910,995 73.1 $150.49 6,053 184 $567,637 71.2 $96.32 5,893 191 $669,206 73.0 $113.17 5,913 192 $822,516 $2,970,354 72.5 $138.45 5,941 23,801 72.5% $124.80 193 $922,655 72.9 $152.75 6,040 194 $574,902 71.0 $97.76 5,881 201 $677,771 72.8 $114.87 5,900 202 $833,044 $3,008,372 72.4 $140.53 5,928 23,749 72.3% $126.67 203 $934,464 73.1 $154.43 6,051 204 $582,261 71.1 $98.84 5,891 211 $686,446 73.0 $116.13 5,911 212 $843,706 $3,046,876 72.5 $142.08 5,938 23,791 72.4% $128.07 213 $946,424 73.2 $156.13 6,062 214 $589,713 71.3 $99.92 5,902 221 $695,231 73.1 $117.41 5,921 222 $854,504 $3,085,873 72.6 $143.64 5,949 23,834 72.6% $129.48 223 $956,211 73.2 $157.85 6,058 224 $595,811 71.2 $101.02 5,898 231 $702,421 73.1 $118.70 5,918 232 $863,341 $3,117,783 72.6 $145.22 5,945 23,818 72.5% $130.90 233 $966,098 73.2 $159.43 6,060 234 $601,972 71.3 $102.03 5,900 241 $709,684 73.1 $119.89 5,920 242 $872,268 $3,150,023 72.6 $146.67 5,947 23,826 72.5% $132.21 243 $976,089 73.2 $161.02 6,062 CGR% 9 Yrs 4.2% 1.6% 2.6% 1.6% First 5 Yrs 6.8% 2.9% 3.8% 2.9% -CGR% measured from open date-

Page 46 of 102 OPERATING COSTS 15 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. Rooms only Operating Costs per Occupied Room (before Fixed Charges and excluding Food and Beverage expenses) are estimated at $45.17 for Year I ($931,929 divided by 20,633 roomnights sold); $47.19 for Year II ($1,089,549 divided by 23,089), and $48.96 for Year III ($1,162,218 divided by 23,737. These numbers compare to industry-wide data as follows: a) $35.77 in the Host Report for Suburban hotels in 2010 (average rate of $75.13), adjusted to Southwest. This POR cost translates to $39.09 when inflated to Year 2013 dollars. b) $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 c) $35.33 in the Host Report for Interstate hotels in 2010 (average rate of $73.72), adjusted to Southwest. This POR cost translates to $38.60 when inflated to Year 2013 dollars. d) $35.86 in the Host Report for hotels from 75-125 units in 2010 (average rate of $76.20) adjusted to Southwest. This translates to $39.19, when inflated to Year 2013 dollars. - 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 5% has been applied, and no annual management fee has been charged. 15 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 102 A reserve for renovations is taken and subtracted from projected cash flows annually; such renovation reserves amount to $1,770,826 in the first ten years ($19,676 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 $9,448,182 is allocated for the development of the project. The estimated total turn-key cost (excluding land) of $90,000 per unit is higher than typical for a hotel of this size and quality, in our experience. Land is valued at $1,348,182. Should capital needs vary, then returns would change proportionately. The estimates of necessary capital include: Total Investment Land Cost $ 1,348,182 for 3.095 acres Improvements Budget $ 8,100,000 @ $90,000 per key Total Investment $ 9,448,182 The pro forma profit and cash flow statements are shown overleaf:

Page 48 of 102 SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL Land Value: $1,348,182 Starts: 7/1/2013 #Rooms: 90 CostPerKey: $90,000 QUARTER: Third Fourth First Second Year Rmnites Sold 5,248 5,109 5,126 5,150 20,633 Rmnites Avail 8,280 8,280 8,100 8,190 32,850 Occupancy % 63.4% 61.7% 63.3% 62.9% 62.8% Avg Rate $125.00 $80.01 $94.01 $115.01 $103.66 REVPAR $79.23 $49.37 $59.49 $72.32 $65.11 % Revenues Room Revenues $655,992 $408,746 $481,884 $592,280 $2,138,902 94.8% Misc. Sales 36,080 22,481 26,504 32,575 117,640 5.2% Total Sales $692,072 $431,227 $508,388 $624,855 $2,256,542 100.0% Operating Expe-Payroll Administration 24,223 15,093 17,794 21,870 78,979 3.5% Housekeeping 20,992 20,436 20,504 20,600 82,532 3.7% Laundry 10,496 10,218 10,252 10,300 41,266 1.8% Front Desk 31,488 30,654 30,756 30,900 123,798 5.5% Misc. 13,841 8,625 10,168 12,497 45,131 2.0% Taxes/Benefits 10,104 8,503 8,947 9,617 37,171 1.6% Total Payroll 111,144 93,528 98,421 105,784 408,876 18.1% -Room Expense S:Linen & Laun 6,035 5,875 5,895 5,922 23,728 1.1% CompFood&Bev. 15,744 15,327 15,378 15,450 61,899 2.7% Total Room 21,779 21,202 21,273 21,373 85,627 3.8% -Other Expense Phone/Telecom. 7,737 7,737 7,737 7,737 30,950 1.4% Elec/Utility 15,744 15,327 15,378 15,450 61,899 2.7% Maint. & Repai 13,841 8,625 10,168 12,497 45,131 2.0% Total Other 37,323 31,689 33,283 35,684 137,979 6.1% -Gen & Admin Adver. & Sales 45,919 28,612 33,732 41,460 149,723 6.6% Royalty 32,800 20,437 24,094 29,614 106,945 4.7% Credit Card 13,120 8,175 9,638 11,846 42,778 1.9% Tot Admin & Ge 91,839 57,224 67,464 82,919 299,446 13.3% -Total Operati 262,085 203,644 220,440 245,760 931,929 41.3% Expenses Gross Oper. 429,987 227,583 287,947 379,095 1,324,613 58.7% Profit Management Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Income Bef Fix 429,987 227,583 287,947 379,095 1,324,613 58.7% Charges -Fixed Charges Insurance 19,745 19,745 19,745 19,745 78,979 3.5% Property Tax 20,786 20,786 20,786 20,786 83,144 3.7% DeprecSL 39Yrs 51,923 51,923 51,923 51,923 207,692 9.2% Tot Capital Ex 92,454 92,454 92,454 92,454 369,815 16.4% Net Income Bef 337,533 135,129 195,493 286,642 954,797 42.3% Tax & Financing Depreciat. Add 51,923 51,923 51,923 51,923 207,692 9.2% Renovation Res (31,143) (19,405) (22,877) (28,118) (101,544) -4.5% Cash Flow Befo 358,313 167,647 224,539 310,446 1,060,945 47.0% Tax & Financing -see following 2 pages for the next 9 years-

Page 49 of 102 SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL Compound #Rooms: 90 Growth Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yr 2-10 Rmnites Sold 23,089 23,737 23,737 23,970 23,801 23,749 23,791 23,834 23,818 1.6% Rmnites Avail 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 0.0% Occupancy % 70.3% 72.3% 72.3% 73.0% 72.5% 72.3% 72.4% 72.6% 72.5% 1.6% Avg Rate* $110.92 $116.46 $119.96 $122.35 $124.80 $126.67 $128.07 $129.47 $130.90 2.6% REVPAR $77.96 $84.15 $86.68 $89.28 $90.42 $91.58 $92.75 $93.94 $94.91 4.3% RoomRevenues 2,560,929 2,764,461 2,847,395 2,932,817 2,970,354 3,008,372 3,046,876 3,085,873 3,117,783 4.3% Misc. Sales 140,851 152,045 156,607 161,305 163,369 165,460 167,578 169,723 171,478 4.3% Total Sales 2,701,780 2,916,506 3,004,002 3,094,122 3,133,723 3,173,832 3,214,454 3,255,596 3,289,261 4.3% Operating Expense - Payroll Administration 91,031 96,394 99,286 103,268 105,616 108,547 112,001 115,570 118,957 4.7% Housekeeping 95,127 100,730 103,752 107,914 110,368 113,430 117,040 120,769 124,308 4.7% Laundry 47,563 50,365 51,876 53,957 55,184 56,715 58,520 60,384 62,154 4.7% Front Desk 142,690 151,095 155,628 161,871 165,551 170,145 175,560 181,153 186,463 4.7% Miscellaneous 52,018 55,082 56,735 59,010 60,352 62,027 64,001 66,040 67,975 4.7% Taxes/Benefits 42,843 45,367 46,728 48,602 49,707 51,086 52,712 54,392 55,986 4.7% Total Payroll 471,272 499,034 514,005 534,622 546,778 561,951 579,833 598,307 615,843 4.7% -Room Expense Linen & Laundry 27,349 28,960 29,829 31,025 31,731 32,611 33,649 34,721 35,739 4.7% CompFood&Bev. 71,345 75,548 77,814 80,935 82,776 85,073 87,780 90,577 93,231 4.7% Total Room 98,694 104,508 107,643 111,961 114,506 117,684 121,429 125,298 128,970 4.7% -Other Expense Phone Lines 35,673 37,774 38,907 40,468 41,388 42,536 43,890 45,288 46,616 4.7% Electric/Util. 71,345 75,548 77,814 80,935 82,776 85,073 87,780 90,577 93,231 4.7% Repairs & Maint 54,036 58,330 60,080 61,882 62,674 63,477 64,289 65,112 65,785 4.3% Total Other 161,053 171,652 176,801 183,285 186,838 191,086 195,959 200,977 205,632 4.5% -Gen & Admin Adver. & Sales 179,265 193,512 199,318 205,297 207,925 210,586 213,281 216,011 218,245 4.3% Royalty 128,046 138,223 142,370 146,641 148,518 150,419 152,344 154,294 155,889 4.3% Credit Card 51,219 55,289 56,948 58,656 59,407 60,167 60,938 61,717 62,356 4.3% Total G & A 358,530 387,025 398,635 410,594 415,850 421,172 426,563 432,022 436,490 4.3% -TotOperExp. 1,089,549 1,162,218 1,197,084 1,240,462 1,263,972 1,291,892 1,323,783 1,356,604 1,386,935 4.5% GrossOpProfit 1,612,231 1,754,289 1,806,917 1,853,660 1,869,752 1,881,940 1,890,671 1,898,992 1,902,327 4.1%

