Learn
A little clarity for your next decision.
Loading your learning library…
Investor WorkspaceWelcome, there!Log Out
Investor WorkspaceA little clarity for your next decision.
By Jerry Baker
My due diligence starts with the investment manager, continues through the offering’s structure, and then brings the property, costs, and business plan together. The purpose is to decide which opportunities I am comfortable discussing with clients, not to promise that a reviewed investment cannot lose money. A separate review is still needed to decide whether an investment fits your needs, goals, and exchange.
I want to understand who is responsible for the money, what the investment owns, how the plan is supposed to work, and what could keep it from working. That is more useful than stopping at a target return or a familiar sponsor name.
The service model I have described for Baker 1031 includes sponsor review, structure review, and an overall review with the due diligence team. Outside research can help examine specific questions. The final discussion with you still needs to explain the actual investment and its tradeoffs. [1]
Review is a process for reaching a supported judgment. It cannot create facts that are missing, force tenants to pay, prevent every error, or predict future markets. It should make the evidence and uncertainties easier to see.
This page explains the questions behind that process. The examples are fictional teaching cases, not descriptions of actual approved or rejected offerings, and they do not reveal a private client’s information.
FINRA’s Regulatory Notice 23-08 explains that firms recommending private placements have reasonable-investigation duties. Its discussion covers the issuer, management, assets, claims, use of proceeds, and matters such as new developments and related-party transactions. The depth of review depends on the facts. [2]
That foundation should not be confused with a government stamp on an offering. A filing, a review report, and an investment recommendation are different things. None means that a regulator has promised your principal back.
A good question to ask is, “What supports this conclusion?” If the answer is a sponsor statement, that should be identified. If it is a contract, report, or financial record, the date and scope matter. If it is an estimate, the assumptions should be visible.
I also want the questions to lead somewhere. A long checklist can look impressive while missing the issue that drives the result. The work needs to connect a finding to the investment decision, rather than merely collect a stack of documents.
The sponsor organizes the offering and is responsible for carrying out its plan through the relevant entities and service providers. Start with the actual organization, not just its logo. Which people make decisions? What experience is relevant to this property type and strategy?
Financial resources matter, but the right question is specific. Does the manager have the staff, systems, and resources to perform its duties? Which entity earns fees? Which entity has obligations? A large parent balance sheet does not automatically guarantee every separate investment.
Review the background of key people, changes in leadership, legal and regulatory matters, and the roles of related companies. Understand who could take over if a key person leaves. A strong biography is helpful context, but it is not a substitute for an operating plan.
I focus on established investment managers. That preference does not mean a recognizable firm gets a free pass. A capable manager can still buy the wrong property, use unsuitable debt, charge too much, or make assumptions that do not hold up.
Ask which past investments actually resemble the proposed one. Experience with one sector or strategy may not translate directly to another. A sponsor’s total asset figure can include businesses unrelated to the offering being reviewed.
Separate completed programs from active ones. Completed results include an exit, while an active program may rely on estimates of value. A payment history by itself does not establish the final return of principal.
Look at weak outcomes as well as strong ones. What went wrong, what changed, and what did investors receive? A discussion that only covers the best examples leaves an important gap. Also check whether the reported return is net of the costs relevant to the investor.
Past experience can support questions about judgment and execution. It cannot prove that the next property will succeed. I would rather understand one difficult result clearly than accept a high average whose underlying investments and definitions remain unknown.
The structure review asks what you would own and which rights come with it. A property interest, trust interest, partnership unit, fund share, and loan are not the same thing. Similar real estate can sit inside very different legal arrangements.
For a DST, the tax analysis depends on the actual trust. Revenue Ruling 2004-86 describes an arrangement with limited trustee powers that was treated as ownership of underlying real estate for the investors. Those limits are part of the structure, not an optional detail. [3]
Read who can sell, refinance, amend leases, use reserves, or respond to financial trouble. If the documents describe a possible change into another entity, understand what triggers it and what that change would mean for control and future tax choices.
A structure that reduces your daily work can also reduce your ability to change course. The review should explain that exchange. It should not present limited control as though it only has benefits.
A business plan should explain what creates value or supports income at the specific asset. “Strong market” is not enough. Ask which tenants pay, what their leases require, what costs the owner bears, and what work is needed.
For apartments, that may involve lease renewals, vacancy, concessions, repairs, and competing supply. For industrial space, it may involve tenant credit, lease maturity, loading, power, and the ability to attract another user. The relevant evidence changes with the asset.
