Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.
Sponsored by Compound Asset Management·
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.
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.
MD&A states net loss of $1,500 for the period but the audited financial statements show net loss of $22,125.
“For the period ending July 7, 2025, we had $1,500 in audit expenses, for a net loss of $1,500 for the period ... NET LOSS $ (22,125)”
The document refers to 'the offer and sale of the Shares under this Offering Circular' but this is a bond offering with no equity shares being offered; 'the Shares' appears to be a wrong-term substitution from a template.
“We will afford the potential investors the opportunity to obtain any additional information to the extent we possess such information or can acquire such information without unreasonable effort or expense that is necessary to verify the information in this Offering Circular. ... the offer and sale of the Shares under this Offering Circular.”
The body of the circular states the Administrative Services Agreement was entered into on 'July 11, 2025' but the exhibit index identifies it as 'Administrative Services Agreement dated July 16, 2025', a five-day discrepancy.
“On July 11, 2025, we entered into an Administrative Services Agreement ... Administrative Services Agreement dated July 16, 2025 by and between Compound Administrative Services LLC and Compound Real Estate Bonds II, Inc.”
The bullet 'Bear interest at 8.5% per annum, compounded daily;' appears verbatim twice in the bond summary section on the same page.
“Bear interest at 8.5% per annum, compounded daily; ... Bear interest at 8.5% per annum, compounded daily;”
Sentence 'Inderjit Tuli & Michael Burmi have very little direct with making real estate investments' is missing a word (presumably 'experience'), rendering it grammatically broken in substantive risk disclosure.
“Inderjit Tuli & Michael Burmi have very little direct with making real estate investments, and thus will be relying on the advice and guidance of others”
'Exist Strategy' is a misspelling of 'Exit Strategy' in the multi-family investment criteria section.
“Exist Strategy Holding Period and Opportunity: Short-term holding period. 18 months - 24 months.”
'marketing' appears twice consecutively in the list of offering expenses, indicating a copy-paste drafting error.
“Such offering expenses consist of legal, accounting, marketing, technology, marketing, filing and compliance costs, as applicable.”
Questions a standard diligence questionnaire would ask that the PPM leaves unanswered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What allocators are saying. Diligence notes, open questions, attached scenarios.
Be the first allocator to leave a take.