Page 50 of 102 SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL Compound #Rooms: 90 Growth Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yr 2-10 Rmnites Sold 23,089 23,737 23,737 23,970 23,801 23,749 23,791 23,834 23,818 1.6% Rmnites Avail 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 32,850 0.0% Occupancy % 70.3% 72.3% 72.3% 73.0% 72.5% 72.3% 72.4% 72.6% 72.5% 1.6% Avg Rate* $110.92 $116.46 $119.96 $122.35 $124.80 $126.67 $128.07 $129.47 $130.90 2.6% REVPAR $77.96 $84.15 $86.68 $89.28 $90.42 $91.58 $92.75 $93.94 $94.91 4.3% RoomRevenues 2,560,929 2,764,461 2,847,395 2,932,817 2,970,354 3,008,372 3,046,876 3,085,873 3,117,783 4.3% Misc. Sales 140,851 152,045 156,607 161,305 163,369 165,460 167,578 169,723 171,478 4.3% Total Sales 2,701,780 2,916,506 3,004,002 3,094,122 3,133,723 3,173,832 3,214,454 3,255,596 3,289,261 4.3% IncomeBefore 1,612,231 1,754,289 1,806,917 1,853,660 1,869,752 1,881,940 1,890,671 1,898,992 1,902,327 4.1% Fixed Charges -Fixed Charges Insurance 81,348 83,789 86,302 88,892 91,558 94,305 97,134 100,048 103,050 3.0% Property Tax 85,638 88,207 90,854 93,579 96,387 99,278 102,257 105,324 108,484 3.0% Depr. SL 39 Yrs 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 0.0% Total Fixed Ch. 374,679 379,689 384,848 390,163 395,637 401,276 407,083 413,065 419,226 1.4% Income Before 1,237,552 1,374,600 1,422,069 1,463,497 1,474,115 1,480,665 1,483,588 1,485,927 1,483,101 5.0% Tax & Financing Depr. AddBack 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 207,692 0.0% RenovReserve (89,159) (93,328) (108,144) (191,836) (213,093) (187,256) (167,152) (227,892) (391,422) 16.2% Cash Before 1,356,085 1,488,964 1,521,617 1,479,354 1,468,714 1,501,101 1,524,129 1,465,728 1,299,371 2.3% Tax & Financing

Page 51 of 102 November 9, 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 Springhill 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 90 unit Springhill Suites Hotel at the aforementioned site in Universal City, Texas. Please contact us with any questions at (210) 734-3434. Respectfully submitted, Todd Walker, Senior Vice President Bruce H. Walker, President

Page 52 of 102 EXHIBITS: I San Antonio 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 Lower Priced Markets 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

Page 53 of 102 EXHIBIT I LODGING MARKET: SAN ANTONIO MSA # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 013 336 32,199 1,765.4 153,774 59.6 87.10 51.91 014 327 31,155 1,461.7 122,539 51.0 83.83 42.75 *TOTAL 2001 3,227.1 276,314 55.4 85.62 47.41 021 329 31,307 1,798.0 154,304 63.8 85.82 54.76 022 350 32,175 1,965.4 177,041 67.1 90.08 60.47 023 348 33,023 1,840.3 160,909 60.6 87.43 52.96 024 342 32,307 1,521.0 127,112 51.2 83.57 42.77 *TOTAL 2002 7,124.8 619,366 60.6 86.93 52.69 031 340 32,538 1,733.7 143,243 59.2 82.62 48.91 032 358 33,071 1,967.1 172,159 65.4 87.52 57.21 033 358 33,821 1,935.3 166,162 62.2 85.86 53.40 034 349 32,699 1,578.4 127,021 52.5 80.48 42.22 *TOTAL 2003 7,214.4 608,585 59.8 84.36 50.47 041 348 32,700 1,797.9 150,002 61.1 83.43 50.97 042 365 33,208 1,930.9 171,352 63.9 88.74 56.70 043 370 34,166 1,924.3 169,169 61.2 87.91 53.82 044 360 33,238 1,652.8 142,643 54.0 86.30 46.65 *TOTAL 2004 7,305.8 633,166 60.1 86.67 52.04 051 361 33,404 1,858.3 160,133 61.8 86.17 53.26 052 383 34,165 2,116.7 207,676 68.1 98.11 66.80 053 386 34,863 2,111.5 195,703 65.8 92.68 61.02 054 376 34,139 1,781.1 164,434 56.7 92.32 52.35 *TOTAL 2005 7,867.7 727,946 63.1 92.52 58.41 061 374 34,331 2,015.5 191,566 65.2 95.05 62.00 062 397 34,855 2,063.7 223,285 65.1 108.20 70.40 063 404 35,826 2,187.3 220,219 66.4 100.68 66.81 064 390 34,762 1,789.3 181,124 55.9 101.22 56.63 *TOTAL 2006 8,055.8 816,194 63.2 101.32 63.99 071 389 35,122 2,048.3 208,348 64.8 101.72 65.91 072 408 35,724 2,044.8 230,005 62.9 112.48 70.75 073 413 36,773 2,167.0 226,020 64.1 104.30 66.81 074 397 36,038 1,807.4 186,466 54.5 103.17 56.24 *TOTAL 2007 8,067.5 850,839 61.5 105.47 64.90 081 399 36,392 2,086.1 223,037 63.7 106.92 68.10 082 427 38,277 2,219.7 256,420 63.7 115.52 73.62 083 431 39,135 2,274.3 249,613 63.2 109.75 69.33 084 406 38,446 1,810.3 200,282 51.2 110.64 56.62 *TOTAL 2008 8,390.4 929,352 60.4 110.76 66.88