Physical reports, title information, environmental findings, and lease records address different issues. None should be treated as a substitute for all the others. A sound-looking building can have a difficult lease, and a strong lease can sit over a costly physical problem.
Ask which findings could change the plan. If the roof needs replacement earlier than expected, where does the money come from? If a tenant leaves, what is the likely downtime and work needed? A useful review follows each concern through to cash, authority, and execution.
Forecasts deserve a clear separation between current facts and future estimates. A signed lease can support scheduled rent. It cannot prove that every payment will be collected. A market report can provide context without proving what a particular building will achieve.
Take a fictional property with $2.4 million of annual revenue and $1.2 million of operating costs. Net operating income is $1.2 million. Assume debt service is $700,000 and reserves and other costs total $200,000. Modeled cash left is $300,000.
Now reduce revenue by 5% to $2.28 million and raise operating costs by 5% to $1.26 million. Net operating income becomes $1.02 million. With the same debt and other costs, cash left falls to $120,000—a 60% drop from the original $300,000.
The example does not forecast a loss. It shows why small changes above the debt-payment line can create a large change in investor cash. A review should identify which assumptions have that effect and whether the investor can live with the downside.
A loan can support a purchase while adding deadlines and limits of its own. Review the interest rate, maturity, principal schedule, reserve controls, and conditions that could restrict distributions. A rate quote alone does not explain the financing risk.
Compare the property’s cash with required debt payments under several cases. Also examine what happens at maturity. A plan that needs a refinance should show the loan amount, value, and lending terms required to make it work.
Suppose a fictional loan balance is $8 million and the property is expected to be worth $12 million at maturity. The debt is about 66.67% of that value. If the value is $10 million instead, the same balance equals 80% of value. A future lender may not accept either amount on the assumed terms.
That is a funding question, not just a percentage change. Identify how a gap could be handled under the investment’s legal structure. Do not assume new investor cash, extra borrowing, or an extension will be available because the spreadsheet needs it.
Compensation belongs in the review from the start. Acquisition charges, selling costs, management fees, finance costs, and exit fees can affect the investor in different ways. Their timing and calculation base matter.
Ask whether an affiliate provides a service or sells an asset to the offering. Then review the price, terms, and conflict disclosure. A related-party transaction requires explanation; its existence alone does not tell you whether the economics are reasonable.
Compare the amount invested with the amount used for property equity, expenses, and reserves. Keep a reserve separate from a fee paid away, while recognizing that reserve cash may later be spent and may not support current distributions.
The question is not whether every fee can be eliminated. It is what the investment receives for the cost, how the incentives work, and what remains for investors under realistic assumptions. A lower advertised fee cannot make a weak property plan sound.
Lawyers, accountants, property specialists, and due diligence firms can contribute knowledge that a single reviewer does not have. The important points are the assignment, qualifications, evidence reviewed, and limits of the report.
FINRA’s earlier Notice 10-22 explains that using experts does not automatically finish the broker’s investigation. Gaps and warning signs can require follow-up, and the report’s scope matters. Its older rule references should be read with current guidance, including Notice 23-08 and Regulation Best Interest. [4]
Ask whether a report was commissioned by the sponsor, a broker-dealer, or another party. That fact does not automatically make the report good or bad. It helps you understand incentives, access, and the questions the expert was asked to answer.
A report may evaluate one issue without endorsing the full investment. A tax opinion does not establish a building’s market value. An appraisal does not guarantee cash distributions. The overall judgment needs to respect those boundaries.
Suppose a presentation shows 96% occupancy while a current rent roll indicates 89%. That could reflect different dates, a unit-versus-area measure, or an actual decline. The right response is to identify the reason, not choose the better figure.
A written explanation should lead back to records. If the figures cover different dates, ask what changed between them. If the methods differ, put them on a comparable basis where possible. If the gap cannot be resolved, keep that uncertainty visible.
The same approach applies to fees, debt balances, tenant names, and distribution forecasts. An old number does not become current because it appears in a polished document. A newer document does not resolve a conflict if it does not explain the change.
I do not need a longer list of opportunities just to have a longer list. If important information is missing or the answers are not convincing, passing is a reasonable outcome. A looming exchange deadline does not make weak evidence stronger.
The overall review asks whether the pieces make sense as one investment. The sponsor may be capable, the building attractive, and the loan available, yet the combination can still be too expensive or depend on too many favorable events.
Look for risks that occur together. A tenant departure can reduce income, increase capital needs, and weaken refinance terms at the same time. Testing only one change at a time can miss that connection.
Return to the cash plan and the decision rights. What must happen for the investment to meet its targets? Who has authority to act if it does not? What resources are available, and which responses are limited by the trust, loan, or other contracts?
