Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
Red Oak Capital Fund IV, LLC
Red Oak Capital · Unknown · Vintage 2018
23
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
—
LP take (absolute)
15
Pref quality
48
Fee drag
15
GP alignment
15
Timing risk
Key economics
- Preferred return
- —
- Hurdle rate
- —
- LP / GP split
- —
- GP catch-up
- —
- GP clawback
- —
- GP commitment
- —
Diligence findings (12 · 4 high/critical)
- highDDQ 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.
- highDDQ 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.
- highDDQ 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.
- highDDQ 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.
- mediumDDQ 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.
- mediumDDQ 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.
- mediumDDQ 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.
- mediumDDQ 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.
- mediumDisposition Fee (1%) is taken above the waterfallA 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.
- infoSpelling / typo — COMMISIONMisspelling of 'COMMISSION' in the bold, all-caps SEC legend on the cover-page disclosure.
- infoSpelling / typo — complying the with 25% limitationGarbled word order ('complying the with' instead of 'complying with the') in the debt-limit covenant language, repeated verbatim three times across the document (pages 7, 12 and 58).
- infoSpelling / typo — The Bonds be protected by limited restrictive covenantsBroken sentence in a risk-factor heading: the verb is missing (should read 'The Bonds will be protected by' or 'may be protected by').
DDQ readiness — 38% covered
5 answered · 0 partial · 8 gaps of 13 standard questions.