Red Oak Capital Intermediate Income Fund, LLC

Key economics

Preferred return

—

Hurdle rate

—

LP / GP split

—

GP catch-up

—

GP clawback

—

GP commitment

—

Diligence findings (16 · 5 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 — Managing broker-dealer / wholesaling fee table (Maximum Offering Amount column)Plan-of-Distribution fee table overstates the maximum-offering fees by ~10x and contradicts the cover-page summary: $1,875,000 + $3,750,000 in fees leaving $69,375,000, versus the cover's $562,500 total fees leaving $74,437,500 to the company.
• 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 — Bond interest expense (FY2022 and FY2021)Note 6 reports bond interest expense of $669,454 (2022) and $97,111 (2021) while the Statements of Operations report $705,888 (2022) and $102,226 (2021) for the same line.
• medium
  Numeric inconsistency — Net proceeds from the offering (maximum)The Use of Proceeds table states net proceeds of $74,062,500 while the same section's narrative (and the cover) states approximately $74,437,500 for the same maximum offering.
• low
  Broken cross-reference — ROCF II's indentureA paragraph describing ROCF IV's bond payments references 'ROCF II's indenture' rather than ROCF IV's, a wrong cross-reference to a different affiliated program.
• low
  Document-quality defect — Raymond Davis - titleRaymond Davis's title conflicts within the management section: the officer table lists him as 'Chief Strategy Officer' while his biography on the following page identifies him as 'Chief Business Development Officer.'
• low
  Document-quality defect — Series C vs Series D Bonds issued in 2022Note 6 lists two separate 'Series C Bonds' issuances in FY2022; the $0.71 million tranche should be Series D, matching the $710,000 Series D balance shown in the same note's bonds-payable table.
• low
  Numeric inconsistency — Cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2021Notes to Financial Statements report 12/31/2021 cash of $5,085,550 while the Balance Sheet for the same date reports $5,058,550 (digit transposition).
• info
  Spelling / typo — Securities Investor Protection Corporation (doubled)Doubled phrase: 'Securities Investor Protection Corporation' is repeated back-to-back in the cash-and-cash-equivalents credit-risk disclosure.

DDQ readiness — 38% covered

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