Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.
Sponsored by HALL Group·
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.
Broken/garbled sentence in the minimum purchase requirements; 'at least four $20,000' is incomplete and nonsensical (the minimum is $20,000 in $5,000 increments).
“You must initially purchase at least four $20,000. If you have satisfied the applicable minimum purchase requirement, any additional purchase must be in amounts of at least $5,000.”
The same Ft. Lauderdale loan maximum is shown as '$27,926,00' (missing a digit) in the nine-month notes but '$27,926,000' in the year-end notes.
“e. The Company has a loan providing for a maximum amount of $27,926,00, secured by the first mortgage receivable held by Ft. Lauderdale. // h. The Company obtained a loan providing for a maximum amount of $27,926,000 from a third-party lender, secured by the first mortgage receivable held by Ft. Lauderdale.”
Two errors in one sentence: 'it's Manager' should be possessive 'its Manager', and 'core underwriting principals' should be 'core underwriting principles'.
“HSF believes that through it's Manager it has a strong underwriting team which has remained highly selective in the transactions it has recommended for financing and has not deviated from its core underwriting principals.”
Grammatical error in distribution covenant risk factor: 'net equity to be less from $75 million' should read 'less than $75 million'.
“the Company may make distributions to its sole member, provided that no such distribution would cause the Company's net equity to be less from $75 million.”
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.