Tulsa Real Estate Fund manager gives tour of recent apartment complex acquisition

[Booker T Garvey]

First of all, that was my guess. So ok? The NFL released that warning because of info filed with the SEC vs. an SEC investigation.

Whether it was before or after, the NFL took notice because the SEC was brought into the equation.

And in the finance world, anything that has the "appearance" of impropriety is just as bad as impropriety itself.

No you can't just casually glide by this...why would the NFLPA issue a warning on a company that's just "doing what everybody else does" as you put it

you've claimed repeatedly in this thread that TREF is doing normal shyt. so please explain why they would put this warning out then.

keep in mind, you're trying to paint me as the ignorant hater and you're the all knowing in this discussion - so I eagerly await your answer to my extremely basic question.

 

[invalid]

No you can't just casually glide by this...why would the NFLPA issue a warning on a company that's just "doing what everybody else does" as you put it

SEC being brought into the equation is a red flag. <--- That's not normal.
Their criminal backgrounds is a red flag. <--- That's not normal.
Them being black is another red flag. <--- That's not normal.

Three strikes, you're out.

Again, these are all assumptions. I don't know why.

The NFL is not going to find anything that the DOJ and the SEC don't.
The DOJ had all the information the NFL was privy to and still cleared them.
Mind you, this is Trump's DOJ headed by Bill Barr.

So the DOJ has cleared them, so the NFL's warning is a non-factor now. Because the DOJ supersedes the NFL.
The last thing is the SEC findings.

So you have my permission to keep harping on that until those findings are released.

But the DOJ and NFL are moot right now. We can stop talking about them.

 

[invalid]

For the record, I'm trying to parse through fact and fiction. This is not a defense of Jay.
In fact, his finesse is so INCREDIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS, I don't understand how any astute investor would invest, or if already invested, would stay and hold positions in his fund. I'll get to it in a few as it's another long post.

 

[GunRanger]

Youre better off investing real REITs that pay monthly or quarterly dividends, and have to by law, instead of this company that wants to sell you the idea it acts like a REIT but youre not guaranteed to see a dividend

 

[invalid]

So I scoured all through Jay's financials statements and here are my final thoughts on the TREF. The setup of this fund is legitimate. This isn't a ponzi scheme in any way. Investors buy into the fund, where the underlying investments are real estate properties and mortgages. The idea is for the real estate properties to appreciate after a certain period of time and the mortgages to accrue interest, so that gains could be realized, and disseminated back to the investors.

A thing to note: According to the audited 1Ks, Jay suggests that he can deliver an 8% return to investors. In addition to the stated 8% return, Jay states that collectively investors can partake in 50% of all gains made above his 8% target.

This stands out to me for a number of reason. The second and most crucial I will address later. But the first is because most funds try to aim to deliver an average annual return of 7%. So the return he is suggesting he can provide is not unattainable.

Looking at the financials and reading the notes, I noticed a few things.

1) Jay was hoping to bring in $50 million from investors into this fund. He has only been able to raise $7,493,660.
This is a SUPER small fund. His ability to offset his operating losses is dependent on two things. 1) capital subscriptions and 2) capital gains. Capital gains will not be realized, barring some uncontrollable event like a recession, until he sells off his real estate holdings. Capital subscriptions, are then, his only mode to offset those losses month-to-month until he's ready to cash in on his portfolio. If Jay cannot regularly attract more funding into his portfolio, those losses are going to eat away at any gain that investors should see.

Remember this NAV calculation?

Beg Nav Subscriptions PnL Withdrawals End Nav
$0 + $10,000,000 + $100,000 + $0 = $10,100,000 January
$10,100,000 + $1,000,000 + ($100,000) + $0 = $11,000,000 February
$11,000,000 + $1,000,000 + ($100,000) + $0 = $11,900,000 March
$11,900,000 + $1,000,000 + ($100,000) + $0 = $12,800,000 April

What happens starting in February when there is not a subscription of $1 million into the fund each month while also sustaining an operating loss? By April, the fund will only be worth $9.8 million instead of $12.8 million. If sold with an assumption of a $3 million appreciation, the portfolio will be worth $12.8 million instead of $15.8 in the prior example.

So the quality of return the investor sees and the ability to offset operating losses is dependent on the ability of the fund manager to 1) attract more funding and 2) realize capital gains.

$7.5 million is a long way away from $50 million. This is daunting considering one of the risk factors mentioned in the 1K regarding the fund was it's ability to attract new funders to it's platform.



2) Of the $7.5 million invested money to the fund, only roughly $2.9 million is actually invested in real estate assets. The balance sheet (BS) breaks down the following:

- Projects under development - $2.23 million
- Properties held for resale (going to flip) - $364,363
- Escrow deposit - $341,200

The other $3.7 million is sitting in cash or government bonds waiting to be invested in other projects.

