PFG Fund III, LLC

Key economics

Preferred return

—

Hurdle rate

—

LP / GP split

—

GP catch-up

—

GP clawback

—

GP commitment

—

Diligence findings (16 · 6 high/critical)

• high
  DDQ 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.
• high
  DDQ 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.
• high
  DDQ 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.
• high
  DDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?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.
• high
  Numeric inconsistency — Offering amount ($15,000,000 vs $20,000,000)MD&A states the target raise as $20,000,000, contradicting the $15,000,000 maximum offering amount stated on the cover and throughout the body.
• high
  Numeric inconsistency — Use of Proceeds 100% column total ($14,400,000 vs $15,000,000)In the 100% scenario the Total Use of Proceeds reads $14,400,000 but its components (14,700,000 + 250,000 + 50,000) sum to $15,000,000 and Net Proceeds is $15,000,000.
• medium
  DDQ 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.
• medium
  DDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?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.
• medium
  DDQ gap: What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?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.
• medium
  DDQ 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.
• medium
  Numeric inconsistency — Loans funded figure ($3,685.231)Loans-funded amount is written with a decimal point ($3,685.231) where elsewhere the document states $3,685,231, producing a figure off by three orders of magnitude.
• medium
  Numeric inconsistency — Offering period duration (two (2) years vs one year)The cover states the Offering will continue for two (2) years, while the Plan of Distribution states it shall remain open for one year following the Qualification Date.
• medium
  Numeric inconsistency — Pine Financial origination track record (1,331 loans / $375,250,000 vs 649 loans / $124,881,950)The Manager's lifetime origination track record is stated two different ways: 1,331 loans worth $375,250,000 in one section and 649 loans worth $124,881,950 in the bios section.
• low
  Broken cross-reference — Exhibit index numbering (4,2)The Index to Exhibits mis-numbers the second subscription agreement as '4,2' (comma instead of a period), breaking the 4.1 / 4.2 exhibit numbering sequence.
• low
  Numeric inconsistency — Kevin Amolsch age (38 vs 35)The officer table lists Kevin Amolsch as age 38, but the narrative immediately below states his age as 35.
• info
  Spelling / typo — ACOUNTINGThe financial-statement footnote header misspells 'ACCOUNTING' as 'ACOUNTING'.

DDQ readiness — 38% covered

5 answered · 0 partial · 8 gaps of 13 standard questions.