Waterfalls
Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

Here Collection LLC

Sponsored by Here·

Unknown· Debt· LLC · 1 class· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
2 data notes▶
Unusual structureUnscored: absolute lp take
Run the numbers
Composite
13.8
median 38 −24
Pref Returnⓘ
—
—
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
at 1.75× exit
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$100
ticket size
Offering Size
$762K
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $728K · Fees $148K · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KGPFFees to Manager$147,500 · 16.9% of grossLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 26.0%Limited Partners · $228KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →

Deal diligence15 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 — Forum selection: Delaware vs. California

High

The forum-selection provision is stated as the State of Delaware throughout the document but as the State of California in the Securities Being Offered section, a direct contradiction about the governing forum.

“be brought in state or federal court of competent jurisdiction located within the State of Delaware. ... requires any suit, action, or proceeding seeking to enforce any provision of or based on any matter arising out of or in connection with the Operating Agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby, excluding matters arising under the federal securities laws, be brought in state or federal court of competent jurisdiction located within the State of California.”
PPM p.2093% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Offering termination period (one year vs. three years)

Medium

The offering termination date is stated as one year from qualification on the cover and in Plan of Distribution, but as three years from qualification in the Risk Factors section.

“the date that is one year from this offering being qualified by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ... (ii) the date which is three years from the date the Offering Statement was initially qualified by the Commission”
PPM p.188% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — [DATE]

Medium

Unfilled template token left in the offering-circular dating line on the cover page.

“The date of this Offering Circular is [DATE], 2022.”
PPM p.297% confidence

Defined-term defect — Here Acquisition vs. Here Acquisitions

Low

The cover defines the affiliate seller as 'Here Acquisition' (Here Acquisition LLC) but the body and financial statements repeatedly call it 'Here Acquisitions', creating ambiguity about the entity.

“'Here Acquisition' refers to Here Acquisition LLC, a subsidiary of Here and the potential seller of property ... thereafter Series #1 purchased the Largo Property from Here Acquisitions for a cash purchase price of $328,665”
PPM p.282% confidence

Document-quality defect — Here Investments LLC vs. Here Investments Inc.

Low

The parent is defined and signed as 'Here Investments Inc.', a Delaware corporation, but the financial-statement notes refer to it as 'Here Investments LLC', a wrong-entity-name defect about who received the sourcing fee and interests.

“3,894 of which were acquired by Here Investments LLC. ... and Series #1 paid $34,417 to Here Investments LLC as a sourcing fee.”
PPM p.5483% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Net proceeds to issuer ($754,437.41 vs. $754,438.54)

Low

Proceeds to Issuer on the cover table is $754,437.41 but the Use of Proceeds section states net proceeds of approximately $754,438.54 (which also equals $762,059.13 minus the $7,620.59 commission), a $1.13 internal mismatch.

“Proceeds to Issuer ... $ 754,437.41 ... After deducting brokerage commissions of $7,620.59 (representing fees to Dalmore but excluding other offering expenses as noted below), the net proceeds of this offering of Series #12 Interests would be approximately $754,438.54.”
PPM p.180% confidence

Spelling / typo — a\the Property Manager

Info

Garbled phrase with a stray backslash joining two articles in the expense-allocation clause.

“regulatory investigation instituted against our company, the series or a\the Property Manager in connection with the affairs of our company or the Series”
PPM p.670% confidence

Spelling / typo — Through / Though

Info

Substantive sentence uses 'Through travel has since resumed' where 'Though' is intended.

“Through travel has since resumed, it remains subject to restrictions, including mask mandates and restrictions on international travel that time, which could continue to dampen the level of travel”
PPM p.1478% 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 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 answered1 partial7 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?2 distribution tier(s) extracted; structure type not classified.Partial
  • What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?Debt · UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2022.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $762,059.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $100.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?6 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 43.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Service Fee (Sourcing/Acquisition Fee)
Paid from offering proceeds at closing; one-time fee at acquisition
12% of the contractual purchase price of the property acquired by Series #12, plus 12% of anticipated costs of repairs and furnishings (not capital expenditures) required to prepare the property for listing and rent. Managing Member sets fee between 10-15% per Series.
12.00%
Asset Management Fee
Quarterly, beginning on first quarter-end date following initial closing
0.25% per quarter (1% annualized) of Asset Value as of the last day of the immediately preceding quarter. Asset Value = fair market value of assets in the Series as determined by the Managing Member in its sole discretion.
1.00%
Property Management Fee
Monthly, based on prior month Gross Receipts
25% of Gross Receipts for Series #12 (range across all series: 25%-40% of Gross Receipts). Gross Receipts includes rental income, escalations, cancellation fees, reimbursable expenses, concessions, and other operating receipts.
25.00%
Selling Commission (Broker-Dealer Fee)
Paid from offering proceeds; applies to all newly invested funds after FINRA No Objection Letter
1% of amount raised in the offering, paid to Dalmore Group LLC for administrative and compliance services
1.00%
Offering Expense Reimbursement
Paid from offering proceeds at closing
Up to 4% of gross offering proceeds reimbursed to Managing Member for offering expenses (legal, accounting, escrow, filing, compliance costs). Managing Member bears any offering expenses above this cap.
4.00%
Consulting Fee (One-Time)
One-time, upon offering qualification
Flat $15,000 one-time consulting fee paid to Dalmore Group LLC following SEC qualification and FINRA No Objection Letter
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

RAYVEN PROPERTIES, LLC
Rayven
—
2023
—
13.3
CORNERSTONE REALTY FUND LLC
Cornerstone Realty Advisors
—
2005
—
15.0
Free & Clear Equity, Inc.
Free & Clear Equity
—
2011
—
15.0
Equisource Hotel Fund I, LLP
EquiSource
—
2004
—
15.0
Ark7 Properties LLC
Ark7
—
2025
—
12.0