Page 54 of 102 LODGING MARKET: SAN ANTONIO MSA # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 091 407 39,015 1,987.0 189,063 56.6 95.15 53.84 092 429 39,969 2,137.8 206,750 58.8 96.71 56.84 093 436 41,297 2,254.3 213,703 59.3 94.80 56.25 094 409 40,513 1,782.5 171,410 47.8 96.16 45.99 *TOTAL 2009 8,161.5 780,926 55.6 95.68 53.21 101 417 41,836 2,197.6 203,264 58.4 92.49 53.98 102 454 43,336 2,387.4 234,358 60.5 98.17 59.43 103 465 44,663 2,553.0 247,641 62.1 97.00 60.27 104 428 43,535 1,950.0 195,055 48.7 100.03 48.70 *TOTAL 2010 9,088.0 880,318 57.4 96.87 55.64 111 434 43,929 2,349.3 224,591 59.4 95.60 56.81 112 469 44,856 2,543.2 248,867 62.3 97.86 60.97 *TOTAL 2011 4,892.5 473,458 60.9 96.77 58.92 *TOTAL 79,395.5 7,596,463 59.9 95.68 57.30 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 102 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 013 15 1,356 70.9 3,725 56.8 52.56 29.86 014 15 1,356 47.4 2,025 38.0 42.76 16.23 *TOTAL 2001 118.2 5,750 47.4 48.64 23.04 021 15 1,356 65.4 2,926 53.6 44.72 23.97 022 15 1,356 71.8 3,481 58.2 48.50 28.21 023 15 1,356 69.6 3,476 55.8 49.92 27.86 024 15 1,355 51.9 2,172 41.7 41.82 17.43 *TOTAL 2002 258.8 12,054 52.3 46.59 24.36 031 15 1,355 61.6 2,626 50.5 42.61 21.53 032 15 1,304 68.7 3,343 57.9 48.70 28.17 033 15 1,304 73.2 3,578 61.0 48.89 29.83 034 14 1,194 49.7 2,076 45.2 41.77 18.90 *TOTAL 2003 253.2 11,623 53.8 45.91 24.71 041 14 1,193 59.2 2,510 55.1 42.41 23.38 042 14 1,193 63.6 3,111 58.5 48.95 28.66 043 14 1,193 66.9 3,363 61.0 50.25 30.64 044 14 1,193 48.1 2,054 43.8 42.73 18.71 *TOTAL 2004 237.7 11,038 54.6 46.43 25.35 051 14 1,179 61.5 2,664 58.0 43.29 25.10 052 14 1,179 60.6 3,024 56.4 49.94 28.18 053 14 1,179 69.2 3,692 63.8 53.39 34.04 054 15 1,208 56.1 2,739 50.5 48.78 24.64 *TOTAL 2005 247.4 12,118 57.1 48.99 27.99 061 15 1,276 64.8 3,317 56.4 51.20 28.88 062 15 1,276 67.7 4,264 58.3 62.96 36.72 063 15 1,276 76.1 4,632 64.8 60.85 39.46 064 15 1,236 52.0 2,933 45.8 56.38 25.79 *TOTAL 2006 260.6 15,145 56.4 58.11 32.78 071 15 1,236 61.7 3,407 55.5 55.22 30.62 072 16 1,306 67.8 4,323 57.0 63.78 36.38 073 16 1,317 77.5 4,914 64.0 63.40 40.56 074 17 1,340 62.1 3,693 50.4 59.42 29.95 *TOTAL 2007 269.1 16,337 56.7 60.70 34.43 081 19 1,467 72.6 4,369 55.0 60.17 33.09 082 19 1,467 76.3 4,980 57.2 65.25 37.30 083 19 1,467 84.5 5,659 62.6 66.96 41.93 084 18 1,508 60.4 3,611 43.6 59.74 26.03 *TOTAL 2008 293.9 18,619 54.5 63.35 34.53

