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
Syndicated Equities is a Chicago real estate firm with exchange investments, joint ventures, and a separate net lease brokerage service. This guide explains those roles and the questions I would ask about leases, control, and fees before reviewing a specific investment.[1]
The firm’s website dates its founding to 1986 and identifies Richard Kaplan as chief executive officer and founder. It lists Matt McCulloch as managing partner and Jason Schwartz as chief operating officer and managing partner. Those are current company descriptions, not a statement that each leader handles every investment personally.[1]
I would ask who will be responsible for the actual property after the capital is raised. Who approves lease changes? Who reviews the property manager’s work? Who communicates a budget miss to investors? The answers should name a role and an accountable person. A broad team page cannot replace that property-level assignment.
It is also useful to separate the firm’s history from the history of each investment line. The company’s FAQ says it began structuring exchange investments in 1997. That does not mean every later DST has a track record going back that far. I would ask for results that match the strategy and the team being proposed today.[2]
This article does not say that I have approved the firm or that its investments are available through Baker 1031. It sets out the work I would want done. The questions and examples are not allegations about a specific property, and the examples do not describe an actual Syndicated investment.
The company’s 1031 platform describes investments structured as Delaware statutory trusts, or DSTs, and tenancy-in-common interests, or TICs. It describes buying and managing real estate that earns rent for exchange investors. It also works with their qualified intermediaries. That is a different role from simply selling a building for a sole owner.[3]
Its real estate equity platform describes direct and joint-venture investments, including development and value-add projects. The firm says it works with outside operating partners and provides asset-management oversight. Those plans may involve work before a building can earn its intended rent, which changes both the cash needs and the review.[4]
The net lease brokerage website describes work for buyers and sellers of single-tenant buildings. A client who buys a whole building may have more control. The client may also have more work with loans, records, and daily decisions than a passive investor.[5]
I would therefore put the ownership form at the top of the comparison. A projected return is not useful until we know what you must do to earn it, what costs are already included, and what choices you keep. A whole building, a passive trust interest, and a development partnership should not be compared as interchangeable items.
A DST review begins with the trust agreement, the trustee’s powers, the property structure, and the tax opinion. Revenue Ruling 2004-86 addresses a specific arrangement in which trust interests were treated as real property for federal exchange purposes. It is not a general approval of every investment carrying the DST label.[6]
For a TIC, I would begin with the deed, co-ownership agreement, management agreement, and financing. I would ask counsel to explain what you can decide alone, which decisions require other owners, and what happens if the owners disagree. I would not assume a right to make a change simply because your name appears in a form of direct ownership.
The operating needs should fit those legal limits. What if a tenant wants a costly new buildout? What if the loan needs to be extended? What if a buyer wants an answer faster than the owners can give one? We should know the decision process before those situations arise.
I would also ask about the cost of transferring or selling an interest. An investment may be tied to an eventual property sale even when some transfers are legally possible. Permission to transfer to a family trust, for example, is not the same as a liquid resale market with buyers ready to pay full value.
The firm’s FAQ describes its exchange focus as single-tenant net lease industrial, medical, office, and retail property. It discusses long leases and tenants with investment-grade credit as part of that approach. I would treat those as company strategy statements and verify the exact lease, tenant, and guarantor in any property being considered.[2]
A building can display a large company’s name while the lease is signed by a smaller subsidiary. The parent may provide a guarantee, a limited guarantee, or none. I would request the signed documents and match the financial statements to the party actually responsible for paying rent.
Then I would examine how the location fits the tenant’s business. Does it serve a key customer base, a production line, a research task, or a regional service area? How costly would a move be? Which equipment belongs to the tenant? Those questions help test a claim that a property is important to an occupant.
Importance is not a promise of renewal. A tenant can reorganize, merge, shift production, or no longer need a site. I would want a downside plan for that possibility even when current credit appears strong. The review should not end with the tenant logo on the cover page.
The exchange platform shows buildings used for research and engineering, medical work, manufacturing, and distribution. Those examples show why building function belongs in a sponsor review. Those examples do not show what is available now. I am not listing any of those properties for sale.[3]
For a research or lab building, I would ask who owns the special systems and who must remove them at lease end. I would examine the cost of a more ordinary second use. A building may be valuable to the current user while requiring substantial work for someone else.
For medical or light manufacturing space, the environmental and physical reports need to match the actual use. I would ask whether past processes involved materials that require further review. I would not assume a clean report based on the property’s appearance or infer a problem simply because the tenant does technical work.
For a distribution property, I would look at loading, truck access, clear height, local labor, and the distance to the routes it serves. Each item needs a connection to rents and demand. A national industrial trend cannot tell us whether a particular building competes well in its local market.
Single-tenant ownership makes the renewal decision especially important. If the only tenant leaves, the owner can move from full occupancy to no rent. A forecast should show the cost of carrying the building while searching for a replacement, not merely assume that one rent stream flows straight into the next.
I would build three cases: the tenant renews, another tenant takes the property after a gap, and the building must be changed before it can be leased. Each case needs separate assumptions for rent, vacancy time, construction, commissions, and reserves. A weighted average can be helpful, but it should not hide the worst cash demand.
Consider a hypothetical building that loses $80,000 a month in rent for nine months. That is $720,000 of missed rent. Add $600,000 of tenant work and $180,000 of leasing costs, and the combined amount reaches $1.5 million before taxes, insurance, debt service, or other carrying costs.
That amount is not a prediction for Syndicated Equities. It is the sort of stress test I would want before accepting a modest reserve balance. The reserve plan should also state whether extra money can be raised and who bears the cost if the original plan is not enough.
