Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.
Sponsored by USA Opportunity Income·
The cascade above models the blended LP view. Click a class below to view per-class economics.
“the Company issued 3,000 shares of its $0.01 per share par value common stock as founders shares in exchange for incorporation services provided to Dania Echemendia (1,000 shares), Andrew Murray (1,000 shares), and Richard Meruelo (1,000 shares)”— PPM p. 7
“USA REAL ESTATE BONDS bear simple interest at 7% per annum, which will be payable on a monthly-basis”— PPM p. 1
Automated checks across the fund's extracted PPM. Every finding is shown with the evidence it's based on — proven numbers or a verbatim quote and page.
Drafting defects found in the PPM prose — numeric inconsistencies, broken cross-references, unfilled placeholders, and defined-term problems. Each is shown with the offending quote and its page.
The Index to Financial Statements is headed with a third fund-name variant that matches neither the current legal name ('USA Opportunity Income One, Inc.') nor the former name ('USA Opportunity Income Fund, Inc.') used elsewhere in the document.
“USA REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITIES INCOME, INC. INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS”
Audited balance sheet reports 'Advances from related party' of $54,102, but Note 2 states founders/affiliates paid $54,002 of organizational and offering costs as of the same date — a $100 discrepancy on the same quantity.
“Advances from related party 54,102 ... As of August 31, 2021, founders and/or affiliates of the founders of the Company have paid $54,002 of organizational and offering costs on behalf of the Company.”
Doubled/garbled wording in a cybersecurity risk factor: 'case' should be 'cause' and 'users date' should be 'users data'.
“the effects would case an adverse effect on our business operations and will jeopardize the privacy of our users date”
Misspelling of 'outstanding' as 'oustanding' in a balance-sheet line item.
“Bonds issued and oustanding at par”
Questions a standard diligence questionnaire would ask that the PPM leaves unanswered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How much of a standard institutional due-diligence questionnaire this fund's offering documents answer out of the box. Gaps are questions an allocator will ask directly.
What allocators are saying. Diligence notes, open questions, attached scenarios.
Be the first allocator to leave a take.