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
Origin Investments is a real estate investment manager focused on multifamily strategies, with a DST exchange program and related investment businesses. This guide explains its apartment focus, use of forecasting tools, possible exchange-to-partnership path, and the questions I would ask about risk, fees, and liquidity.
Origin's own history dates the business to 2007 and identifies David Scherer and Michael Episcope as founders and current co-chief executives. The firm describes its origins as an effort to invest their own capital alongside other investors. That is the company's account of its history, not independent proof of future results. [1]
I would distinguish the founders' experience from the record of a particular fund or DST. A long career can inform judgment, but a new strategy needs its own review of assets, terms, staffing, and outcomes.
The same distinction applies to co-investment. A manager investing alongside clients can be useful, but the details matter. How much is invested in this vehicle? Is it in the same class? Does it pay the same fees? Can it leave on different terms?
This profile does not establish that an Origin investment is currently available through Baker 1031. It explains the public platform and how I would assess its different approaches. The decision for a client would still depend on current documents and that client's circumstances.
Origin's investment menu describes income, growth, exchange, development, and credit-related strategies. Its IncomePlus approach includes buying, building, and financing real estate, while other programs have more focused purposes. These labels should not be treated as identical exposures just because apartments are involved. [2]
Owning a leased apartment building is different from funding construction. A loan secured by a property is different from owning the equity beneath that loan. A fund that can choose new assets over time differs from an investment tied to one identified property.
I would ask the manager to show which activities the particular vehicle can undertake and in what proportions. The documents may permit a wider range than the examples on a marketing page.
For the client, I would translate the strategy into plain terms: where money is invested, how it may earn income, what could cause a loss, and who has authority to change the plan. That makes it easier to compare choices without being distracted by product names.
Origin's strategy material emphasizes market selection and local real estate work. Its current team page identifies investment and operating roles alongside the founders. Those are useful starting points for understanding the platform, but the proposed property needs its own evidence. [3] [4]
I would review the rent roll, collections, concessions, expenses, and work orders. Then I would compare the building with properties competing for the same residents. A metro area's growth does not tell us whether this location is convenient or whether its rents are affordable.
Ask which staff visit the property, how often they meet with the local manager, and how problems reach the investment team. A clear reporting process matters when leasing slows or repairs exceed the budget.
For a development, the questions change. The team needs to explain site control, permits, construction costs, financing, and the path to leasing. A forecast of future apartment demand does not replace those tasks.
Origin describes Multilytics as a proprietary machine-learning tool used to forecast rental trends at a detailed local level. Its public material presents forecasts and reports on forecasting performance. That makes it a research input, not a promise that a property's rents or investment returns will follow a predicted path. [5]
I like a model that makes assumptions visible and can be checked against later results. I would ask which data it uses, how often inputs change, and how the team handles markets with little reliable data.
The important test is not whether a chart looks precise. It is how the forecast performs outside the data used to build it. Ask about misses, not only successful calls. How large were the errors? Were they concentrated in certain markets or property types? Did the model recognize a change in direction?
I would also ask how much weight the model receives in a final purchase decision. A forecast can guide research. It cannot inspect a roof, negotiate a lease, verify a contractor's work, or establish that the asking price is reasonable.
Here is an original illustration, not an Origin forecast. A property charges $1,600 per month for a representative unit. At 4% annual rent growth, that figure becomes about $1,872 after four years. At 1%, it becomes about $1,665.
That gap matters, but rent is only one part of the result. Occupancy, concessions, bad debt, and expenses also change the cash collected and kept. A property can achieve the projected asking rent while collecting less than expected.
I would therefore ask for a range rather than one line. Show the base case, slower growth, flat rents, and a period of declining collections. Keep the expense and debt assumptions visible in each case.
The review should also show what management would do if the forecast is wrong. Would it delay renovations, lower rents, use reserves, or sell? Some actions may be limited by loan terms or the investment structure. A model is more useful when connected to realistic choices.
When reviewing a forecast-driven apartment strategy, I would map competing buildings at the neighborhood level. Count what is open, what is being built, and what is merely proposed. Those categories should not be added together as if each will arrive on the same date.
Compare price points and unit types. A new luxury tower may affect a nearby older property differently from a nearly identical building across the street. Concessions at the new property can still pull residents away even if its advertised rent is higher.
Construction delays can change the timing of competition. So can a wave of projects completing together. I would ask the team to show how the expected lease-up schedule responds to those cases.
A simple map and a table of actual rents can expose assumptions hidden in a regional growth story. I want the investment case to remain understandable even if the reader never sees the forecasting software.
Origin Exchange describes multifamily DSTs that may later move into the IncomePlus Fund operating partnership. Its program includes a fair market value option after an initial hold, generally two or more years. The fund controls that option; investors cannot assume they can force it. [6]
I would review the DST as an investment that may continue longer than the expected option period. Does the property have adequate cash flow and reserves? When does its debt mature? What happens if the fund does not exercise the option?
Then I would review the destination as a separate investment. What assets can it own? How is it valued? What fees apply? What rights would the investor receive? A familiar manager does not make the second phase identical to the first.
For the client, I would prepare two scenarios with the same starting equity. One keeps the property in the DST. The other follows the possible contribution. The goal is to understand both paths before entering either one.
