The former Hotel Terme di Agnano property is due to be offered for sale on 1 October 2026. But the buyer is not acquiring the thermal complex or the previous hotel business: the real investment case revolves around a real estate carve-out, usufruct rights, infrastructure separation, CAPEX, planning constraints and the ability to create a new hospitality product in the Campi Flegrei area

€25 million.

That is the base price set for one of the most distinctive hospitality assets currently being offered on the Italian market.

On 1 October 2026, as part of the Court-approved Composition with Creditors No. 3/2025 concerning Terme di Agnano S.p.A. in liquidation, the property at 24 Via Agnano agli Astroni in Naples — previously used in part for the operations of the Hotel Terme di Agnano — is due to be offered for sale.

Both the base price and minimum bid are set at €25 million, with minimum bid increments of €100,000 and a deadline for submitting offers of 12:00 noon on 30 September 2026. The documentation indicates an appraisal value, under the first valuation methodology, of approximately €29.013 million.

Yet describing the transaction simply as:

“a Naples hotel for sale at €25 million”

would be reductive.

And, from an investor’s perspective, potentially misleading.

The actual transaction is considerably more complex.

The buyer is not acquiring the Terme di Agnano complex as a whole, is not acquiring the previous hotel operating business, and does not automatically acquire licences, concessions or the thermal operations.

The buyer is primarily acquiring a real estate asset embedded within a wider legacy complex, from which it will need to become technically, legally and operationally independent.

The relevant question is therefore not:

“Is €25 million cheap or expensive for this hotel?”

The real question is:

“What is the value of a hospitality asset that must first be separated, regularised, redesigned, repositioned and subsequently brought back into income-producing operation?”

That is where the real underwriting begins.

The first point to clarify: the “Terme di Agnano” complex itself is not being sold

This distinction is fundamental.

The sale notice specifies that the lot comprises the real estate asset only, previously used in part for the Hotel Terme di Agnano.

Specifically excluded from the scope of the transaction are:

the thermal facilities, the commercial activities previously operated, other movable and immovable assets, concessions, licences and any items not expressly included in the sale notice.

This fundamentally changes the investment case.

A prospective buyer is not acquiring:

Hotel + Thermal Baths + Concessions + Operating Business

as an integrated going concern.

The buyer is primarily acquiring:

Real Estate

which must subsequently be transformed into:

an Operating Hospitality Asset.

The distinction is substantial.

The property: five levels, guestrooms, conference facilities, F&B and parking

The building offered for sale extends over five floors, four above ground and one basement level.

The official documentation describes:

Basement level

Offices, storage rooms, staff changing rooms, service areas, lift shafts, vertical circulation and the central heating plant.

Ground floor

Conference rooms, service spaces and vertical circulation, although subject to a particular ownership and usufruct structure discussed below.

First floor

Hotel rooms, corridors and floor services.

Second floor

Guestrooms, service areas and meeting rooms.

Third floor

Guestrooms, TV lounge, services and common areas.

Restaurant areas

Restaurant, staff canteen, kitchen, pastry preparation area, pantry, cold-storage rooms and storage spaces.

The lot also includes a parking area recorded as a cadastral parcel of approximately 6,382 sqm, together with a share of unregistered common areas serving the wider Terme di Agnano complex.

Historically, the City of Naples described the Hotel Terme di Agnano as a four-star property with 62 rooms, meeting facilities and restaurant services.

That figure is useful in understanding the asset’s previous operating configuration.

It should not, however, automatically be regarded as the future authorised or saleable key count following redevelopment.

This leads immediately to the first key principle:

Historic Keys ≠ Future Saleable Keys.

€25 million versus a €29 million appraisal: the comparison is not enough

The first figure likely to attract an investor’s attention is the difference between:

Appraisal value: approximately €29.01 million

and

Base price: €25 million.

The nominal difference is approximately €4 million, or just under 14% relative to the appraisal value used under the first valuation methodology.

But it would be analytically weak to conclude that this automatically represents a “discount”.

Because:

Appraisal Value ≠ Investment Value.

