Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
UNITED DEVELOPMENT FUNDING INCOME FUND V
United Development Funding · Unknown · Vintage 1990
27
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
—
LP take (absolute)
35
Pref quality
—
Fee drag
20
GP alignment
25
Timing risk
Key economics
- Preferred return
- —
- Hurdle rate
- —
- LP / GP split
- —
- GP catch-up
- —
- GP clawback
- —
- GP commitment
- —
Diligence findings (12 · 5 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: Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Fees & Expenses). 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.
- lowBroken cross-reference — Section 9.2(b) list enumerationSection 9.2(b) withdrawal-event list skips item (ii): it runs from clause (i) directly to clause (iii), with no (ii), and clause (i) appears to mash two separate grounds together without an 'or' break.
- lowDDQ gap: What is the minimum LP investment?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 — which. if presentedSection 6.6 (Outside Activities) contains a broken sentence: a stray period appears mid-clause in 'of a character which. if presented', where a comma was intended.
DDQ readiness — 15% covered
2 answered · 1 partial · 10 gaps of 13 standard questions.