The IRS recognizes qualifying DST interests under the specific facts and restrictions in Revenue Ruling 2004-86. The ruling does not approve every DST or remove the need to review an individual exchange. [7]
A later contribution to a partnership falls under separate rules. IRS partnership guidance explains that contributed property, liabilities, distributions, and subsequent events affect tax treatment. Section 721 should not be described as an unconditional promise of no tax in every circumstance. [8]
Ordinary partnership interests do not qualify as direct replacement real property under Section 1031. That means a later move into partnership units can change the investor's ability to continue a series of real property exchanges. [9]
I would bring the client's CPA into this discussion before the original purchase. The client should understand the expected reporting, the effect of debt, and what happens if units later become cash or another kind of security. Tax planning works better before a binding decision than after it.
A fair market value option requires a method for valuing the property interest. Ask who selects the appraiser, which assumptions are permitted, what date is used, and how disagreements are resolved.
The units received also need a valuation. If the property value and the fund unit value are based on different dates or methods, the comparison needs explanation. Fees, debt adjustments, and transaction costs can change the amount received.
Consider a hypothetical $400,000 interest. At a unit price of $10, it would correspond to 40,000 units before adjustments. At $12, it would correspond to about 33,333 units. The unit count alone does not show whether the transaction is better or worse; the rights and value behind each unit matter.
I would ask for an example using the actual proposed terms and the client's allocation. A clear worked example is often the quickest way to identify an assumption that otherwise stays hidden in legal language.
Origin says its exchange program has no acquisition fees, disposition fees, or brokerage sales commissions. That does not mean there are no other costs. The current documents must confirm the terms. [6]
I would list the costs that remain: management, property operations, financing, legal work, reserves, and any performance participation. Identify whether the cost is charged at the property, trust, partnership, or fund level.
Then compare net results on the same basis. A projected return before a performance fee should not be compared with another investment's return after all charges. A lower entry cost can be useful, but it does not solve a weak property plan or an unsuitable exit structure.
Ask how fees behave when results are poor. Some charges may continue while distributions decline. Others may depend on a hurdle or realized profits. The investor should know those rules before assuming the manager earns money only when the client does.
For any Origin strategy that can develop apartments, I would review the construction plan separately from the long-term rental plan. The building must be completed and leased before stabilized operations can support the expected result.
Suppose a project has a $40 million construction budget and a $2 million contingency. A 7% increase in the construction cost is $2.8 million. That exceeds the contingency by $800,000 before considering extra interest from delays. This is an original example, not an Origin project.
Ask who provides the additional money, whether investors can be required to contribute, and what happens if funding is unavailable. Review guarantees carefully: who gives them, what they cover, and whether that party has the resources to perform.
Also test the lease-up schedule. A six-month delay can push rent income back while interest, insurance, and staffing continue. A strong long-term market may still produce a difficult short-term cash problem.
Origin's investment menu identifies a credit business through Origin Credit Advisers. That is a separate route to real estate exposure from owning an apartment property or DST interest. [2]
For a loan investment, I would ask about collateral, lien priority, borrower equity, payment status, and the cost of enforcement. A loan secured by real estate can still lose money if the collateral value is insufficient or recovery is slow.
A fixed coupon does not guarantee fixed cash received. The borrower must make the payment, and the fund must cover its own costs. Extensions, reserves, and noncash interest should be visible in reporting.
I would also ask whether the fund has its own borrowing. That creates another layer of obligations above the investor. The review should follow cash from the underlying loan through the fund before quoting an investor yield.
For any private real estate structure, I would ask how and when an investor may exit. A scheduled opportunity to request a withdrawal is not the same as a guaranteed payment. The terms may permit limits, delays, or suspension.
Valuation matters during that process. An estimated value may rely on appraisals and assumptions rather than an immediate sale. A later transaction can produce a different amount. The client should understand who sets the value and how it is checked.
Reporting should connect the operating story to the numbers. I want occupancy, collections, expenses, debt, reserves, and explanations for material changes. A portfolio update that highlights only new purchases leaves out information an existing investor may need.
FINRA's guidance on private placements emphasizes review of the issuer, its business, management, assets, claims, and use of proceeds. For Origin, I would apply that framework to both the property work and the model-driven assumptions. Neither should be accepted without support. [10]
I would give the client a short comparison of the investment's purpose, risks, costs, and exit. If the strategy has two possible stages, both belong in that comparison. If income relies on a forecast, the range of outcomes should be visible.
Some clients may value a manager's apartment focus and research process. Others may need a simpler ownership path or more certainty about access to cash. The correct choice depends on the client, not on whether a forecasting tool or investment platform sounds sophisticated.
My role is to explain the evidence and the tradeoffs. That includes saying where the model is useful, where the documents restrict choices, and where an assumption still needs testing.
Origin identifies David Scherer and Michael Episcope as its founders and current co-chief executives, and dates the firm's start to 2007. That history should be distinguished from the record of a particular fund or exchange program. [1]
No. Origin describes it as a forecasting tool. A forecast remains an estimate, and property collections, costs, financing, and sale value affect investment results. I would examine forecast errors and the operating evidence behind a proposed purchase. [5]
Do not assume that. The program describes an option held by the fund, subject to its terms. The investor should review who controls the decision and what happens if the DST continues without a contribution. [6]
No such broad conclusion should be drawn. The public page discusses the absence of certain charges, but the investment still needs a full review of operating, management, financing, and other costs under its current documents. [6]
Ordinary partnership interests are not direct replacement real property under Section 1031. A potential later contribution therefore deserves a separate tax discussion before the investor commits to the initial DST. [9]
No. It explains the platform and the review questions its strategies raise. Current availability, terms, suitability, and any relationship with Baker 1031 must be checked separately.
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.