Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
Redwood Mortgage Investors IX
Redwood Trust · Unknown · Vintage 2008
61
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
97
LP take (absolute)
10
Pref quality
75
Fee drag
30
GP alignment
35
Timing risk
Key economics
- Preferred return
- —
- Hurdle rate
- —
- LP / GP split
- —
- GP catch-up
- —
- GP clawback
- —
- GP commitment
- —
Diligence findings (11 · 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 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.
- mediumDDQ gap: What is the target offering size?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.
- infoSpelling / typo — Section 2.11 Power of AttorneyDoubled phrase: 'statements of interest and holdings, designations,' is repeated verbatim within the same sentence, a copy-paste drafting defect.
- infoSpelling / typo — Section 3.15 Sole and Absolute DiscretionBroken sentence: the phrase 'all determinations which any Manager may take and all determinations which any Manager may make' duplicates the clause, leaving a garbled provision.
- infoSpelling / typo — Section 3.19(a) IndemnificationDoubled word / broken text: 'for or on behalf of the Company or, or in furtherance' contains a stray duplicated 'or,'.
DDQ readiness — 31% covered
4 answered · 1 partial · 8 gaps of 13 standard questions.