The economic value of the transaction to an investor depends on:

  • CAPEX;

  • timing;

  • separation costs;

  • administrative risk;

  • usufruct rights;

  • financing costs;

  • working capital;

  • operating model;

  • stabilised EBITDA;

  • exit yield;

  • required investor return.

The meaningful comparison is therefore not:

€29m Appraisal vs €25m Purchase Price.

It is:

Total Invested Capital vs Stabilised Asset Value.

The critical issue: approximately 3,333 sqm will be subject to a free usufruct

This is arguably the most distinctive feature of the entire transaction.

A portion of the ground floor measuring approximately 3,333.35 sqm is used for the provision of hydrothermal healthcare services under an agreement with the local health authority.

Although included in the asset being sold, this area will be subject to a real right of usufruct granted free of charge to Terme di Agnano S.p.A., allowing the company to continue providing the healthcare services currently operated there.

The documentation indicates that the potential duration corresponds to the maximum term permitted for a legal entity under Article 979 of the Italian Civil Code:

up to 30 years.

For an investment committee, this is not a secondary consideration.

It is central to the underwriting.

Because it means:

Owned Area ≠ Economically Available Area.

An investor must therefore distinguish between:

Legal Ownership

and

Usable Area

and

Income-Producing Area

and

Area Encumbered by Third-Party Rights.

The nominal real estate value of the floor area does not necessarily correspond to its ability to generate cash flow for the future owner.

A hospitality asset with an internal carve-out

From a financial perspective, the usufruct effectively turns part of the project into a genuine carve-out transaction.

It is therefore not sufficient to build a hotel business plan.

The buyer must develop a genuine:

Separation Thesis.

The investor should assess, among other things:

  • access points;

  • customer circulation;

  • lifts;

  • emergency exits;

  • utilities;

  • HVAC;

  • energy;

  • water;

  • drainage;

  • security;

  • maintenance;

  • parking;

  • liability;

  • insurance;

  • common areas.

Two separate activities could continue to coexist physically within the same wider real estate system.

That creates a question rarely found in conventional hotel business plans:

How much does it cost to make the hotel genuinely independent from the rest of the complex?

Building services: the hidden cost of separation

The sale documentation specifically notes that a substantial part of the technical systems serving the entire wider property complex is located in the basement.

Following the transaction, the infrastructure may therefore need to be reconfigured to provide operational independence both to the buyer and to Terme di Agnano S.p.A.

The documentation states that the related costs and responsibilities will fall to the successful bidder.

This is a crucial point.

The project’s CAPEX cannot be limited to:

Room Renovation + FF&E + Public Areas.

It may also need to include:

Infrastructure Separation CAPEX.

The Total Investment Cost should therefore potentially be framed as:

**Purchase Price

  • Transaction Costs

  • Building CAPEX

  • MEP CAPEX

  • Infrastructure Separation

  • Planning & Compliance

  • FF&E

  • Pre-opening

  • Working Capital

  • Financing Costs

  • Contingency
    = Total Investment Cost**

The €25 million acquisition price is therefore only the first line of the model.

The second major variable: building and planning irregularities

The sale notice identifies building discrepancies relative to the existing planning approvals.

An application for regularisation was submitted in April 2025.

According to the documentation, the City of Naples acknowledged that the application could proceed, subject to the completion of the required approvals, particularly those relating to seismic and landscape matters.

In May 2026, the City of Naples Landscape Commission issued a favourable opinion. However, at the date of the sale notice, the procedure remained pending before the competent Archaeology, Fine Arts and Landscape Authority.

This issue also needs to be translated into financial terms.

Pending Administrative Process = Timing Risk

and:

Timing Risk = Financial Risk.

Every month of delay may generate:

  • interest expense;

  • holding costs;

  • security costs;

  • insurance;

  • project-management costs;

  • foregone revenue;

  • postponed opening;

  • higher required returns.

In hotel redevelopment:

Time is CAPEX.

Landscape restrictions: not a footnote, but a project variable

The property also sits within a significant landscape-protection framework.

The official documentation indicates that the site falls within the protected Campi Flegrei – Conca di Agnano area and within the Agnano-Camaldoli Territorial Landscape Plan, under a zone classified for Integral Protection.

