Waterfalls
Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

Multi-Housing Income REIT, LLC

Sponsored by Casoro Capital Partners·

Unknown· LLC · 1 class· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
2 data notes▶
Unusual structureUnscored: absolute lp take
Run the numbers
Composite
17.4
median 45 −27
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
$2K
ticket size
Offering Size
$75M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $808K · Fees $68K · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KGPFFees to Manager$67,500 · 7.7% of grossLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 35.1%Limited Partners · $308KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →

Deal diligence14 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.

Waterfall structure

Structural checks run against Multi-Housing Income REIT, LLC's extracted waterfall. Each is a deterministic test — the numbers shown are proven from the PPM, not estimated.

Disposition Fee (2%) is taken above the waterfall

Medium

A performance- or transaction-linked fee paid above the waterfall reaches the GP before the LP's distribution priorities run, eroding the pool the pref + return-of-capital draw from. Routine asset-management fees above the line are normal; a disposition/promote-flavored fee there is a leak worth pricing.

“If the Company sells real estate it will pay the Sponsor a property disposition fee equal to 2% of the sale price.”
PPM p.2385% confidence

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 — Minimum initial investment (175 Common Shares at $11.29)

High

Stated minimum investment of $2,007.25 does not equal price times units: 175 Common Shares at $11.29 each is $1,975.75, not $2,007.25.

“Company will sell Common Shares for $11.29 each, with a minimum initial investment of 175 Common Shares ( i.e. , $2,007.25).”
PPM p.195% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Count of completed 'round trip' programs (26 vs 32)

Medium

The same set of completed-cycle projects is stated as 26 in one sentence and as 32 in the very next sentence introducing the same table.

“the 37 multifamily apartment communities PPA acquired, 26 have completed their full investment cycle, from acquisition to renovation to operation to disposition. The financial results of these 32 'round trip' projects are as follows:”
PPM p.1790% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Exhibit reference for the LLC Agreement (1A-2E / 1A-2B)

Low

The LLC Agreement is cited as Exhibit 1A-2E here (and as Exhibit 1A-2B elsewhere), but the exhibit index lists 1A-2D as the Limited Liability Company Agreement and 1A-2B as the Delaware Certificate of Formation; no Exhibit 1A-2E exists.

“This summary is qualified in its entirety by the LLC Agreement itself, which is included as Exhibit 1A-2E.”
PPM p.3185% confidence

Document-quality defect — LLC Agreement date 'January March 1, 2022'

Low

Garbled, logically impossible date for the LLC Agreement that mashes together two months ('January March 1, 2022'); elsewhere the same agreement is dated January 17, 2022 and March 1, 2022.

“captioned 'Limited Liability Company Agreement' dated January March 1, 2022. We refer to this as the 'LLC Agreement.'”
PPM p.3192% confidence

Spelling / typo — Doubled phrase 'the Company, the Company' in glossary

Info

Glossary definition of 'Offering Circular' contains a doubled-phrase scrivener error ('the Company, the Company').

“The Offering Circular you are reading right now, which includes information about the Company, the Company, and the Offering.”
PPM p.5388% 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 2022.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $75,000,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $2,007.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 4.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Asset Management Fee
Quarterly, ongoing
2% per year of the Company's net asset value (NAV), paid quarterly at 0.5% of quarter-end NAV
2.00%
Disposition Fee
Upon sale of real estate directly owned by the Company
2% of the sale price of real estate sold directly by the Company
2.00%
Acquisition Expense Reimbursement
Upon or after due diligence on potential direct acquisitions
Actual expenses incurred by Manager/Sponsor identifying and performing due diligence on properties the Company might acquire directly (not for Project Entity investments). ~$45,006 paid in 2021.
0.00%
Project Entity Fees (pass-through)
Ongoing, at Project Entity level
Variable fees borne indirectly by the Company as investor in Project Entities sponsored by Sponsor; may include asset management fees, property management fees, acquisition fees, disposition fees, financing fees, and leasing fees. Total ~$5,047,240 received by Sponsor/affiliates from all Project Entities in 2021.
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

RAD Diversified Land REIT, Inc.
RAD Diversified
Debt
2017
—
18.3
Our Microlending LLC
Our Microlending LLC
Debt
2019
—
18.3
Red Oak Capital Fund II, LLC
Red Oak Capital
—
2010
—
18.4
XIV-I INVEST 1, LLC
XIV-I, INC.
—
2023
—
15.6
LEGACYHUB HOSPITALITY FUND I INC
LegacyHub Capital
—
2018
—
19.3