The result should be understandable without reading every working paper. You should be able to hear the main strengths, the main reservations, and the assumptions most likely to change the outcome. More detail should support that explanation, not hide it.
Regulation Best Interest ties a covered recommendation to the particular retail customer’s profile, risks, rewards, and costs. The rule includes needs, other holdings, time horizon, tax status, and ability to accept risk among relevant facts. Review of the product alone does not finish that task. [5]
For example, an investor with several years of liquid reserves may assess a distribution reduction differently from one relying on every payment for living costs. A long holding period may be workable for one family and a serious problem for another.
Consider concentration across existing holdings too. Three new investments may share one sponsor, lender, tenant industry, or geographic risk. Counting investment names does not show whether the overall exposure has truly changed.
I want to understand that context before deciding which reviewed options belong in the discussion. The goal is a reasoned match, not simply a successful subscription to an offering that passed a general review.
Due diligence has limits. People can make mistakes, documents can omit information, conditions can change, and a well-supported plan can fail. Research reduces some uncertainty; it does not create certainty.
Private placements can be illiquid and provide less disclosure than public investments. The SEC warns investors to examine the issuer, documents, and risks, and not to treat a Form D filing as SEC approval. An investor may be unable to sell when cash is needed. [6]
Keep a distinction between a known contract, a reasonable estimate, and an unresolved issue. A model should not quietly convert all three into facts. Ask how the conclusion would change if a key estimate proves too optimistic.
No review should be described as insurance against principal loss or a promise of tax qualification. Your tax and legal advisers still need to address your specific circumstances, and you still need to be comfortable with the investment’s risks.
Ask why the opportunity is being considered for you. Then ask what I like least about it. Both answers should be specific to the property, offering, and your circumstances.
Ask which numbers are reported results and which are targets. Ask where cash distributions come from, how debt affects them, and which fees are already included. If an exit depends on a future sale or conversion, ask who decides and what could delay it.
Ask what changed during the review. A revised budget, a corrected document, or an added risk disclosure may be important to the final decision. Understanding the change can be more useful than hearing that a question was “cleared.”
Finally, ask what remains open. Some uncertainty may be part of owning real estate; other uncertainty may prevent an informed decision. A candid answer helps distinguish those situations. You do not need to understand every technical detail to insist that the main tradeoffs are clear.
A review has a date. Before committing, ask whether a new supplement changes the offering, whether a major tenant event has occurred, and whether the loan or closing terms are still the ones discussed. This is a check on the decision being made now, not a promise that every future event can be found in advance.
Keep the version of the materials used for your decision. Save the questions, answers, and important qualifications with those documents. If a later update changes a key assumption, you can compare the change with the original basis for choosing the investment.
After closing, clarify how sponsor reports will reach you and who can answer questions. A pre-investment review and ongoing account monitoring are different services. The actual relationship and offering terms determine what happens next.
The stated approach begins with the sponsor, reviews the offering structure, and then reassesses the property, plan, terms, and costs together. Client fit is a further question. A reviewed offering is not automatically suitable for every investor.
No. Experience and resources matter, but each offering needs its own review. The property, debt, price, fees, and assumptions can differ greatly from a sponsor’s earlier programs.
No. Its scope, evidence, date, qualifications, and limitations matter. Gaps or warning signs can require follow-up. A specialist’s conclusion on one issue is not a guarantee about the whole investment.
A forecast depends on assumptions. Testing changes in revenue, costs, debt, and sale conditions helps show which assumptions have the largest effect on investor cash. It does not predict exactly what will happen.
No. Some issues can be explained or reflected in the price and plan. Others remain too uncertain or create risks that do not fit the client. The key is the evidence, its significance, and whether the proposed response is workable.
No. A reviewed investment can lose money, reduce payments, or remain illiquid longer than expected. Review supports a judgment about risk; it does not eliminate the risk or guarantee a return.
No. Summaries help organize a discussion, but the offering and governing documents contain terms and risks that may not fit on a card. Read the current materials and resolve important differences before investing.
The deadline does not improve the available evidence. Discuss properly identified alternatives and the tax effect of a partial or failed exchange with your advisers. Buying an investment you do not understand is not a solution to missing information.
Educational information, not an offer or a personal tax, legal, or investment recommendation. Examples are hypothetical and omit stated adjustments. Tax treatment depends on your facts and current law. Review your transaction with your CPA, attorney, and qualified intermediary. Real estate investments can lose value and may be illiquid.
Enter your approved email to explore investments, save your shortlist, and keep learning.