Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

PFG Fund III, LLC

Sponsored by PFG Capital·

Unknown· Debt· LLC · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
2 data notes
Unusual structureUnscored: absolute lp take
Run the numbers
Composite
61.3
median 35 +26
Pref Return
LP Take (Base)
median 42.6% · Other / Specialty
GP Commit
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$25K
ticket size
Offering Size
$15M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $875K · Fees $0 · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 42.9%Limited Partners · $375KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes· viewing as LLC Membership Interests

How PFG Fund III, LLC divides the cap table

The cascade above is filtered to LLC Membership Interests. Reset to blended view.

Deal diligence16 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.

Numeric inconsistency — Offering amount ($15,000,000 vs $20,000,000)

High

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.

offering, on a 'best-efforts' basis up to $15,000,000 in principal amount (the 'Offering') ... The Company hopes to raise $20,000,000 in this Offering.
PPM p.195% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Use of Proceeds 100% column total ($14,400,000 vs $15,000,000)

High

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.

Funding Real Estate Loans/Lending Activities 3 $ 23,500 $ 1,470,000 $ 3,710,000 $ 7,375,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 14,700,000 Working Capital 4 $ 500 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 Legal and Accounting $ 1,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total Use of Proceeds $ 25,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 3,750,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 11,250,000 $ 14,400,000
PPM p.1490% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Loans funded figure ($3,685.231)

Medium

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.

As of this date, we have $3,685.231 loans funded.
PPM p.385% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Offering period duration (two (2) years vs one year)

Medium

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.

shall continue for a period of two (2) years, unless further extended by the Officers of Issuer ... This Offering shall remain open for one year following the Qualification Date of this Offering.
PPM p.185% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Pine Financial origination track record (1,331 loans / $375,250,000 vs 649 loans / $124,881,950)

Medium

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.

To date Pine Financial has originated 1,331 loans worth $375,250,000.00. ... To date Pine Financial has originated 649 loans worth $124,881,950.00.
PPM p.1985% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Exhibit index numbering (4,2)

Low

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.

4.1 Subscription Agreement* 4,2 Subscription Agreement*
PPM p.3470% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Kevin Amolsch age (38 vs 35)

Low

The officer table lists Kevin Amolsch as age 38, but the narrative immediately below states his age as 35.

Kevin Amolsch 38 President, Treasurer, and CEO of Pine Financial Group, Inc. ... Kevin Amolsch, Age 35, Sole Principal and Owner of Pine Financial Group, Inc., Manager
PPM p.2990% confidence

Spelling / typo — ACOUNTING

Info

The financial-statement footnote header misspells 'ACCOUNTING' as 'ACOUNTING'.

NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF ORGANIZATION AND SIGNIFICANT ACOUNTING POLICIES
PPM p.3390% 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?Debt · UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2015.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $15,000,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $25,000.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?5 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

Fee scheduletaken before LP distributions

Total load 2.50%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Ongoing; monthly if cash available
100% of available cash distributions (profits) after noteholders receive return of principal and promised interest payments under the Notes; may be paid monthly subject to maintaining 10% of loans outstanding in cash
0.00%
Servicing Fee
Per loan originated
1% of principal of each loan originated; charged to the Company
1.00%
Origination and Administration Fee
Per loan originated
$685 per loan plus 2% to 4% of the loan amount; charged to borrowers (not to the fund)
0.00%
Inspection Fee
Per construction draw inspection
Reasonable fee per property inspection for construction draws; charged to borrowers (not to the fund)
0.00%
Early Redemption Penalty
Early redemption request within first 48 months
1.5% of principal amount being returned if investor requests early redemption before 48 months
1.50%

Service providers3 gaps

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.

No threads yet. Be the first →

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be the first allocator to leave a take.

Funds you might also likesame Unknown