Waterfalls
Default
Score model

Pick how composites are weighted for you. Affects every score across the app.

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

WORTHY PEER CAPITAL, INC.

Sponsored by Worthy Financial·

Unknown· Debt· Inc · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
3 data notes▶
Unusual structureUnscored: absolute lp takeUnscored: pref quality
Run the numbers
Composite
48.3
median 35 +13
Pref Returnⓘ
—
—
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
median 42.6% · Other / Specialty
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$10
ticket size
Offering Size
$60M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $875K · Fees $0 · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 42.9%Limited Partners · $375KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes· viewing as Worthy Demand Bonds

How WORTHY PEER CAPITAL, INC. divides the cap table

The cascade above is filtered to Worthy Demand Bonds. Reset to blended view.

Deal diligence18 findings · worst high

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.

Document quality

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.

Numeric inconsistency — Worthy Demand Bonds Maximum Offering Amount

High

The Worthy Demand Bonds maximum offering size is stated two ways: the cover/summary repeatedly sets it at $60,000,000 ($59,920,000 cash plus $80,000 in rewards), but the 'Description of the Worthy Bonds — Worthy Demand Bonds — General' section caps it at $50 million, understating the demand-bond offering by $10 million.

“WORTHY DEMAND BONDS MAXIMUM OFFERING AMOUNT: $60,000,000 ... General. We may offer Worthy Demand Bonds, with a total value of up to $50 million on a continuous basis, under this offering circular. The Worthy Demand Bonds will be offered in increments of $10.00. We will not issue more than $50 million of Worthy Demand Bonds pursuant to this offering circular in any 12-month period.”
PPM p.193% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — $60,00,000 demand-bond figure

Medium

The 'History' narrative renders the demand-bond offering amount as the malformed figure '$60,00,000' (missing a digit/comma group) where every other reference states $60,000,000, so the figure as printed reads as $6 million.

“On December 16, 2020, Worthy Peer Capital, Inc. filed an Offering Statement on Form 1-A (File No. 024-11389) with the SEC, as amended, for a public offering pursuant to Regulation A of $15,000,000 aggregate principal amount of renewal bonds and $60,00,000 aggregate principal amount of demand bonds.”
PPM p.4890% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Beneficial-ownership table footnotes

Low

The beneficial-ownership table footnote series is broken: footnote '(2)' is defined twice with different content, and the Pohlman Living Trust row carries a '(4)' callout but no '(4)' definition exists — the trailing definition is mislabeled '(3)', so the footnote callouts do not resolve to their definitions.

“(2) Includes 17,732 shares issuable upon the exercise of vested stock options. (2) Non-executive member of WFI's Board of Directors. (3) Dr. Randolph H. Pohlman holds voting and dispositive control over securities held of record by the trust.”
PPM p.6682% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Description of the Worthy Bonds page reference

Low

The cover page directs readers to 'Description of the Worthy Bonds' beginning on page 46, but the Offering Summary cites the same section as beginning on page 45 — the two page citations disagree.

“please see 'Description of the Worthy Bonds' beginning on page 46 of this offering circular. ... please see 'Description of the Worthy Bonds – Worthy Demand Bonds' beginning on page 45 of this offering circular.”
PPM p.185% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Worthy Demand Bond Rewards Program page reference

Low

The cover page locates the 'Plan of Distribution – Worthy Demand Bond Rewards Program' discussion on page 52, while the Offering Summary cites it on page 51 — inconsistent internal page pointers to the same discussion.

“please see 'Plan of Distribution – Worthy Demand Bond Rewards Program' on page 52 of this offering circular. ... please see 'Plan of Distribution – Worthy Demand Bond Rewards Program' on page 51 of this offering circular.”
PPM p.185% confidence

Spelling / typo — Worth Fintech Platform

Low

The defined term 'Worthy Fintech Platform' is misspelled 'Worth Fintech Platform' (missing the 'y') in the IRA-fee sentence; the correct form appears in the very next sentence.

“If an investor opens a new IRA account on the Worth Fintech Platform, we will pay all of his or her third-party fees associated with opening the IRA account on the Worthy Fintech Platform.”
PPM p.8290% confidence

Spelling / typo — Bonds Being Offering

Info

The Offering Summary section heading reads 'Bonds Being Offering' — a grammatical error; it should read 'Bonds Being Offered'.