For the value-add and development platform, I would review both Syndicated Equities and the operating partner. The sponsor needs to choose and oversee the right partner. The local team needs to obtain permits, manage builders, lease the project, and control costs. I would review both sides of that work.
I would ask for a division of duties in writing. Who controls the bank account? Who can approve a change order? Who can hire or replace a contractor? Who has the power to stop spending when the budget is no longer realistic? The answers should be clear before anyone wires capital.
The joint-venture agreement should also explain what happens when partners disagree. I would ask about removal rights, cure periods, major decisions, extra capital, and any buyout process. The terms matter most when the project is late or the expected financing is not available, not when everyone agrees with the original plan.
I would compare the partner’s cash investment with the fees it earns along the way. If the same partner handles development, construction, leasing, and management, the investor should see each fee and its basis. Multiple roles are not proof of a bad arrangement; they are a reason to understand all of the incentives.
An unfinished building cannot be reviewed as if it already has stable rents. I would separate land cost, permits, hard construction costs, professional costs, interest, operating deficits, and contingency. Then I would ask which amounts are fixed by contract and which can change.
Timing is central. A six-month delay may add interest and overhead while pushing rent farther into the future. If a construction loan requires leasing or completion by a certain date, the delay can also affect financing. A project can stay close to its construction budget and still miss its overall financial plan.
I would request evidence for the lease-up pace rather than rely on a market average. How many units or square feet were absorbed by comparable new projects? What discounts did those projects use? How much competing space is expected to arrive during the same period? The forecast should allow for a slower case.
I would keep these questions separate from a stabilized exchange investment. The same firm may have the skills to pursue both, but the client’s risk tolerance and cash needs may fit only one. Being comfortable with the sponsor does not make every strategy a fit for your portfolio.
The brokerage path can help frame the choice between control and convenience. If you buy a whole net lease property, you may gain more say over a sale or a refinancing. You may also need to handle decisions, reports, lenders, service providers, and unexpected costs that a passive structure places with a manager.
I would compare cash after the same types of expenses. A property’s capitalization rate usually measures property income against price before the buyer’s financing and investment-level costs. A projected distribution to a passive investor may be after some of those items. Putting the two percentages side by side without adjustment can be misleading.
For a whole-property purchase, I would include acquisition costs, debt service, reserves, ongoing oversight, and eventual sale costs in the analysis. For a passive interest, I would identify the sponsor and entity costs already inside the projections. The goal is a fair comparison of what reaches you, not a contest between two attractive headline rates.
I would also discuss concentration. A sole owner may place a large part of an exchange into one tenant at one address. A set of passive interests may spread exposure, but can add separate managers, fees, and reporting. Neither result is automatically better; the design should match the amount of money, the risks, and the work you want to keep.
Syndicated says its asset-management work includes oversight of leasing, financing, budgets, and dispositions. It also describes an investor portal and tax statements prepared by third-party tax professionals. I would ask to see a sample report and the delivery schedule for the exact investment rather than assume all programs provide the same package.[4]
My ideal report would show rent collected, expenses, loan payments, reserves, and the resulting distribution. It would compare actual results with the budget and explain material differences. It would also show upcoming lease and debt events so that investors can see issues before they become a surprise.
A fee schedule should cover entry, annual operations, financing, sales, and any profit share. I would ask whether costs are charged by the sponsor, an affiliate, or an outside provider. I would also identify the amount of investor cash held in reserves instead of spent on the property. That cash may be useful, but it changes the starting math.
For track records, I would ask for both realized and ongoing investments. The report should separate money distributed from capital returned at sale. It should identify net results after applicable investor costs and make clear where remaining property values are estimates. A long list of acquired buildings is not an investor-return calculation.
The company says it is not a qualified intermediary. Its exchange coordination should therefore be understood as support around a transaction, not custody of the exchange funds in place of your intermediary. I would confirm who holds the money, who sends instructions, and who checks the identification notice.[2]
IRS exchange guidance limits Section 1031 to qualifying real property held for business or investment and describes requirements for deferred exchanges. Your ownership structure and transaction need to satisfy the applicable rules. A sponsor’s willingness to accept an investment does not decide your tax outcome.[7]
I would bring the intermediary and tax advisers into the review early. The equity, debt, total replacement value, and closing sequence should be agreed before the last few days of the identification period. A calm closing starts with a clear division of responsibility, not with rushing a signature when the clock is nearly out.
No. Its public materials describe an exchange platform, direct and joint-venture equity investments, and net lease brokerage. Begin with the particular service and ownership form being proposed. The risk and degree of control may differ substantially across them.
No. They involve different legal documents and control arrangements. Review the deed or trust structure, management powers, financing, and tax analysis for the actual investment. Do not assume that rights in one structure carry over to the other.
No. The tenant still needs the resources to pay, and the lease may have conditions or limits worth reviewing. I would identify the legal payer and any guarantor, then test the building’s prospects if the tenant does not renew.
I would examine its current use, physical condition, lease obligations, environmental reports, and cost of a second use. A specialized layout can support the tenant’s business while also making a future lease change more costly. Both sides belong in the review.
No. The documents may limit transfers, and a willing buyer may not exist at the price you want. Ask about the actual process, fees, and approvals. An investor portal and periodic reports do not create a secondary market.
I would need the offering and ownership documents, lease files, tenant financial support, property reports, financing, costs, reserves, and relevant results. I would also need your exchange figures and personal goals. A complete property review can still lead to the conclusion that it is not right for you.
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.