Page 56 of 102 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # Rnights $ Rooms Hotels # sold 1 Revenues % $ $ YRQ Motels Rooms (000s) (000 s) OCC2 Rate3 RPAR4 --- ------ ------ ------- ---------- ---- ----- ----- 091 19 1,610 75.2 3,978 51.9 52.90 27.45 092 19 1,660 80.1 4,414 53.0 55.09 29.22 093 19 1,660 90.8 5,132 59.5 56.51 33.60 094 19 1,615 66.8 3,666 45.0 54.85 24.67 *TOTAL 2009 313.0 17,190 52.4 54.93 28.78 101 19 1,678 83.4 4,306 55.2 51.63 28.51 102 20 1,766 90.7 4,986 56.5 54.94 31.02 103 21 1,840 104.3 5,836 61.6 55.95 34.47 104 21 1,840 68.9 3,796 40.7 55.13 22.42 *TOTAL 2010 347.3 18,924 53.4 54.49 29.10 111 21 1,840 88.1 4,478 53.2 50.83 27.04 112 22 1,904 101.7 5,433 58.7 53.41 31.36 *TOTAL 2011 189.8 9,911 56.0 52.21 29.25 *TOTAL 2,789.1 148,710 54.2 53.32 28.90 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 102 EXHIBIT II PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS COMFO STE 1.1 3.1 13 3.5 837 4.3 60.7 66.21 40.22 HAWTHORN UNIV CITY.1 5.5 23 6.3 1,111 5.7 61.5 48.54 29.85 TOT MIN STE 2.2 8.6 36 9.8 1,948 10.0 61.2 54.82 33.57 BEST WEST 1.1 3.8 11 3.1 489 2.5 44.5 43.07 19.15 COMFORT SELMA 1.1 4.7 15 4.2 942 4.8 47.8 61.41 29.34 FAIRFIELD SCHERTZ.1 6.4 27 7.5 1,884 9.6 63.3 69.15 43.74 HAMPTON SCHERTZ.1 5.3 24 6.5 2,075 10.6 65.8 88.20 58.02 HOL EXPRESS SELMA.1 4.5 21 5.7 2,097 10.7 67.9 100.77 68.40 LA QUINTA 2.2 11.7 47 12.8 3,187 16.3 58.8 68.40 40.24 TOT LTD SVE 7.7 36.4 145 39.9 10,675 54.6 58.8 73.68 43.33 VALUE PLC 1.1 6.5 31 8.5 962 4.9 69.7 31.22 21.78 DAYS INN 2.1 6.4 22 6.0 955 4.9 50.0 43.99 22.00 MOTEL 6 1.1 6.1 25 7.0 842 4.3 61.8 33.01 20.40 QUALITY 1.1 4.0 9 2.6 448 2.3 35.0 47.37 16.60 RODEWAY 1.1 4.8 13 3.7 358 1.8 40.8 26.71 10.90 SUPER 8 2.2 9.6 35 9.7 1,542 7.9 54.0 43.96 23.73 TOT BUDGET 7.6 30.9 105 29.0 4,145 21.2 50.2 39.42 19.79 TOT CHAINS 17 1.5 82.4 316 87.2 17,730 90.7 56.7 56.04 31.77 LOW PRICE INDEP 4.3 17.6 47 12.8 1,813 9.3 39.0 38.93 15.19 TOT MARKET 21 1.9 100.0 363 100.0 19,543 100 53.6 53.85 28.85 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 58 of 102 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2010 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS COMFO STE 1.1 3.4 12 3.7 780 4.3 59.6 62.93 37.51 OTHER MIN 1.1 6.1 19 5.7 947 5.2 50.5 50.39 25.43 TOT MIN STE 2.2 9.5 31 9.4 1,727 9.5 53.7 55.38 29.76 BEST WEST 1.1 4.2 11 3.5 455 2.5 45.0 39.60 17.81 COMFO INN 1.0 3.0 8 2.5 594 3.3 44.9 72.67 32.61 FAIRFIELD 1.1 7.0 20 6.1 1,413 7.8 46.9 69.91 32.80 HAMPTON 1.1 5.8 23 7.0 2,118 11.7 65.0 91.06 59.22 HOLID EXP 1.1 5.0 22 6.7 2,134 11.8 72.5 96.08 69.62 LA QUINTA 2.2 12.9 48 14.6 3,341 18.5 61.2 68.91 42.19 TOT LTD SVE 7.6 37.9 134 40.3 10,056 55.6 57.6 75.13 43.26 OTHER EXT 1.1 7.2 32 9.7 893 4.9 73.0 27.69 20.22 DAYS INN 2.1 7.1 21 6.3 976 5.4 48.2 46.62 22.46 MOTEL 6 1.1 6.7 25 7.7 841 4.6 61.6 33.10 20.39 RODEWAY 1.1 5.4 13 4.0 399 2.2 40.6 29.97 12.16 SUPER 8 1.1 7.1 25 7.5 917 5.1 57.4 36.76 21.12 OTHER BUD 1.1 3.5 13 3.9 671 3.7 60.1 51.84 31.16 TOT BUDGET 6.5 29.8 98 29.4 3,804 21.0 53.5 38.99 20.85 TOT CHAINS 16 1.4 84.4 295 88.9 16,481 91.1 57.0 55.89 31.87 INDEPENDENTS LT $60ADR 4.3 15.6 37 11.1 1,609 8.9 38.5 43.59 16.79 TOT MARKET 19 1.7 100.0 332 100.0 18,090 100 54.1 54.53 29.51 * 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 102 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2009 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS COMFO STE 1.1 3.7 11 3.6 776 4.4 52.1 71.52 37.29 OTHER MIN 1.1 6.5 18 6.0 980 5.5 48.6 54.10 26.31 TOT MIN STE 2.2 10.2 29 9.6 1,755 9.9 49.9 60.62 30.25 BEST WEST 1.1 4.5 12 4.1 610 3.5 47.6 50.12 23.86 FAIRFIELD 0.0 1.9 3 1.0 255 1.4 27.6 86.15 23.79 HAMPTON 1.1 6.3 25 8.3 2,717 15.4 69.9 108.66 75.95 HOLID EXP 1.1 5.4 21 7.0 2,348 13.3 68.8 111.28 76.57 LA QUINTA 1.2 11.0 34 11.3 2,459 13.9 54.3 72.42 39.35 TOT LTD SVE 5.5 29.0 95 31.7 8,388 47.5 57.6 88.13 50.77 OTHER EXT 1.1 5.1 20 6.6 520 2.9 68.0 26.13 17.77 DAYS INN 2.1 7.6 25 8.2 1,311 7.4 56.5 53.45 30.18 MOTEL 6 1.1 7.2 25 8.2 866 4.9 59.8 35.11 21.00 RODEWAY 1.1 5.8 15 5.1 503 2.8 46.8 32.75 15.32 SUPER 8 1.1 7.6 23 7.7 1,103 6.2 53.5 47.42 25.39 OTHER BUD 1.1 3.8 15 5.0 777 4.4 69.7 51.73 36.07 TOT BUDGET 6.5 32.0 103 34.2 4,560 25.8 56.3 44.34 24.98 TOT CHAINS 13 1.2 76.4 247 82.2 15,223 86.2 56.7 61.67 35.00 INDEPENDENTS $60-99ADR 1.1 3.9 12 3.9 788 4.5 52.7 67.14 35.40 LT $60ADR 4.3 19.7 42 13.9 1,651 9.3 37.1 39.62 14.69 TOT INDEP 5.4 23.6 53 17.8 2,439 13.8 39.7 45.67 18.11 TOT MARKET 19 1.6 100.0 300 100.0 17,662 100 52.7 58.83 31.00 * 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 102 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2008 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS COMFO STE 0.0 2.0 5 1.8 452 2.5 51.1 85.69 43.82 OTHER MIN 1.1 7.3 19 6.6 990 5.5 50.9 52.28 26.59 TOT MIN STE 1.1 9.3 24 8.4 1,442 8.0 50.9 59.56 30.33 BEST WEST 1.1 5.0 14 4.7 782 4.4 53.3 57.37 30.60 HAMPTON 1.1 7.0 26 8.9 2,997 16.7 71.8 116.68 83.79 HOLID EXP 1.1 6.0 22 7.6 2,389 13.3 72.0 108.28 77.92 LA QUINTA 1.1 9.7 31 10.9 2,442 13.6 63.4 77.53 49.19 TOT LTD SVE 4.4 27.8 93 32.2 8,610 47.9 65.6 92.71 60.79 BEST VALU 1.0 1.2 3 1.0 110.6 48.0 36.61 17.56 DAYS INN 2.1 8.5 26 9.0 1,604 8.9 59.7 61.83 36.92 MOTEL 6 1.1 8.1 27 9.4 1,058 5.9 65.8 38.97 25.65 RODEWAY 1.1 6.4 17 5.8 575 3.2 51.3 34.14 17.51 SUPER 8 1.1 8.5 26 9.1 1,338 7.4 60.3 51.06 30.79 OTHER BUD 1.1 4.2 12 4.2 552 3.1 56.3 45.50 25.64 TOT BUDGET 7.5 37.0 111 38.6 5,237 29.2 58.9 47.06 27.74 TOT CHAINS 12 1.0 74.1 228 79.1 15,289 85.1 60.4 66.95 40.45 INDEPENDENTS $60-99ADR 1.1 4.4 15 5.3 1,017 5.7 68.2 66.97 45.69 LT $60ADR 4.3 21.5 45 15.6 1,650 9.2 41.0 36.65 15.04 TOT INDEP 5.4 25.9 60 20.9 2,668 14.9 45.6 44.30 20.21 TOT MARKET 18 1.4 100.0 289 100.0 17,956 100 56.6 62.22 35.21 * 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 102 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2007 HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 AREA # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS OTHER MIN 1.1 8.1 23 8.9 1,428 9.3 61.5 62.35 38.36 TOT MIN STE 1.1 8.1 23 8.9 1,428 9.3 61.5 62.35 38.36 BEST WEST 1.1 5.5 15 5.6 877 5.7 56.9 60.31 34.34 COMFO INN 1.1 9.4 23 9.0 1,179 7.7 53.2 51.06 27.14 HAMPTON 1.1 7.8 26 10.2 2,825 18.5 73.6 107.33 78.98 HOLID EXP 0.0 1.4 4 1.5 329 2.2 59.1 87.56 51.72 LA QUINTA 1.1 10.8 31 12.0 2,385 15.6 62.4 77.00 48.05 TOT LTD SVE 4.4 34.9 99 38.3 7,596 49.7 61.4 76.96 47.25 DAYS INN 2.1 9.4 29 11.2 1,762 11.5 66.2 61.26 40.56 MOTEL 6 1.1 8.9 27 10.6 1,094 7.2 66.2 40.08 26.52 RODEWAY 1.1 7.1 15 6.0 529 3.5 46.7 34.49 16.10 SUPER 8 1.1 4.9 10 3.8 427 2.8 43.5 43.43 18.87 TOT BUDGET 5.4 30.4 81 31.5 3,811 24.9 57.9 46.93 27.19 TOT CHAINS 10.9 73.3 203 78.7 12,835 83.9 60.0 63.29 37.96 INDEPENDENTS $60-99ADR 1.1 4.8 15 5.9 954 6.2 68.5 62.54 42.84 LT $60ADR 4.3 21.8 40 15.3 1,506 9.8 39.2 38.09 14.94 TOT INDEP 5.3 26.7 55 21.3 2,460 16.1 44.5 44.90 19.99 TOT MARKET 15 1.3 100.0 258 100.0 15,295 100 55.9 59.38 33.16 * All figures annualized. Included taxed and est non-tax rooms revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 62 of 102 EXHIBIT III HOTEL MARKET: IH-1604 & IH-35 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ LIVE OAK 13101 E LOOP 16 78233 CLARION SUITES VENUS INVES 84 2.100 20063 102 X.MIN 289,074 607,055.000 71.70 90 64.69 20064 102 X.MIN 177,368 266,423 1.502 55.35 51 28.39 20071 102 X.MIN 209,398 259,481 1.239 54.45 52 28.27 20072 102 X.MIN 236,206 295,124 1.249 60.71 52 31.80 20073 102 X.MIN 243,772 345,425 1.417 59.77 62 36.81 20074 102 X.MIN 153,887 250,313 1.627 55.64 48 26.67 20081 102 X.MIN 132,762 192,325 1.449 50.64 41 20.95 20082 102 X.MIN 144,075 201,957 1.402 41.53 52 21.76 20083 102 X.MIN 197,558 316,848 1.604 61.20 55 33.76 20084 102 X.MIN 125,385 180,196 1.437 55.20 35 19.20 20091 102 X.MIN 166,547 250,038 1.501 50.34 54 27.24 20092 102 X.MIN 162,819 232,481 1.428 49.45 51 25.05 20093 102 X.MIN 171,757 306,546 1.785 52.58 62 32.67 20094 102 X.MIN 138,691 259,627 1.872 52.51 53 27.67 20101 102 X.MIN 130,981 219,958 1.679 49.70 48 23.96 20102 102 X.MIN 87,674 160,651 1.832 44.74 39 17.31 20103 102 X.MIN 204,432 298,576 1.461 47.54 67 31.82 20104 102 X.MIN 137,143 222,650 1.623 48.97 48 23.73 20111 102 X.MIN 112,223 268,326 2.391 47.50 62 29.23 20112 102 X.MIN 142,549 321,849 2.258 50.10 69 34.67 12810 N INTERST 78233 GREAT VALUE INN FMR BVALU 07 2.500 20074 23 BVALU 22,982 38,302 1.667 35.17 51 18.10 20081 23 BVALU 25,318 31,140 1.230 34.45 44 15.04 20082 23 BVALU 21,300 40,800 1.915 40.02 49 19.49 20083 23 36,250 45,482 1.255 44.78 48 21.49 12822 I-35 NORT 78233 LA QUINTA INN #640 86 1.130 20063 136 LAQUN 582,618 673,858 1.157 75.05 72 53.86 20064 136 LAQUN 406,036 459,998 1.588 75.05 49 36.76 20071 136 LAQUN 431,776 538,260 1.247 70.05 63 43.98 20072 136 LAQUN 563,475 712,874 1.265 87.09 66 57.60 20073 136 LAQUN 565,326 676,130 1.196 80.11 67 54.04 20074 136 LAQUN 425,297 512,093 1.204 75.49 54 40.93 20081 136 LAQUN 478,495 568,137 1.187 73.18 63 46.42 20082 136 LAQUN 627,833 685,587 1.092 80.57 69 55.40 20083 136 LAQUN 596,966 698,625 1.170 80.14 70 55.84 20084 136 LAQUN 354,362 402,172 1.135 72.13 45 32.14 20091 136 LAQUN 353,120 420,709 1.191 65.79 52 34.37 20092 136 LAQUN 374,236 464,847 1.242 64.61 58 37.56 20093 136 LAQUN 426,205 482,164 1.131 64.04 60 38.54 20094 136 LAQUN 268,401 398,163 1.483 62.47 51 31.82 20101 136 LAQUN 305,199 433,381 1.420 59.13 60 35.41 20102 136 LAQUN 353,215 512,545 1.451 62.27 67 41.41 20103 136 LAQUN 411,226 504,511 1.227 61.34 66 40.32

