Philadelphia Powderkegs, Inc.

Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K

LP $875K · Fees $0 · GP $0

Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →

Deal diligence13 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 — $3,2000,000

Medium

The Commitment for Future Advances loan amount is consistently stated as $3,200,000 throughout the document, but in the Risk Factors on this page it is mistyped as '$3,2000,000' (an extra zero), a garbled money figure.

“to the extent we have loaned them part or all of the $3,2000,000 we have promised to lend, CRL will have an obligation to repay those amounts to us, either in cash or in services ... we have committed to loan CRL an additional $3,200,000”

PPM p.693% confidence

Defined-term defect — Membership Unit Loan

Low

In the Interest of Management section the document refers to 'interest on the Membership Unit Loan', but that term is never defined; every parallel passage elsewhere (pages 6, 11, 33) refers to interest on the 'Share Acquisition Loan' — an undefined wrong-term substitution.

“If we are unable to pay CRL the full $5,700,000 due pursuant to the CRL Agreements, plus interest on the Membership Unit Loan, on or before December 31, 2020, we will be required to transfer to CRL any of the 95,000 shares”

PPM p.4190% confidence

Document-quality defect — Initial twelve (12) teams list

Low

The list of CRL's 'initial twelve (12) teams' names Philadelphia Powderkegs, Inc. twice (as the 2nd and 8th bullets), so only 11 distinct entities (10 named teams plus one 'To be determined by contest') are actually listed for the stated 12 teams.

“CRL's initial twelve (12) teams include the following: · Atlanta Hot Wings, Inc. · Philadelphia Powderkegs, Inc. · Denver Moguls, Inc. · Florida Mangos Wild, Inc. · Los Angeles Drive, Inc. · New England Cape Gods, Inc. · New York Bodega Cats, Inc. · Philadelphia Powderkegs, Inc. · Seattle Emerald Haze, Inc. · Sin City Bad Babies, Inc. · Texas Holy Smokers, Inc. · To be determined by contest”

PPM p.2888% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — www.__________

Low

The Plan of Distribution describes the offering landing-page URL with an unfilled blank placeholder ('www.__________') that was never completed before the document was shipped to investors.

“We will also create a landing page for this offering at www.__________.”

PPM p.1895% confidence

Spelling / typo — relay

Info

A Risk Factors note in the financial statements uses 'relay' where 'rely' is meant, breaking the sentence ('the National Football League ... on whose players we relay for our fantasy league').

“disruptions in the National Football League (e.g., strikes), on whose players we relay for our fantasy league”

PPM p.4685% 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 2019.Answered
What is the target offering size?Target offering of $5,700,000.Answered
What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $60.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 9.20%

Fee

Trigger

Basis

Rate

Selling Commission (non-NCPS investors)

Per investment

Amount invested by investors not solicited by NCPS

1.20%

Selling Commission (NCPS-solicited investors)

Per investment

Amount invested by investors solicited by NCPS

6.00%

Warrant Compensation

Shares purchased by NCPS-solicited investors

Warrants equal to 2% of total shares purchased by investors solicited by NCPS; exercise price equals price per share paid by investors; exercisable for 5 years

2.00%

Technology Licensing / Service Fee

Monthly during offering

$500 per month for basic licensing and service of technology; capped at $6,000 for all Collective Offerings (12 Teams combined)

0.00%

Escrow Setup Fee

Offering setup

Flat $500 to set up escrow account for each Team

0.00%

Due Diligence Expense (non-accountable)

Offering

Non-accountable flat fee of $32,000 total for this offering and the other 11 Team offerings (Collective Offerings)

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

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.

⚛ RSS Start 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

TIDEROCK COMPANIES, INC.

Groundfloor Loans 3 LLC

Red Oak Capital Fund V, LLC

Bridge Private Lending, LP

Waterfalls Composite Score

31.3.

LP-favorability score · 5 weighted dimensions

Benchmark · Other Alternatives

Other / Specialty

See where this fund sits across 25 indexed other / specialty funds — median pref, hurdle, splits, GP commit.

Compare to bucket →

Score breakdown5 dimensions

Absolute LP Takeⓘunscored—

GP Timing Riskⓘ10

Pref Qualityⓘ0

Fee Dragⓘ100

Alignmentⓘ15

LP take × exit multiple

at 5y hold · 100% at 1.75×

LP take Fee drag· sim at $500k equity

Exit	LP IRR	LP MoC	LP Take	Fees
1.00×	0.0%	1.00×	100.0%	0.0%
1.50×	8.4%	1.50×	100.0%	0.0%
1.75×	11.8%	1.75×	100.0%	0.0%
2.00×	14.9%	2.00×	100.0%	0.0%
2.50×	20.1%	2.50×	100.0%	0.0%
3.00×	24.6%	3.00×	100.0%	0.0%

Jump to an exit

1.0× downside 1.5× base 2.0× upside 3.0× home run