Waterfalls
Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

YOBI CAPITAL FUND Corp

Sponsored by YOBI·

Unknown· Other · 1 class· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
4 data notes▶
Unusual structureLow-confidence extractionUnscored: absolute lp takeUnscored: fee drag
Run the numbers
Composite
11.7
median 35 −24
Pref Returnⓘ
—
—
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
median 42.6% · Other / Specialty
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$1
ticket size
Offering Size
$35M
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 →

Deal diligence13 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 — Shares issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2015

High

Audited balance sheet states 24,000,000 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2015, but the Statement of Stockholders' Equity shows a June 30, 2015 balance of 41,500,000 shares; the 24,000,000 figure is also inconsistent with the $4,150 common-stock amount at $0.0001 par (which implies 41,500,000 shares).

“Common Stock, $.0001 par value, 100,000,000 shares authorized, 24,000,000 shares issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2015 ... Balance at June 30, 2015 41,500,000”
PPM p.3492% confidence

Document-quality defect — Identity of the wholly-owned subsidiary

Medium

The body of the offering circular identifies the wholly-owned Title III subsidiary as 'Yobi Ventures, LLC', but the audited financial statements (titled 'AND SUBSIDIARY', singular) name the wholly-owned subsidiary as 'Yobi Homes, LLC' — an entity never mentioned anywhere in the body of the document, creating a mismatch about which entity is the Company's subsidiary.

“The Company owns all of the limited liability company interests of Yobi Ventures, making Yobi Ventures a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. ... Yobi Homes, LLC (“Yobi Homes”) was established in Delaware on April 8, 2015, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yobi Fund .”
PPM p.1582% confidence

Spelling / typo — Issurance

Info

In the audited Statement of Stockholders' Equity, the line item for the founder's share issuance is misspelled 'Issurance' (should be 'Issuance').

“Issurance of founder's shares at $0.0001 per share for cash, May 1, 2015”
PPM p.3590% confidence

Spelling / typo — Yobi Captial Fund Corporation

Info

The Company's own name is misspelled as 'Yobi Captial Fund Corporation' (should be 'Capital') in Note 1 of the financial statements; the same misspelling recurs in the unaudited Note 1.

“Yobi Captial Fund Corporation (“Yobi Fund”) was incorp orated in Delaware on April 9, 2015.”
PPM p.3595% 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: Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?

High

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.

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.

31%
Coverage
4 answered0 partial9 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?UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2018.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $35,010,000.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $1.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?Gap
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

No fees extracted from the PPM.

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

GROUNDFLOOR REAL ESTATE 1, LLC
Groundfloor Finance
Debt
2015
—
11.7
Commonwealth Thoroughbreds LLC
Commonwealth Markets Inc.
—
2023
14%
11.7
Ark7 Properties LLC
Ark7
—
2025
—
12.0
RAYVEN PROPERTIES, LLC
Rayven
—
2023
—
13.3
Here Collection LLC
Here
Debt
2022
—
13.8