Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
ETX Park Fund #2, LLC
ETX Management · Residential RE · Debt · Vintage 2018
67
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
97
LP take (absolute)
68
Pref quality
70
Fee drag
18
GP alignment
32
Timing risk
Key economics
- Preferred return
- 7%
- Hurdle rate
- —
- LP / GP split
- —
- GP catch-up
- No
- GP clawback
- —
- GP commitment
- —
Diligence findings (6 · 3 high/critical)
- highDDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?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.
- highDDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?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.
- highDDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?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.
- mediumA 7% preferred return is stated but no waterfall tier pays itKey economics declare a preferred return, yet none of the extracted distribution tiers reference a pref/hurdle or carry a threshold rate. A pref that lives only in the summary — not the distribution mechanics — may not be contractually enforceable.
- mediumDDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?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.
- mediumDDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?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.
DDQ readiness — 54% covered
7 answered · 1 partial · 5 gaps of 13 standard questions.