Following an award, notification to the competent authorities is also expected in relation to any rights applicable under Italy’s cultural heritage and landscape legislation.

For an investor this means:

Architecture Freedom ≠ Unlimited Freedom.

Any redevelopment strategy therefore needs to combine:

Hotel Design

with:

Planning Strategy + Landscape Strategy.

Campi Flegrei: territorial risk also belongs in due diligence

Agnano forms part of the Campi Flegrei area.

Italy’s Civil Protection Department confirms that the area remains affected by the current bradyseismic phase that began in 2005 and by increased seismic activity in recent years.

This needs to be approached without sensationalism.

But an institutional investment memorandum cannot simply ignore it.

Due diligence should therefore also assess:

  • vulnerability;

  • structural resilience;

  • seismic compliance;

  • insurance availability;

  • insurance pricing;

  • business interruption exposure;

  • emergency procedures;

  • lender requirements.

In this case:

Technical Due Diligence ≠ Standard Building Survey.

It must incorporate the specific characteristics of the Campi Flegrei area.

Naples, however, is a fundamentally different tourism market today

The other side of the equation is demand.

Naples has become one of the Italian urban destinations recording the strongest growth in tourism visibility and visitor volumes.

Official tourism data show a significant international component to the city’s demand profile.

This does not mean that every hotel within the metropolitan area will automatically perform well.

But it changes the starting point of the underwriting.

The project does not necessarily need to be considered solely as:

“a peripheral thermal hotel.”

It can potentially be analysed as:

Naples Hospitality Platform + Wellness + MICE + Campi Flegrei.

That represents a major strategic difference.

Agnano is not Naples city centre — and that is precisely the point

The property does not naturally compete with hotels around Piazza Municipio, Chiaia or the Lungomare for pure city-break leisure demand.

Its positioning therefore needs to be built around different demand generators.

The surrounding area provides access to attractions and infrastructure including:

  • Mostra d’Oltremare;

  • Arena Flegrea;

  • Fuorigrotta sports facilities;

  • Astroni Nature Reserve;

  • Posillipo;

  • Campi Flegrei;

  • Pozzuoli;

  • Baia;

  • Bacoli.

The area also benefits from access via the Naples ring road.

The future project should therefore avoid becoming:

another generic Naples hotel.

It needs a specific and defensible market position.

What type of product could make sense?

The first task for an advisor should not be to design the guestrooms.

It should be to define the product-market fit.

At least four strategic scenarios deserve consideration.

Scenario 1 – Urban Wellness Resort

A hospitality concept strongly focused on:

  • wellness;

  • thermal heritage;

  • spa;

  • medical wellness;

  • leisure;

  • weekend demand.

Under this scenario, however, the relationship with the thermal operations outside the sale perimeter becomes critical.

The buyer would need to assess whether and how an integrated product could be built commercially without directly owning the thermal business.

Scenario 2 – MICE & Congress Hotel

The historical configuration includes meeting and conference spaces.

Its proximity to Fuorigrotta and Mostra d’Oltremare could support a platform oriented towards:

  • conferences;

  • corporate events;

  • conventions;

  • groups;

  • incentives.

The critical variable here would be:

Meeting Space Productivity.

Large conference facilities only make sense if they generate sufficient room-night and F&B demand.

Scenario 3 – Campi Flegrei Urban Resort

A concept less dependent on the city centre and more focused on:

  • outdoor activities;

  • archaeology;

  • nature;

  • wellness;

  • food;

  • Campi Flegrei;

  • Posillipo;

  • Pozzuoli.

This could create a differentiated hospitality proposition compared with Naples’ traditional urban hotel supply.

Scenario 4 – Mixed Hospitality Platform

A combination of:

Hotel + MICE + Wellness + F&B + Events

could potentially make better use of the scale of the property.

It would also represent the most operationally complex scenario.

And:

Revenue Diversification can reduce demand risk, but increase operating complexity.

The business plan must measure both effects.

The historical 62-key inventory may be too small for the capital required

This is one of the most sensitive aspects of the transaction.

Historical municipal sources referred to 62 rooms.

If total investment — acquisition plus redevelopment — were to reach several tens of millions of euros, retaining a relatively limited room inventory could result in an exceptionally high all-in cost per key.

