Waterfalls
Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

CENTURY WEST MULTIFAMILY INCOME REIT, LLC

Sponsored by Century West Multifamily·

Unknown· LLC · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
4 data notes▶
Unscored: absolute lp takeUnscored: gp timing riskUnscored: alignmentInsufficient data
Run the numbers
Composite
—
median 45 · Multifamily / Apartments
Pref Returnⓘ
—
median 9.0% · Multifamily / Apartments
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
median 82.1% · Multifamily / Apartments
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$10
ticket size
Offering Size
$20M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $850K · Fees $25K · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KGPFFees to Manager$25,000 · 2.9% of grossLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 40.0%Limited Partners · $350KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes· viewing as Series A Preference Shares

How CENTURY WEST MULTIFAMILY INCOME REIT, LLC divides the cap table

The cascade above is filtered to Series A Preference Shares. Reset to blended view.

Deal diligence19 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.

Numeric inconsistency — Common Shares Issued and Outstanding in financial statements

High

The Statement of Shareholder Equity (Section III) reports 75,000 Common Shares Issued and Outstanding, while the Notes to Financial Statements (Section VI) reports 225,000 Common Shares Issued and Outstanding as of August 15, 2023 — a 3x discrepancy for the same date.

“Section III: 75,000 Common Shares Issued and Outstanding | Section VI Notes: 225,000 Common Shares Issued and Outstanding”
PPM p.9597% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Net loss: $0.00 in MD&A vs. ($6,875) in financial statements

High

Item 14 MD&A states 'The Company incurred a net loss of $0.00 USD,' but the Statement of Operations in the financial statements shows a net loss of ($6,875) for the same period.

“Item 14: 'The Company incurred a net loss of $0.00 USD as the Company was only recently formed in April of 2023.' | Statement of Operations: 'TOTAL NET INCOME / NET LOSS: ($ 6,875)'”
PPM p.4898% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Post-offering share counts for Kermani and Syndicate Legal between Item 6 and Item 13

High

Item 6 (ownership/dilution) and Item 13 (security ownership) show contradictory post-offering maximum share allocations for Kermani and Syndicate Legal: Item 6 gives Kermani 220,500 and Syndicate 1,096; Item 13 gives Kermani 220,500 and Syndicate 29,500. Additionally, at the minimum offering, Item 6 shows Kermani with 8,268 shares (labeled 9.8%) and Syndicate with 29,500 shares (labeled 1.3%) — the percentages appear transposed relative to the share counts.

“Item 6 - Minimum Offering: Kermani: 8,268 Common Shares (9.8% of the Issued & Outstanding); Syndicate: 29,500 Common Shares (1.3% of the Issued & Outstanding) | Item 13 - Maximum Offering: Kermani: 220,500 Common Shares (9.8% of the Issued & Outstanding); Syndicate: 29,500 Common Shares (1.3% of the Issued & Outstanding)”
PPM p.2795% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Current liabilities: $0.00 in MD&A vs. ($1,000) in Balance Sheet

Medium

Item 14 MD&A states current liabilities are 'approximately $0.00 USD' and working capital is '$25,000.00 USD,' but the Balance Sheet shows current liabilities of ($1,000) and total shareholder equity of $24,000 — inconsistent by $1,000.

“Item 14: 'total current assets of approximately $25,000.00 USD and current liabilities of approximately $0.00 USD, resulting in a working capital of approximately $25,000.00 USD.' | Balance Sheet: 'CURRENT LIABILITIES: None ($1,000) ... TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES ($1,000)'”
PPM p.4897% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — TBD / $TBD

Medium

Three Board of Directors seats (#3, #4, #5) are listed as 'TBD' with '$TBD' compensation amounts in the directors compensation table, indicating the document was shipped before these positions were filled.

“TBD - Board of Directors Member #3 (Independent) ... $TBD ... $TBD ... $TBD”
PPM p.4398% confidence

Document-quality defect — 'Offering Memorandum' vs. 'Offering Circular'

Low

In Item 15 (Description of Capital Shares), the document refers to itself as 'this Offering Memorandum,' but the document is titled, filed, and universally referred to throughout as an 'Offering Circular.' This is an incorrect self-reference suggesting copy-paste from a different template.

“Distributions made by the Company will be authorized and determined by the Management of the Company in its sole discretion out of funds legally available therefor and will be dependent upon a number of factors, including restrictions under applicable law and other factors described in this Offering Memorandum.”
PPM p.5096% confidence

Document-quality defect — Formation date discrepancy across financial statements

Low

The Balance Sheet and Notes describe the period starting 'April 13, 2023,' but the Statement of Operations states the period from 'April 23, 2023' — a 10-day discrepancy in the same financial package.

“Balance Sheet: 'For the Period from April 13, 2023, to August 15, 2023' | Statement of Operations: 'For the Period from April 23, 2023, to August 15, 2023'”
PPM p.9595% confidence

Document-quality defect — Preference Shares percentage '2 00%' for Steve Mueller

Low

The Preference Shares ownership table shows Steve Mueller owning '200 Series A Preference Shares (2 00% of the Issued & Outstanding)' — the percentage '2 00%' is garbled and should be '20%', consistent with 200 out of 1,000 total shares.

“Steve Mueller ... 200 Series A Preference Shares (2 00% of the Issued & Outstanding)”
PPM p.5697% confidence

Spelling / typo — CONTAINES

Info

Misspelling 'CONTAINES' (should be 'CONTAINS') in all-caps disclosure block on page 3.

“THIS OFFERING CIRCULAR CONTAINES SUMMARIES OF DOCUMENTS NOT CONTAINED IN THIS OFFERING CIRCULAR”
PPM p.399% confidence

Spelling / typo — INNACCURATE

Info

Misspelling 'INNACCURATE' (should be 'INACCURATE') in the forward-looking statements risk disclosure.

“ANY ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS COULD BE INNACCURATE.”
PPM p.899% confidence

Spelling / typo — REMAINDER OF PAGE LEF BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Info

Repeated misspelling 'LEF' (missing 'T') in the boilerplate 'REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY' line, appearing on multiple pages (e.g., pages 7, 8, 46, 77, 78, 80, 91, 92).

“REMAINDER OF PAGE LEF BLANK INTENTIONALLY”
PPM p.799% 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 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.

38%
Coverage
5 answered0 partial8 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 2015.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $20,000,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $10.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?4 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 11.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Asset Management Fee
Ongoing; quarterly
Assets Under Management (defined as paid-in cash capital by investors/shareholders); paid quarterly at 0.25% per quarter
1.00%
Board Meeting Fee
Monthly Board Meeting
$1,500 per meeting per director, not to exceed $25,000 per year per independent director
0.00%
Offering Cost Reimbursement
Ongoing during offering
Approximately 5% of total capital raised; covers organization, offering, accounting and legal costs
5.00%
Selling Commission
Capital raise via broker-dealer
5% of capital raised; only applicable if a SEC-registered Broker-Dealer is engaged under a Broker-Dealer Agreement
5.00%

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

Connect Invest III LLC
Connect Invest
Debt
2025
—
50.0
Jamestown Invest 1, LLC
Jamestown
—
2010
87%
49.7
Auor Capital Fund V LLC
Auor Capital
—
2018
—
50.6
Red Oak Capital Intermediate Income Fund, LLC
Red Oak Capital
Debt
2015
—
50.9
Tuscan Gardens Secured Income Fund LLC
Tuscan Gardens
—
2015
—
48.8