Page 63 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ LIVE OAK 12822 I-35 NORT 78233 LA QUINTA INN #640 86 1.130 20104 136 LAQUN 252,026 277,962 1.103 59.26 37 22.22 20111 136 LAQUN 313,948 354,703 1.130 54.57 53 28.98 20112 136 LAQUN 371,352 419,879 1.131 58.10 58 33.93 SAN ANTONIO 5547 RANDOLPH B 78233 AMERICAN MOTEL 98 1.240 20063 16 31,500 39,060.000 35.95 74 26.54 20064 16 21,808 27,042.000 33.95 54 18.37 20071 16 32,440 40,226.000 36.50 77 27.93 20072 16 31,175 38,657.000 37.60 71 26.55 20073 16 31,011 38,454.000 36.47 72 26.12 20074 16 15,726 19,500.000 32.66 41 13.25 20081 16 25,522 31,647.000 32.92 67 21.98 20082 16 23,230 28,805.000 32.92 60 19.78 20083 16 28,403 35,220.000 33.34 72 23.93 11939 IH 35 NOR 78233 BEST WESTERN I35N GARDEN I 95 1.045 20063 70 BWEST 277,298 285,004 1.028 64.53 69 44.26 20064 70 BWEST 147,455 149,533 1.014 53.53 43 23.22 20071 70 BWEST 222,735 225,869 1.014 58.53 61 35.85 20072 70 BWEST 214,031 216,929 1.014 62.35 55 34.05 20073 70 BWEST 237,028 239,161 1.009 60.48 61 37.14 20074 70 BWEST 136,114 141,329 1.038 55.76 39 21.95 20081 70 BWEST 196,260 200,190 1.020 56.21 57 31.78 20082 70 BWEST 199,531 201,050 1.008 56.21 56 31.56 20083 70 BWEST 218,749 254,794 1.165 59.90 66 39.56 20084 70 BWEST 105,726 107,843 1.020 49.89 34 16.75 20091 70 BWEST 126,499 130,749 1.034 45.50 46 20.75 20092 70 BWEST 110,334 116,171 1.053 40.41 45 18.24 20093 70 BWEST 129,704 131,363 1.013 39.79 51 20.40 20094 70 BWEST 80,319 81,097 1.010 39.26 32 12.59 20101 70 BWEST 124,022 133,375 1.075 40.28 53 21.17 20102 70 BWEST 107,309 109,254 1.018 38.82 44 17.15 20103 70 BWEST 178,046 185,163 1.040 43.80 66 28.75 20104 70 BWEST 62,532 64,408 1.030 45.11 22 10.00 20111 70 BWEST 93,311 98,714 1.058 42.20 37 15.67 20112 70 BWEST 137,877 141,002 1.023 41.86 53 22.14 11526 N IH 35 78233 COMFORT SUITES I-35N 08 1.070 20081 57 COMFS 204,738 209,832 1.025 85.68 48 40.90 20082 57 COMFS 232,184 242,266 1.043 85.68 55 46.71 20083 57 COMFS 262,128 287,909 1.098 85.23 64 54.90 20084 57 COMFS 132,876 141,462 1.065 70.23 38 26.98 20091 57 COMFS 163,261 180,068 1.103 64.05 55 35.10 20092 57 COMFS 159,290 166,427 1.045 62.92 51 32.09 20093 57 COMFS 203,261 215,198 1.059 68.78 60 41.04 20094 57 COMFS 159,174 169,145 1.063 62.59 52 32.25 20101 57 COMFS 182,833 204,876 1.121 60.19 66 39.94

Page 64 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SAN ANTONIO 11526 N IH 35 78233 COMFORT SUITES I-35N 08 1.070 20102 57 COMFS 177,164 191,146 1.079 60.35 61 36.85 20103 57 COMFS 208,109 219,734 1.056 63.48 66 41.90 20104 57 COMFS 138,663 146,633 1.057 66.44 42 27.96 20111 57 COMFS 207,764 230,430 1.109 66.93 67 44.92 20112 57 COMFS 229,808 239,888 1.044 67.98 68 46.25 11202 IH 35 NOR 78233 DAYS INN NORTHSIDE 95 1.050 20063 58 DAYS 255,024 259,524 1.018 68.21 71 48.64 20064 58 DAYS 125,693 250,000 1.989 68.21 69 46.85 20071 58 DAYS 208,442 209,344 1.004 62.21 64 40.10 20072 58 DAYS 246,443 258,765.000 74.38 66 49.03 20073 58 DAYS 281,396 295,466.000 75.06 74 55.37 20074 58 DAYS 181,155 190,213.000 65.39 54 35.65 20081 58 DAYS 193,086 199,040 1.031 65.13 59 38.13 20082 58 DAYS 224,331 235,548.000 71.20 63 44.63 20083 58 DAYS 257,565 277,542 1.078 70.83 73 52.01 20084 58 DAYS 143,902 144,331 1.010 57.82 47 27.05 20091 58 DAYS 147,660 155,043.000 52.73 56 29.70 20092 58 DAYS 151,128 158,684.000 51.79 58 30.07 20093 58 DAYS 188,057 192,687 1.025 55.00 66 36.11 20094 58 DAYS 101,151 106,209.000 48.34 41 19.90 20101 58 DAYS 126,883 133,227.000 47.64 54 25.52 20102 58 DAYS 127,061 133,414.000 48.36 52 25.28 20103 58 DAYS 181,155 190,213.000 53.99 66 35.65 20104 58 DAYS 103,745 108,932.000 50.04 41 20.41 20111 58 DAYS 125,002 131,252.000 48.54 52 25.14 20112 58 DAYS 141,055 148,108.000 48.86 57 28.06 9401 IH 35 NORT 78233 DAYS INN WINDCREST 96 1.110 20063 61 DAYS 224,001 248,641.000 56.83 78 44.31 20064 61 DAYS 130,955 145,360.000 52.53 49 25.90 20071 61 DAYS 166,803 174,764 1.048 52.53 61 31.83 20072 61 DAYS 193,905 215,235.000 54.11 72 38.77 20073 61 DAYS 189,481 202,934 1.071 54.43 66 36.16 20074 61 DAYS 128,195 142,296.000 52.69 48 25.36 20081 61 DAYS 145,192 149,446 1.029 52.02 52 27.22 20082 61 DAYS 187,713 188,767 1.006 55.06 62 34.01 20083 61 DAYS 194,888 212,940 1.093 55.76 68 37.94 20084 61 DAYS 94,061 103,036 1.095 48.55 38 18.36 20091 61 DAYS 111,673 123,957.000 42.45 53 22.58 20092 61 DAYS 122,033 135,457.000 41.69 59 24.40 20093 61 DAYS 139,593 154,948.000 47.74 58 27.61 20094 61 DAYS 61,953 68,768.000 41.48 30 12.25 20101 61 DAYS 88,235 97,941.000 39.26 45 17.84 20102 61 DAYS 79,614 88,372.000 38.82 41 15.92 20103 61 DAYS 114,899 127,538.000 38.82 59 22.73 20104 61 DAYS 48,934 54,317.000 36.58 26 9.68

