Investment Committee Memo · Waterfalls
Winchester Holding Group
Winchester Holding Group · Unknown
—
Waterfalls composite LP-favorability score (0–100)
—
LP take (absolute)
—
Pref quality
—
Fee drag
—
GP alignment
—
Timing risk
Key economics
- Preferred return
- —
- Hurdle rate
- —
- LP / GP split
- —
- GP catch-up
- —
- GP clawback
- —
- GP commitment
- —
Diligence findings (18 · 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 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.
- 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.
- mediumNumeric inconsistency — Article III, Section 2 director rangeDirector-count bound is self-contradictory: 'not less than one (1) and more than nine (9)' has no valid range; the conjunction should read 'nor more than nine'.
- lowBroken cross-reference — Article IV, Section 1 subsections (a) and (b)Subsections (a) and (b) of the committee-authority carve-out are word-for-word duplicates (differing only in 'Law' vs 'law'), so one carve-out is missing or duplicated.
- lowDDQ gap: What is the fund's vintage year?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.
- 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.
- lowSpelling / typo — Article II, Section 3Missing preposition: 'If the notice is not given with five (5) days' should read 'within five (5) days', distorting the notice deadline.
- infoSpelling / typo — Article II, Section 11(b)Broken record-date sentence: 'the day on which then Board accepts' ('then' for 'the') and 'whenever is later' (for 'whichever is later').
- infoSpelling / typo — Article V, Section 1Garbled sentence: 'Any member of officers may be held by the same person' should read 'Any number of offices may be held by the same person'.
- infoSpelling / typo — Article V, Section 8Wrong conjunction in vice-president succession clause: 'In the absence of disability of the president' should read 'In the absence or disability of the president'.
DDQ readiness — 8% covered
1 answered · 0 partial · 12 gaps of 13 standard questions.