The buyer should therefore investigate:

  • potential room count;

  • underutilised areas;

  • whether inventory can be increased;

  • suites;

  • meeting spaces;

  • F&B;

  • wellness;

  • alternative revenue streams.

Any physical change would, of course, first require appropriate planning and landscape verification.

But the financial point remains clear:

The existing key count must not dictate the investment strategy.

The business plan should determine the economically sustainable key count.

Price per Key: potentially a dangerous metric here

If one simply used the historical 62-room figure, the €25 million purchase price alone would equal approximately:

€403,000 per historical key.

Yet this metric has limited analytical value.

Because:

  • future room count may change;

  • the lot includes substantial non-room areas;

  • the property includes meeting and F&B facilities;

  • part of the space will be subject to usufruct;

  • significant CAPEX may be required;

  • the previous operating business is not being transferred.

The more relevant metric will be:

Total Invested Capital ÷ Final Saleable Keys

which should then be compared with:

Stabilised EBITDA per Key

and:

Stabilised Value per Key.

An illustrative underwriting exercise

Without technical due diligence, it is not possible to produce a reliable CAPEX estimate today.

However, purely illustrative scenarios help explain the mechanics of the transaction.

Scenario A – €25m acquisition + €10m redevelopment

Total Investment Cost before financing and other components: approximately €35m

With 70 rooms:

approximately €500,000 per key

Scenario B – €25m acquisition + €20m redevelopment

approximately €45m

With 90 rooms:

approximately €500,000 per key

Scenario C – €25m acquisition + €30m transformation

approximately €55m

With 110 rooms:

approximately €500,000 per key

These are methodological examples, not forecasts for the project.

But they highlight a critical point:

at this level of investment, the ability to create sufficient inventory and EBITDA becomes decisive.

How much EBITDA would the project need?

Assume, purely for illustrative purposes, a Total Investment Cost of €45 million.

An investor targeting a 9% stabilised yield on cost would require approximately:

€4.05 million of normalised EBITDA.

At a Total Investment Cost of €55 million:

9% = €4.95 million of EBITDA.

At €65 million:

9% = €5.85 million.

That leads to the fundamental investment question:

Can this asset, once repositioned, sustainably generate several million euros of annual EBITDA?

If the answer is yes, an investment thesis may begin to emerge.

If the answer is no, the €25 million purchase price becomes largely secondary.

From EBITDA to Exit Value

Assume again, solely for methodological purposes, that the repositioned property generates:

€5 million of normalised EBITDA.

Applying:

12x EBITDA → €60 million

14x EBITDA → €70 million

16x EBITDA → €80 million

These are not valuations of the property.

They simply illustrate the mechanism.

If Total Investment Cost were €55 million and stabilised value €60 million, the value-creation margin would be extremely narrow relative to the risk undertaken.

If stabilised value were €80 million, the economics would look fundamentally different.

Therefore:

Purchase Price alone tells us almost nothing.

The underwriting should begin with the Exit

The appropriate analytical framework is:

Future Product
→ Final Key Count
→ ADR
→ Occupancy
→ Total Revenue
→ GOP
→ EBITDA
→ Stabilised Value

and only then:

Stabilised Value
– CAPEX
– Separation Costs
– Fees
– Financing Costs
– Working Capital
– Contingency
– Required Investor Return
= Maximum Acquisition Price

The correct process is not:

“It costs €25 million — let us see what we can do with it.”

It is:

“This project can potentially be worth X once stabilised. How much can we therefore afford to pay today?”

Eight stress tests an Investment Committee should require

1. CAPEX +20%

What happens if redevelopment costs exceed budget?

2. Separation CAPEX +30%

What happens if infrastructure separation is more complex than expected?

3. Opening delayed by 12 months

What is the impact on interest carry and working capital?

4. ADR -10%

How much EBITDA is lost?

5. Occupancy -10 percentage points

How materially does the break-even point change?

6. Longer planning regularisation

What is the financing cost of administrative delay?

7. Insurance Cost Upside

What is the GOP impact of higher insurance costs associated with the location?