Page 65 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SAN ANTONIO 9401 IH 35 NORT 78233 DAYS INN WINDCREST 96 1.110 20111 61 DAYS 89,993 99,892.000 35.48 51 18.20 20112 61 DAYS 85,537 95,179 1.113 35.20 49 17.15 9735 N INTERSTA 78233 EXTEND A SUITES TO 6 11.000 20112 64 54,856 128,395 2.341 29.76 74 22.05 11591 N IH 35 78233 MI CASA FMR ECONO LODGE I- 83 1.220 20063 88 110,656 159,498 1.441 38.80 51 19.70 20064 88 94,017 128,333 1.168 38.80 41 15.85 20071 88 113,847 137,580 1.216 38.80 45 17.37 20072 88 112,052 139,871 1.285 36.87 47 17.47 20073 88 130,294 158,116 1.214 35.02 56 19.53 20074 88 92,636 119,826 1.294 33.17 45 14.80 20081 88 115,780 151,611 1.309 35.47 54 19.14 20082 88 105,908 135,040 1.275 36.48 46 16.86 20083 88 89,806 115,522 1.253 36.29 39 14.27 20084 88 67,473 87,879 1.320 35.29 31 10.85 20091 88 65,855 88,548 1.192 32.18 35 11.18 20102 88 70,259 91,146 1.297 31.33 36 11.38 20103 88 84,860 100,322 1.182 30.87 40 12.39 20104 88 47,918 59,266 1.237 28.39 26 7.32 20111 88 67,298 75,928 1.128 26.67 36 9.59 20112 88 72,635 94,011 1.294 28.34 41 11.74 9603 N INTERSTA 78233 MIDTOWN I&S FMR RODEW/CLAS 72 1.100 20063 90 RODEW 154,210 162,560 1.054 36.38 54 19.63 20064 90 RODEW 67,969 77,672 1.143 32.38 29 9.38 20071 90 RODEW 138,712 140,782 1.015 33.58 52 17.38 20072 90 RODEW 130,197 147,782 1.135 34.59 52 18.04 20073 90 RODEW 171,848 188,345 1.096 35.49 64 22.75 20074 90 RODEW 97,886 104,504 1.068 32.65 39 12.62 20081 90 RODEW 124,589 129,553 1.040 32.26 50 15.99 20082 90 RODEW 147,351 152,749 1.037 35.30 53 18.65 20083 90 RODEW 181,406 194,753 1.074 37.30 63 23.52 20084 90 RODEW 88,039 91,013 1.034 32.30 34 10.99 20091 90 RODEW 98,116 100,033 1.020 29.46 42 12.35 20092 90 RODEW 115,155 117,302 1.019 29.85 48 14.32 20093 90 RODEW 145,550 152,072 1.045 32.42 57 18.37 20094 90 RODEW 51,016 53,255 1.037 29.73 22 6.43 20101 90 RODEW 97,175 98,862.000 28.14 43 12.21 20102 90 RODEW 94,084 95,300.000 28.56 41 11.64 20103 90 RODEW 121,385 122,432 1.008 28.56 52 14.79 20104 90 RODEW 48,321 49,499 1.024 26.78 22 5.98 20111 90 86,011 91,778 1.067 25.70 44 11.33 20112 90 70,523 94,500 1.340 25.49 45 11.54 9503 INTERSTATE 78233 MOTEL 6 #134 73 1.025 20063 113 MTL 6 309,291 319,172 1.032 41.30 74 30.70

Page 66 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SAN ANTONIO 9503 INTERSTATE 78233 MOTEL 6 #134 73 1.025 20064 113 MTL 6 223,008 231,234 1.037 36.30 61 22.24 20071 113 MTL 6 239,946 251,433 1.048 37.40 66 24.72 20072 113 MTL 6 280,812 291,985 1.040 45.11 63 28.39 20073 113 MTL 6 294,513 309,828 1.052 41.53 72 29.80 20074 113 MTL 6 209,725 226,391 1.079 36.71 59 21.78 20081 113 MTL 6 228,581 245,878 1.076 37.71 64 24.18 20082 113 MTL 6 266,136 275,934 1.037 39.39 68 26.83 20083 113 MTL 6 277,831 296,301 1.066 42.16 68 28.50 20084 113 MTL 6 160,465 168,946 1.053 35.16 46 16.25 20091 113 MTL 6 197,364 199,981 1.013 31.52 62 19.66 20092 113 MTL 6 197,922 200,790 1.014 30.95 63 19.53 20093 113 MTL 6 232,665 241,837 1.039 36.52 64 23.26 20094 113 MTL 6 172,793 178,463 1.033 34.47 50 17.17 20101 113 MTL 6 184,808 190,714 1.032 30.36 62 18.75 20102 113 MTL 6 222,358 229,979 1.034 31.37 71 22.36 20103 113 MTL 6 245,597 253,044 1.030 33.68 72 24.34 20104 113 MTL 6 168,030 168,200 1.001 33.47 48 16.18 20111 113 MTL 6 197,015 199,065 1.010 32.47 60 19.57 20112 113 MTL 6 215,984 221,287 1.025 32.41 66 21.52 10815 N INTERST 78233 QUALITY INN N FMR LA PALME 77 1.200 20081 70 81,407 84,927 1.043 46.02 29 13.48 20082 70 99,311 119,173.000 46.02 41 18.71 20083 70 128,800 143,117 1.111 45.78 49 22.22 20084 70 35,591 36,307 1.020 42.57 13 5.64 20091 70 48,368 49,264 1.019 36.99 21 7.82 20092 70 29,218 35,062.000 36.33 15 5.50 20093 70 38,119 38,448 1.009 34.29 17 5.97 20103 74 QUALY 126,870 145,485 1.147 55.00 39 21.37 20104 74 QUALY 64,242 73,135 1.138 46.35 23 10.74 20111 74 QUALY 89,511 113,546 1.269 43.99 39 17.05 20112 74 QUALY 89,622 116,143 1.296 43.64 40 17.25 14122 DAYLIGHT 78233 ROYAL HAWAIAN FMR CONTI/HJ 70 2.000 20063 160 142,982 198,671 1.389 38.80 35 13.50 20064 120 41,499 61,709 1.487 36.80 15 5.59 20071 120 78,045 93,997 1.204 34.50 25 8.70 20072 120 97,204 122,671 1.262 35.53 32 11.23 20073 120 129,761 168,399 1.298 34.46 44 15.25 20074 120 72,604 145,208.000 34.63 38 13.15 20081 120 99,789 105,389 1.056 34.74 28 9.76 20082 120 47,308 49,099 1.038 34.74 13 4.50 20083 120 70,999 110,720 1.559 34.56 29 10.03 20084 120 98,285 205,421 2.090 42.55 44 18.61 20091 120 97,290 204,935 2.000 45.15 42 18.98 20092 120 83,862 208,453 2.489 44.53 43 19.09 20093 120 82,681 202,247 2.446 44.22 41 18.32

Page 67 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SAN ANTONIO 14122 DAYLIGHT 78233 ROYAL HAWAIAN FMR CONTI/HJ 70 2.000 20094 120 47,286 93,903 2.700 36.85 23 8.51 20101 120 35,878 126,114 3.515 43.52 27 11.68 20102 120 50,544 129,668 2.565 42.16 28 11.87 20103 120 72,421 139,814 1.931 42.16 30 12.66 20104 120 45,000 85,000 1.889 1 44.45 17 7.70 20111 120 48,765 125,754 2.579 37.35 31 11.64 20112 120 50,000 125,000 2.500 1 37.05 31 11.45 9903 N INTERSTA 78233 RUBY INN 85 1.060 20063 42 92,910 94,377 1.016 42.60 57 24.42 20064 42 59,703 62,266 1.043 36.60 44 16.11 20071 42 70,717 73,329 1.037 37.60 52 19.40 20072 42 83,797 88,684 1.058 45.94 50 23.20 20073 42 89,706 90,513 1.009 42.62 55 23.42 20074 42 59,067 59,861 1.013 37.81 41 15.49 20081 42 70,686 75,008 1.061 37.81 52 19.84 20082 42 66,583 69,779 1.048 39.02 47 18.26 20083 42 88,377 89,524 1.013 42.30 55 23.17 20084 42 59,327 62,887.000 37.30 44 16.28 20091 42 65,998 71,077 1.077 34.93 54 18.80 20092 42 59,152 61,231 1.035 33.93 47 16.02 20093 42 76,972 82,696 1.074 35.47 60 21.40 20094 42 58,220 60,238 1.035 34.79 45 15.59 20101 42 74,531 80,898 1.085 35.58 60 21.40 20102 42 59,821 68,271 1.141 35.08 51 17.86 20103 42 70,881 71,251 1.005 35.08 53 18.44 20104 42 50,541 51,237 1.014 35.62 37 13.26 20111 42 64,465 68,333.000 34.55 52 18.08 20112 42 69,031 72,953 1.057 34.72 55 19.09 11027 N INTERST 78233 SUPER 8 FMR BHOST/SUPR8 86 1.020 20063 62 SUPR8 152,184 155,228.000 44.17 62 27.21 20064 62 SUPR8 66,047 67,368.000 42.57 28 11.81 20071 62 SUPR8 106,146 108,269.000 42.57 46 19.40 20072 62 SUPR8 94,322 96,208.000 43.85 39 17.05 20073 59 X.BUD 99,072 101,053.000 41.27 45 18.62 20074 59 X.BUD 75,922 76,762 1.011 40.47 35 14.14 20081 59 X.BUD 161,529 170,466 1.055 44.92 71 32.10 20082 59 X.BUD 200,259 203,786 1.018 50.99 74 37.96 20083 59 X.BUD 254,056 255,471 1.006 58.68 80 47.07 20084 59 X.BUD 151,738 156,709 1.033 48.67 59 28.87 20091 59 X.BUD 154,110 177,319 1.151 48.03 70 33.39 20092 59 X.BUD 170,180 187,293 1.101 49.89 70 34.88 20093 59 X.BUD 193,270 197,135.000 53.49 68 36.32 20094 59 SUPR8 152,501 155,551.000 52.49 55 28.66 20101 59 SUPR8 155,805 157,876 1.013 49.68 60 29.73 20102 59 SUPR8 158,765 160,405 1.010 51.46 58 29.88