“Bonds Being Offering”
PPM p.990% confidence

Spelling / typo — plus or mins adjustments

Info

The investment-accounting policy misspells 'minus' as 'mins' — 'plus or mins adjustments' — appearing in both the annual and interim financial-statement notes.

“the investment is recorded at cost, less any impairment, plus or mins adjustments related to observable transactions for the same or similar securities, with unrealized gains and losses included in earnings.”
PPM p.9292% confidence

Spelling / typo — worrthybonds.com

Info

The company's website URL is misspelled with a doubled 'r' as 'worrthybonds.com', whereas it is correctly given elsewhere as worthybonds.com.

“Worthy App users register on the application via the worrthybonds.com website or via the mobile App”
PPM p.7693% confidence

Spelling / typo — Worthy Rewal Bonds

Info

The Events of Default provision for the renewable bonds misspells 'Renewal' as 'Rewal' — 'the Worthy Rewal Bonds'.

“Events of Default . The following will be events of default under the Worthy Rewal Bonds:”
PPM p.6895% confidence

Diligence gaps

Questions a standard diligence questionnaire would ask that the PPM leaves unanswered.

DDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?

High

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?

Medium

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.

90% confidence

DDQ readiness

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.

38%
Coverage
5 answered0 partial8 gaps13 questions
Economics
  • What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?Gap
  • What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?Gap
  • Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?Gap
  • Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?Gap
  • What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?Gap
Structure
  • What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?Gap
  • What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?Debt · UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2021.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $59,920,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $10.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?5 fee line item(s) extracted from the offering documents.Answered
Governance
  • Does the fund engage an independent auditor?Gap
  • Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?Gap
Generate IC memo →

Fee scheduletaken before LP distributions

Total load 1.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Bond Transfer Servicing Fee
Transfer of Worthy Bonds to a third party
Up to 1% of the transferred bond amount, charged only against accrued interest, upon transfer of Worthy Bonds to third parties
1.00%
Transaction / Payment Processor Fee
Bond purchase via a payment method that incurs a processor expense
Pass-through flat fee equal to the amount charged by the payment processor; only applies if investor's payment method incurs a processing charge
0.00%
Platform License Fee
Annual; per active user on the Worthy Fintech Platform
$10 per active user per year paid by the Company to parent WFI for use of the Worthy Fintech Platform; governed only by a verbal agreement
0.00%
Management Services Reimbursement
Ongoing monthly; payable in advance from approximately 5% of offering proceeds and distributions from Worthy Lending
Monthly cost-reimbursement to Worthy Management, Inc. for staff, salaries, and office expenses; amount not yet determined; not negotiated on arms-length basis
0.00%
Loan Broker Fee
Loan origination via a compensated broker
Between 1% and 1.5% of funds advanced to the introduced borrower; paid on very limited number of loans (only two loans involving a broker compensated by us since inception)
0.00%

Service providers3 gaps

Provider network →
Legal Counsel
Gap
Not disclosed
No independent counsel named for investors. Common in small syndications where Manager and Fund share counsel — reduces independence. Verify during diligence.
Auditor
Gap
Not disclosed
Audit intent not stated in PPM. Ask the sponsor: will the fund be audited, by whom, and on what frequency?
Fund Administrator
Gap
Not disclosed
No third-party fund administrator referenced. Manager likely handles admin internally — common for <$10M raises but reduces independence.
Placement Agent
OK
No placement agent engaged
No placement agent engaged. Direct placement by Manager — no placement fees eat your invested capital.

Community threads0 active

What allocators are saying. Diligence notes, open questions, attached scenarios.

⚛ RSSStart a thread →
No threads yet. Be the first →

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be the first allocator to leave a take.

Funds you might also likesame Unknown

Property Income Trust LLC
Mascia Development
—
2018
90%
48.6
Tuscan Gardens Secured Income Fund LLC
Tuscan Gardens
—
2015
—
48.8
Jamestown Invest 1, LLC
Jamestown
—
2010
87%
49.7
Connect Invest III LLC
Connect Invest
Debt
2025
—
50.0
USA OPPORTUNITY INCOME FUND, INC.
USA Opportunity Income
Debt
2021
—
46.3