8. MICE / Wellness downside

Does the project remain viable if one of the major revenue components underperforms?

The business plan needs to survive the downside.

Not merely work in Excel under the base case.

The real issue: the buyer acquires real estate but must create a business

This may be the most important feature of the entire transaction.

The sale does not automatically transfer the former hotel operating business.

The investor must therefore rebuild:

Brand

Distribution

Management

Staffing

Technology

F&B

MICE

Wellness Positioning

Sales

Revenue Management

Working Capital

Pre-opening

The transaction is therefore not:

Acquire → Operate.

It is:

Acquire
→ Separate
→ Regularise
→ Redesign
→ Finance
→ Rebuild
→ Brand
→ Pre-open
→ Ramp-up
→ Stabilise.

This is a genuine hospitality redevelopment case.

Brand or independent?

A second strategic decision concerns the operating model.

A project of this scale could be assessed through several alternatives:

Independent Hotel

International Brand – Franchise

International Brand – Management Agreement

Soft Brand

Specialised Wellness Operator

MICE-oriented Operator

The choice directly affects:

  • ADR;

  • distribution costs;

  • loyalty contribution;

  • management fees;

  • franchise fees;

  • FF&E standards;

  • CAPEX;

  • ramp-up;

  • exit liquidity.

A brand may increase value.

But it may also materially increase Total Investment Cost.

The relevant question is therefore not:

“Which brand is the most prestigious?”

It is:

“Which operating model produces the strongest risk-adjusted return?”

The thermal component: physically close, but economically not to be taken for granted

Agnano’s history and identity are deeply linked to thermal activity.

The wider complex includes thermal waters, healthcare-related services, wellness facilities and a significant historical and archaeological heritage.

However, an investor in the former hotel must avoid one important analytical error:

Physical Proximity ≠ Commercial Integration.

The value of any potential hotel-thermal relationship must be created through:

  • agreements;

  • access arrangements;

  • services;

  • pricing;

  • customer journey;

  • revenue sharing;

  • marketing;

  • operating responsibilities.

It cannot simply be assumed.

Common areas: real estate governance matters too

The lot also includes a share of unregistered common areas serving the different buildings within the wider complex.

The documentation indicates that relations among co-owners may need to be regulated through specific management arrangements for common areas or through a structure broadly comparable to condominium governance.

This is another typical carve-out issue.

An institutional investor needs to understand:

  • who decides;

  • who pays;

  • who maintains;

  • how costs are allocated;

  • how access works;

  • what rights exist over the common areas;

  • which services must remain shared.

Because:

Real Estate Governance affects Asset Value.

Due diligence: this transaction requires a multidisciplinary approach

A conventional real estate due diligence exercise would not be sufficient for a transaction of this complexity.

At least eight workstreams would be required.

1. Technical Due Diligence

Structure, building envelope, roofs, lifts, MEP, energy infrastructure, fire safety, systems and physical condition.

2. Seismic & Geotechnical Review

Vulnerability and the specific characteristics of the Campi Flegrei area.

3. Legal Due Diligence

Title, usufruct, common areas, real rights and buyer obligations.

4. Planning & Landscape Due Diligence

Regularisation process, heritage authority, restrictions, Integral Protection designation and development potential.

5. Separation Due Diligence

Utilities, access, building systems, circulation and common areas.

6. Market Due Diligence

Naples, Campi Flegrei, MICE, wellness, leisure and the competitive set.

7. Operational Due Diligence

Key count, F&B, meeting facilities, staffing, brand and operating model.

8. Financial Underwriting

CAPEX, Total Investment Cost, debt sizing, DSCR, yield on cost, IRR, equity multiple and Exit Value.

Only by combining these eight workstreams can an investor produce a genuine:

Investment Committee Paper.

Financing: lenders will look far beyond the €25 million acquisition price

The debt strategy must also reflect the final development plan.

A professional lender will assess:

  • sponsor equity;

  • acquisition LTV;

  • development LTC;

  • contingency;

  • planning status;

  • CAPEX certainty;

  • cost overruns;

  • interest reserve;

  • ramp-up;

  • stabilised DSCR;

  • exit value;

  • refinancing risk.