Page 68 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SAN ANTONIO 11027 N INTERST 78233 SUPER 8 FMR BHOST/SUPR8 86 1.020 20103 59 SUPR8 183,885 186,765 1.016 55.30 62 34.41 20104 59 SUPR8 126,805 129,676 1.023 54.07 44 23.89 20111 59 SUPR8 143,187 144,177 1.007 51.96 52 27.15 20112 59 SUPR8 179,905 185,939 1.034 54.56 63 34.63 13578 N I-35 78233 VALUE PLACE HOTEL 08 3.750 20084 80 VALUP 121,445 148,911 1.226 30.30 67 20.23 20091 121 VALUP 77,416 181,947 2.350 24.99 67 16.71 20092 121 VALUP 74,638 189,031 2.533 24.55 70 17.17 20093 121 VALUP 95,998 228,007 2.375 26.94 76 20.48 20094 121 VALUP 49,332 198,683 4.027 27.11 66 17.85 20101 121 VALUP 78,763 232,111 2.947 27.23 78 21.31 20102 121 VALUP 86,108 234,384 2.722 29.50 72 21.29 20103 121 VALUP 70,638 227,524 3.221 29.04 70 20.44 20104 121 VALUP 62,101 174,331 2.807 27.05 58 15.66 20111 121 VALUP 65,197 253,222 3.884 29.54 79 23.25 20112 121 VALUP 81,987 306,734 3.741 38.56 72 27.86 SCHERTZ 17401 IH 35 N 78154 ATRIUM INN FMR RALTD 96 1.060 20063 61 243,656 259,240 1.064 63.05 73 46.19 20064 61 174,113 189,847 1.090 55.55 61 33.83 20071 61 204,809 219,143 1.070 60.55 66 39.92 20072 61 267,987 285,635 1.066 69.58 74 51.46 20073 61 275,190 290,601 1.056 68.46 76 51.78 20074 61 207,194 225,968 1.091 60.76 66 40.27 20081 61 217,575 220,749 1.015 62.07 65 40.21 20082 61 276,135 279,917 1.014 76.25 66 50.43 20083 61 290,780 311,187 1.070 78.34 71 55.45 20084 61 159,997 161,696 1.011 68.34 42 28.81 20091 61 153,269 162,948 1.063 59.28 50 29.68 20092 61 149,201 152,379 1.021 57.42 48 27.45 20093 61 179,449 183,013 1.020 55.10 59 32.61 20094 61 149,397 151,192 1.012 57.02 47 26.94 20101 61 138,385 149,283 1.079 53.97 50 27.19 20102 61 141,928 151,705 1.069 54.78 50 27.33 20103 61 187,631 201,075 1.072 57.64 62 35.83 20104 61 104,916 118,424 1.129 54.11 39 21.10 20111 61 118,893 125,222 1.053 50.93 45 22.81 20112 61 161,023 170,706 1.060 55.09 56 30.75 5008 CORRIDOR L 78154 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES 09 1.160 20092 118 FAIRF 242,350 255,431 1.054 86.12 28 23.79 20093 118 FAIRF 402,825 409,685 1.017 81.73 46 37.74 20094 118 FAIRF 197,053 252,922 1.284 72.19 32 23.30 20101 118 FAIRF 293,502 310,303 1.057 61.70 47 29.22 20102 118 FAIRF 364,373 439,768 1.207 66.00 62 40.95 20103 118 FAIRF 463,953 516,945 1.114 69.59 68 47.62

Page 69 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SCHERTZ 5008 CORRIDOR L 78154 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES 09 1.160 20104 118 FAIRF 345,867 432,474 1.250 71.68 56 39.84 20111 118 FAIRF 327,167 382,224 1.168 63.71 56 35.99 20112 118 FAIRF 488,800 552,280 1.130 70.94 72 51.43 17702 IH 35 N 78154 HAMPTON INN & SUITES 05 1.085 20063 98 HAMPT 710,837 751,813 1.058 108.10 77 83.39 20064 98 HAMPT 582,262 604,865 1.039 101.10 66 67.09 20071 98 HAMPT 666,232 686,662 1.031 101.10 77 77.85 20072 98 HAMPT 744,631 781,642 1.050 118.55 74 87.65 20073 98 HAMPT 759,217 775,161 1.021 114.99 75 85.98 20074 98 HAMPT 667,573 693,817 1.039 110.55 70 76.95 20081 98 HAMPT 683,760 712,132 1.041 113.45 71 80.74 20082 98 HAMPT 790,042 815,952 1.033 127.63 72 91.49 20083 98 HAMPT 766,795 822,848 1.073 116.96 78 91.27 20084 98 HAMPT 637,129 662,004 1.039 114.53 64 73.43 20091 98 HAMPT 543,451 591,198 1.088 100.32 67 67.03 20092 98 HAMPT 618,378 640,611 1.036 101.79 71 71.83 20093 98 HAMPT 595,275 628,510 1.056 95.42 73 69.71 20094 98 HAMPT 393,918 428,047 1.087 91.14 52 47.48 20101 98 HAMPT 422,014 476,613 1.129 81.91 66 54.04 20102 98 HAMPT 531,128 585,047 1.102 94.94 69 65.60 20103 98 HAMPT 571,434 628,458 1.100 94.94 73 69.70 20104 98 HAMPT 413,909 460,168 1.112 90.17 57 51.04 20111 98 HAMPT 425,326 461,379 1.085 81.06 65 52.31 20112 98 HAMPT 488,327 525,433 1.076 85.87 69 58.92 17650 FOUR OAKS 78154 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES 09 1.400 20091 61 LAQUN 151,778 168,433 1.110 78.72 39 30.68 20092 81 LAQUN 222,124 304,389 1.370 77.32 53 41.30 20093 81 LAQUN 303,242 443,156 1.461 86.34 69 59.47 20094 81 LAQUN 201,236 264,287 1.313 79.63 45 35.47 20101 81 LAQUN 223,734 334,822 1.497 71.58 64 45.93 20102 81 LAQUN 301,078 472,817 1.570 80.14 80 64.15 20103 81 LAQUN 324,759 518,670 1.597 85.30 82 69.60 20104 81 LAQUN 210,862 303,911 1.441 80.85 50 40.78 20111 81 LAQUN 232,232 357,142 1.538 75.18 65 48.99 20112 81 LAQUN 357,889 450,150 1.258 83.90 73 61.07 SELMA 15771 INTERSTAT 78154 COMFORT INN & SUITES 09 1.050 20094 25 COMFO 102,101 107,206.000 85.00 55 46.61 20101 88 COMFO 223,402 225,360 1.009 72.33 39 28.45 20102 88 COMFO 245,594 261,859 1.066 68.82 48 32.70 20103 88 COMFO 277,771 290,975 1.048 65.94 54 35.94 20104 88 COMFO 177,753 181,252 1.020 60.29 37 22.39 20111 88 COMFO 199,888 211,876 1.060 58.48 46 26.75 20112 88 COMFO 243,976 258,143 1.058 60.00 54 32.24 15408 INTERSTAT 78154 HOLIDAY EXPRESS 07 1.200 20072 70 HIEXP 301,389 329,478 1.093 87.55 59 51.72

