Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
Tuscan Gardens Secured Income Fund LLC
Tuscan Gardens · Unknown · Vintage 2015
49
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
—
LP take (absolute)
55
Pref quality
100
Fee drag
20
GP alignment
20
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 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.
- mediumNumeric inconsistency — Net Proceeds from Offering percentageUse-of-proceeds table labels Net Proceeds as 100.00% of gross even though 10% of expenses (0.5% + 9.00% + 0.5%) was deducted from the 100.00% Gross Offering Proceeds, so the net line should read 90%, not 100%.
- infoSpelling / typo — HIPPAProject-cost line item misspells the federal health-privacy statute HIPAA as 'HIPPA'.
- infoSpelling / typo — principleOfficer bio uses 'principle' (a noun meaning a rule) where 'principal' (a key person/owner) is meant when describing Charles C. Smith, Jr.'s role in real estate projects.
DDQ readiness — 38% covered
5 answered · 0 partial · 8 gaps of 13 standard questions.