It may therefore be appropriate to distinguish between:

Acquisition Facility

and:

Development Facility

followed eventually by:

Stabilised Investment Loan.

The financing structure should follow the asset’s life cycle.

The asset may be worth more as a platform than as a conventional hotel

This is the key strategic question.

Value may not simply be driven by:

Rooms × ADR × Occupancy.

It may derive from a combination of:

**Rooms

  • MICE

  • F&B

  • Wellness

  • Events

  • Parking

  • Destination Experience**

In that case, the property could be considered a:

Hospitality & Wellness Platform

rather than merely a conventional hotel.

However, as the number of business units increases, operating complexity also rises.

Revenue growth must therefore be assessed against:

Incremental Revenue vs Incremental Complexity.

€25 million: cheap, fair or expensive?

There is no serious answer today based on the purchase price alone.

€25 million could be:

cheap

if the redevelopment creates a stabilised property worth substantially more than Total Investment Cost.

It could be:

fair

if the return only just reaches the investor’s required threshold.

It could be:

expensive

if CAPEX, timing, restrictions and separation costs absorb most of the future value.

The base price should therefore not drive the investment conclusion.

It should be an output of the underwriting.

Terme di Agnano: the real investment lies in the carve-out

The conclusion can be expressed through one simple framework.

The investor is not merely acquiring a hotel.

The investor is acquiring:

Real Estate

within:

an Integrated Legacy Complex

which must become:

an Independent Investable Hospitality Asset.

The pathway is therefore:

Acquisition
→ Carve-out
→ Planning Resolution
→ Infrastructure Separation
→ Product Redesign
→ CAPEX
→ Branding
→ Pre-opening
→ Ramp-up
→ Stabilised EBITDA
→ Asset Re-rating

That sequence will either create value — or destroy it.

The lesson for investors

In the Agnano case:

€25m Purchase Price ≠ €25m Investment

Ownership ≠ Full Economic Availability

Historic Keys ≠ Future Saleable Keys

Spa Proximity ≠ Spa Ownership

Appraisal Value ≠ Investment Value

Pending Regularisation ≠ Completed Compliance

Shared Infrastructure ≠ Operational Independence

Naples Tourism Growth ≠ Guaranteed Hotel Performance

Low Entry Yield ≠ Low Risk

And above all:

The buyer is not simply acquiring guestrooms.
The buyer is acquiring a real estate transformation challenge which, if successfully resolved, could become a hospitality platform.

That is the real investment case.

Investimenti Alberghieri

InvestimentiAlberghieri.it analyses hotel transactions, distressed and pre-distressed assets, redevelopment projects, acquisitions and value-creation opportunities through an integrated real estate, operations and finance approach.

The wider professional ecosystem also includes:

RobertoNecci.it, focused on economic and strategic analysis of the hotel industry;

InvestHotel.it, focused on hospitality investment, hotel finance, turnaround, value creation and extraordinary transactions;

HotelManagementGroup.it, dedicated to hotel advisory, development and management.

The methodology does not begin with the published purchase price.

It begins with:

Stabilised EBITDA
→ Stabilised Value
→ Required Return
→ Total Investment Cost
→ Maximum Acquisition Price.

For feasibility studies, business plans, valuation, acquisition underwriting, redevelopment and hospitality investment assessments:

info@investimentialberghieri.it

Methodological and legal note

This article has been prepared on the basis of the sale notice and publicly available information relating to the Court-approved Composition with Creditors No. 3/2025 of Terme di Agnano S.p.A. in liquidation, together with institutional information regarding the area and the relevant market.

The sale concerns the specific real estate property identified in the sale documentation and does not comprise the entire Terme di Agnano complex, nor does it automatically include the previous hotel operations, thermal activities, licences or concessions associated with the various businesses.

The financial and investment scenarios included in this article are provided solely for illustrative and methodological purposes. They do not constitute a property valuation, fairness opinion, investment recommendation, offer or assessment of whether the acquisition represents an attractive investment.

Any potential transaction would require independent technical, structural, seismic, geotechnical, environmental, legal, administrative, planning, landscape, cadastral, tax, commercial, operational and financial due diligence.


Share