Page 70 of 102 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 --- ---- ----- ------- -------- ------ - ----- --- ------ SELMA 15408 INTERSTAT 78154 HOLIDAY EXPRESS 07 1.200 20073 84 HIEXP 592,158 611,107 1.032 107.23 74 79.08 20074 84 HIEXP 457,194 496,699 1.086 97.72 66 64.27 20081 84 HIEXP 516,240 576,566 1.117 108.60 70 76.27 20082 84 HIEXP 608,867 704,575 1.157 117.96 78 92.17 20083 84 HIEXP 672,028 742,531 1.105 127.28 75 96.08 20084 84 HIEXP 499,849 554,497 1.109 114.53 63 71.75 20091 84 HIEXP 437,250 503,783 1.152 100.79 66 66.64 20092 84 HIEXP 447,101 546,856 1.223 100.81 71 71.54 20093 84 HIEXP 488,248 566,768 1.161 93.54 78 73.34 20094 84 HIEXP 352,032 441,499 1.254 96.82 59 57.13 20101 84 HIEXP 401,142 489,516 1.220 89.46 72 64.75 20102 84 HIEXP 467,259 636,688 1.363 103.90 80 83.29 20103 84 HIEXP 481,155 622,459 1.294 103.73 78 80.55 20104 84 HIEXP 333,860 438,914 1.315 98.40 58 56.80 20111 84 HIEXP 410,039 490,624 1.197 95.45 68 64.90 20112 84 HIEXP 451,158 545,260 1.209 104.61 68 71.33 UNIVERSAL CI 200 PALISADES D 78148 SUPER 8 FMR COMFORT INN 85 1.060 20063 119 COMFO 403,015 418,064 1.037 61.76 62 38.19 20064 119 COMFO 204,533 211,439 1.034 45.76 42 19.31 20071 119 COMFO 245,753 247,440 1.007 45.00 51 23.10 20072 119 COMFO 297,394 301,899 1.015 48.67 57 27.88 20073 119 SUPR8 399,745 423,730.000 58.85 66 38.70 20074 119 SUPR8 235,302 249,420.000 47.08 48 22.78 20081 119 SUPR8 311,506 315,261 1.012 47.46 62 29.44 20082 119 SUPR8 344,230 349,134 1.014 49.49 65 32.24 20083 119 SUPR8 422,387 447,730.000 55.20 74 40.90 20084 119 SUPR8 184,406 195,470.000 46.49 38 17.85 20091 119 SUPR8 205,806 218,154.000 42.40 48 20.37 20092 119 SUPR8 227,700 241,362.000 41.65 54 22.29 20093 119 SUPR8 260,056 275,659.000 41.29 61 25.18 20094 119 SUPR8 186,237 197,411.000 36.83 49 18.03 20101 119 SUPR8 199,111 211,058.000 34.60 57 19.71 20102 119 SUPR8 219,899 233,093.000 34.19 63 21.52 20103 119 SUPR8 268,820 284,949.000 40.64 64 26.03 20104 119 SUPR8 184,581 195,656.000 38.79 46 17.87 20111 119 SUPR8 183,036 194,018.000 37.63 48 18.12 20112 119 SUPR8 208,002 220,482.000 37.33 55 20.36 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 71 of 102 EXHIBIT IV PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: TEXAS EXCLUDING MAJOR CITIES & SEGMENTS ABOVE MINI-SUITES # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- CHAINS CANDLWOOD 32 2.8 1.3 623 1.5 41,624 1.6 62.0 66.77 41.39 COMFO STE 93 6.3 3.1 1,265 3.1 95,145 3.6 55.2 75.19 41.47 HAWTHORN 13 1.4.7 282.7 21,745.8 56.4 77.07 43.45 SPRNGHILL 16 1.8.9 391 1.0 36,151 1.4 60.7 92.36 56.08 TOWNPLACE 15 1.5.7 359.9 31,141 1.2 64.5 86.64 55.86 OTHER MIN 8.8.4 194.5 14,218.5 63.5 73.45 46.65 TOT MIN STE 178 14.5 7.1 3,115 7.7 240,023 9.1 58.7 77.04 45.23 BEST WEST 219 13.2 6.4 2,678 6.6 188,059 7.1 55.5 70.23 38.98 CNTRY INN 16 1.1.5 229.6 16,305.6 58.1 71.31 41.44 COMFO INN 65 4.1 2.0 782 1.9 52,555 2.0 52.4 67.17 35.22 DRURY INN 6.7.4 165.4 14,205.5 62.5 85.90 53.71 FAIRFIELD 45 3.7 1.8 827 2.0 68,628 2.6 61.4 82.99 50.95 HAMPTON 130 10.6 5.1 2,400 5.9 230,306 8.7 62.3 95.95 59.73 HOLID EXP 178 13.8 6.7 3,100 7.6 288,961 11.0 61.7 93.20 57.53 LA QUINTA 169 15.2 7.4 3,130 7.7 219,547 8.3 56.4 70.15 39.57 SLEEP INN 26 1.7.8 340.8 22,321.8 56.1 65.63 36.82 WINGATE 9.8.4 180.4 14,147.5 59.5 78.40 46.64 TOT LTD SVE 862 64.8 31.5 13,832 34.1 1,115,035 42.3 58.5 80.61 47.13 BUDG STES 7 2.6 1.3 638 1.6 22,039.8 67.3 34.53 23.24 EXT AMERI 22 2.3 1.1 553 1.4 24,432.9 65.3 44.18 28.83 HOMESTEAD 6.8.4 188.5 7,323.3 67.6 38.95 26.33 INTOWN ST 13 1.7.8 405 1.0 12,877.5 67.2 31.80 21.36 STUDIO + 4.4.2 90.2 3,916.1 65.4 43.63 28.53 STUDIO 6 16 1.5.7 341.8 14,424.5 61.5 42.33 26.03 VALUE PLC 27 3.2 1.6 802 2.0 25,333 1.0 68.3 31.60 21.58 OTHER EXT 16 1.7.8 371.9 13,570.5 59.6 36.55 21.79 TOT EXT STA 111 14.1 6.9 3,388 8.3 123,914 4.7 65.6 36.58 23.99 BAYMONT 23 1.6.8 304.7 19,175.7 53.4 63.13 33.69 BEST VALU 89 5.6 2.7 964 2.4 35,782 1.4 47.2 37.10 17.52 CLARION 2.4.2 73.2 4,022.2 52.1 54.87 28.56 DAYS INN 117 7.5 3.7 1,401 3.5 70,602 2.7 51.0 50.39 25.72 ECONOLODG 39 2.3 1.1 395 1.0 18,166.7 46.7 45.94 21.43 HO JO 23 1.7.8 277.7 12,496.5 43.9 45.16 19.82 MICROTEL 18 1.1.5 213.5 10,851.4 53.5 50.95 27.25 MOTEL 6 92 8.6 4.2 1,877 4.6 76,623 2.9 59.7 40.82 24.36 QUALITY 56 4.7 2.3 838 2.1 47,154 1.8 49.2 56.25 27.66 RAMADA 30 2.7 1.3 435 1.1 22,859.9 43.9 52.59 23.09 RED ROOF 15 1.6.8 320.8 14,844.6 54.4 46.33 25.21 RODEWAY 20 1.2.6 197.5 8,542.3 46.7 43.34 20.25

Page 72 of 102 PERIOD: TWELVE MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2011 HOTEL MARKET: TEXAS EXCLUDING MAJOR CITIES & SEGMENTS ABOVE MINI-SUITES # * EST. $ EST. #* RMS % RNS % AMT. % EST. $ $ BRAND HTL 000S RMS 000S RNS 000S AMT %OCC RATE RPAR ----- --- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ---- SUPER 8 133 7.7 3.7 1,449 3.6 74,128 2.8 51.8 51.17 26.49 TRAVELODG 18 1.5.7 259.6 11,855.4 47.7 45.73 21.84 OTHER BUD 60 3.0 1.4 504 1.2 21,294.8 46.8 42.25 19.76 TOT BUDGET 737 51.1 24.8 9,507 23.4 448,392 17.0 51.0 47.16 24.05 TOT CHAINS 1,891 145.2 70.5 29,959 73.8 1,938,544 73.5 56.5 64.71 36.59 INDEPENDENTS $100+ ADR 359 13.6 6.6 2,324 5.7 338,592 12.8 46.8 145.70 68.12 $60-99ADR 201 9.0 4.4 1,577 3.9 119,602 4.5 48.1 75.85 36.47 LT $60ADR 760 38.3 18.6 6,736 16.6 241,558 9.2 48.2 35.86 17.29 TOT INDEP 1,320 60.9 29.5 10,636 26.2 699,752 26.5 47.9 65.79 31.49 TOT MARKET 3,211 206.0 100.0 40,595 100.0 2,638,296 100 54.0 64.99 35.08 * All figures annualized. Includes taxed and est non-tax room revenues. Independents are categorized by price: $100+, $60-99.99, and under $60)

Page 73 of 102 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 74 of 102 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 75 of 102 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 76 of 102 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 77 of 102 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 78 of 102 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 79 of 102 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 80 of 102 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 81 of 102 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 82 of 102 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 83 of 102 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 84 of 102 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 85 of 102 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 86 of 102 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 87 of 102 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. 16 16 Data compiled and organized from the CapEx report of the International Society of Hospitality Consultants, copyright 2000.

Page 88 of 102 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