Waterfalls
Default
Score model

Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

Angel Studios 001, Inc.

Sponsored by Angel Studios·

Unknown· Inc · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
4 data notes▶
Unusual structureLow-confidence extractionUnscored: absolute lp takeUnscored: fee drag
Run the numbers
Composite
38.3
median 35 +3
Pref Returnⓘ
—
—
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
median 42.6% · Other / Specialty
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
—
ticket size
Offering Size
$5M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $875K · Fees $0 · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 42.9%Limited Partners · $375KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes

How Angel Studios 001, Inc. divides the cap table

The cascade above models the blended LP view. Click a class below to view per-class economics.

Deal diligence20 findings · worst high

Automated checks across the fund's extracted PPM. Every finding is shown with the evidence it's based on — proven numbers or a verbatim quote and page.

Document quality

Drafting defects found in the PPM prose — numeric inconsistencies, broken cross-references, unfilled placeholders, and defined-term problems. Each is shown with the offending quote and its page.

Document-quality defect — Angel Studios SPV - Cabrini, Inc. vs Angel Studios 001, Inc.

High

Auditor's report and financial-statement notes are addressed to 'Angel Studios SPV - Cabrini, Inc.' — the entity's prior name — not the current issuer name 'Angel Studios 001, Inc.' appearing on the cover and throughout the offering circular.

“To the Stockholders' of Angel Studios SPV - Cabrini, Inc. ... We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Angel Studios SPV - Cabrini, Inc. which comprise the balance sheet as of December 31, 2023”
PPM p.4497% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — $5,000,0000 — extra zero in milestones table

Medium

The 'Total Use of Net Proceeds' cell in the Plan of Operations milestones table reads '$5,000,0000' (ten million) instead of '$5,000,000' (five million) for the 100%-sold scenario.

“Total Use of Net Proceeds $ 1,250,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 3,750,000 $ 5,000,0000”
PPM p.3298% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Use of Proceeds table — Net Proceeds vs Total Use of Net Proceeds at 25% scenario

Medium

Net Proceeds at the 25%-sold scenario is stated as $1,100,000 after deducting $150,000 in fees from $1,250,000 gross, but the 'Total Use of Net Proceeds' row in the same table shows $1,250,000 — i.e., the gross amount, not the net.

“Net Proceeds $ 1,100,000 ... Total Use of Net Proceeds $ 1,250,000”
PPM p.2292% confidence

Spelling / typo — COMISSION

Low

Cover-page disclaimer misspells 'COMMISSION' as 'COMISSION': 'THE COMISSION HAS NOT MADE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION.'

“THE COMISSION HAS NOT MADE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION THAT THE SECURITIES OFFERED ARE EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION.”
PPM p.199% confidence

Spelling / typo — THE UNITED STATE SECURITIES

Low

Cover-page disclaimer reads 'THE UNITED STATE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION' — missing the 'S' in 'STATES.'

“THE UNITED STATE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DOES NOT PASS UPON THE MERITS OF OR GIVE ITS APPROVAL TO ANY SECURITIES OFFERED”
PPM p.199% confidence

Spelling / typo — explouit

Info

Description of Business section misspells 'exploit' as 'explouit': 'agreeing to market, distribute, and otherwise explouit the Picture.'

“On September 9, 2024, we entered into a Distribution Agreement with the Producer, agreeing to market, distribute, and otherwise explouit the Picture.”
PPM p.2599% confidence

Spelling / typo — incured

Info

Footnote to the Use of Proceeds table misspells 'incurred' as 'incured': 'additional professional fees that may be incured after the date of this Preliminary Offering Circular.'

“additional professional fees that may be incured after the date of this Preliminary Offering Circular.”
PPM p.2299% confidence

Spelling / typo — Issurance

Info

Statement of Stockholders' Equity misspells 'Issuance' as 'Issurance': 'Issurance of Common Stock.'

“Issurance of Common Stock”
PPM p.4699% confidence

Spelling / typo — rase

Info

Plan of Distribution section misspells 'raise' as 'rase': 'we will not be required to return any funds to you if we do not rase the maximum offering amount.'

“we will not be required to return any funds to you if we do not rase the maximum offering amount.”
PPM p.2099% confidence

Spelling / typo — reimbused

Info

Substantive sentence misspells 'reimbursed' as 'reimbused': 'the Company will be reimbused (or will reimburse its Parent Company) for all other marketing and distribution expenses.'

“the Company will be reimbused (or will reimburse its Parent Company) for all other marketing and distribution expenses permitted under the Distribution Agreement”
PPM p.499% confidence

Spelling / typo — third_parties

Info

Body text uses an underscore instead of a space: 'to license the Picture to third_parties for distribution on their distribution platforms.'

“we also intend to license the Picture to third_parties for distribution on their distribution platforms.”
PPM p.1597% confidence

Diligence gaps

Questions a standard diligence questionnaire would ask that the PPM leaves unanswered.

DDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Governance). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Governance). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Structure). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the minimum LP investment?

Low

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Structure). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ readiness

How much of a standard institutional due-diligence questionnaire this fund's offering documents answer out of the box. Gaps are questions an allocator will ask directly.

31%
Coverage
4 answered0 partial9 gaps13 questions
Economics
  • What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?Gap
  • What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?Gap
  • Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?Gap
  • Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?Gap
  • What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?Gap
Structure
  • What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?Gap
  • What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2021.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $5,000,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Gap
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?1 fee line item(s) extracted from the offering documents.Answered
Governance
  • Does the fund engage an independent auditor?Gap
  • Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?Gap
Generate IC memo →

Fee scheduletaken before LP distributions

Total load 0.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Offering Expenses (legal, auditing, accounting, printing, payment processor, other professional fees)
Qualification of Offering under Regulation A
Flat cap of $150,000 deducted from gross proceeds; paid initially by Parent Company and reimbursed by the Company
0.00%

Service providers3 gaps

Provider network →
Legal Counsel
Gap
Not disclosed
No independent counsel named for investors. Common in small syndications where Manager and Fund share counsel — reduces independence. Verify during diligence.
Auditor
Gap
Not disclosed
Audit intent not stated in PPM. Ask the sponsor: will the fund be audited, by whom, and on what frequency?
Fund Administrator
Gap
Not disclosed
No third-party fund administrator referenced. Manager likely handles admin internally — common for <$10M raises but reduces independence.
Placement Agent
OK
No placement agent engaged
No placement agent engaged. Direct placement by Manager — no placement fees eat your invested capital.

Community threads0 active

What allocators are saying. Diligence notes, open questions, attached scenarios.

⚛ RSSStart a thread →
No threads yet. Be the first →

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be the first allocator to leave a take.

Funds you might also likesame Unknown

286 Lenox Partners LLC
Regal Capital Acquisitions
Debt
2021
—
36.9
Benchmark Real Estate Investment Fund, LLC
Benchmark Companies
—
2015
85%
40.3
Red Oak Capital Fund III, LLC
Red Oak Capital
—
2015
—
36.3
Groundfloor Loans 2 LLC
Groundfloor Finance
—
2015
—
35.6
COMPOUND REAL ESTATE BONDS II INC.
Compound Asset Management
Debt
2025
—
35.5