This is interesting to me because once properties are developed and then probably rented, how will they treat rental income? In traditional REITS, rental income is disseminated to investors as dividends. In RE Funds, rental income shows up as "income" on the Income Statements.

So I think, once these properties are developed and rents collectible, the fund MAY be able to realize operating profit because of where rents may hit on the financials, on the income statement as "rental income" or "gain on dividends" which hits on the balance sheet.

Because this is an uncertainty, the financial statements have to legally understate an assertion of operating profits, a legal CYA, hence....

"There is no guarantee we will ever generate a profit"

For those who don't understand, this is just legal jargon to cover your butt in the instance that you claim you can generate a profit and don't actually deliver.

Speaking of operating lossess.....

3) On the income statement, the biggest factor in the large operating losses is the management fee.

Operating expenses for the year totaled $198,942. Of that amount, $182,935 are management fees.

Remember, management fees is the fee that the fund manager charges the investor to manage the portfolio.

Okay folks. Here is where Jay is FINESSING THE fukk out of investors of his fund.

I mentioned that I was an auditor for a public accounting firm. I also worked as a controller for a number of hedge funds before I jumped into equity research.

Having worked in the industry and also as a serious investor, I know that there is a financial industry-wide standard on management fees and how they should be charged.

The standard is "2/20" or "2 and 20".

This means, the fund manager will charge a fee that is 2% of the fund principal amount and 20% of all gains incurred.

This is a standard almost EVERYWHERE, with a few exceptions, for instance the size of a fund.

If it's a small fund, the management fee would be reduced, so that it's not heavily eating into investors earnings.

For instance, I was controller of a fund that had $25-30 million AUM (assets under management) which is a SUPER small fund. The management fee that we charged to investors was 1.5% of aum. It was below industry standard because it was a small fund. If we charged anything higher, investors would have bytched and took their money out the fund.

I was also one of the controllers over a fund that had $6-7 billion AUM. The management fee for that fund was the full 2%. Rarely did you ever see management fees charged over the 2%.

JAY FUKKING MORRISON HAS A 5.5/50 MANAGEMENT FEE FUKKING RATIO. THIS shyt IS BEYOND UNBELIEVABLE.

THIS nikka IS CHARGING INVESTORS 5.5% OF THEIR INVESTMENTS AND THEN TAKING 50 FUKKING PERCENT OF THE GAINS ON THIS SMALL ASS FUKKING FUND AND THE INVESTORS HAVE TO SPLIT THE OTHER 50% PRO-RATA.

Based off of the size of this fund, he should be charging less than 1% management and should be accorded 10% of gains.

WHAT HE'S CHARGING INVESTORS I WOULD EXPECT FOR A FUND THAT HAS $100 BILLION IN ASSETS UNDER MANAGMENT. THIS nikka HAS $7.5 MILLION AND HE'S ONLY ACTIVELY MANAGING $2.9 OF THAT.

ANY OTHER FUND, INVESTORS WOULD GO OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

BUT BECAUSE JAY'S INVESTORS ARE BLACK AND INEXPERIENCED, HE SAW AN OPENING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM.

if any nikkas in this thread are investing in TREF. I WOULD TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT ASAP OR BRING THIS TO JAY'S ATTENTION.

WHATS EVEN MORE SCANDALOUS IS THE FACT THAT HE IS GUARANTEEING HIS INVESTORS 8% RETURN BUT THEN TURN AROUND AND IS CHARGING 5.5% IN FEES SO THE INVESTOR WILL ONLY SEE AN ADJUSTED RETURN OF 2.5% AFTER FEES ARE DEDUCTED.

IN 2019, INFLATION IS 2%, SO YOU'RE JUST BEATING INFLATION.

There is other shyt, such as his cash flows and working capital and some other rations that are super dismal but I'm tired now and this is a long ass post as it is.
Ya'll nikkas that are investing in him need to go AWFF because white investors wouldn't stand for this. AT ALL. It's legal for funds to set their own management fee but there is an industry-wide standard that is typically followed by most managed funds, whether hedge, PE, mutual, or real estate.

And Jay is not adhering to that of which is causing and will continue to cause that BIG ASS operating loss.

Two and Twenty Definition

And for the record, if any one calls themselves an investor, and can't at least do what I just did (which was very surface level at that) and more, you really shouldn't be investing, because you should be able to dissect and parse through financial statements and other documents like SEC reports to not only understand what's going on with a company but to also be able to leverage them to make your investing decisions.

 

[No Homo]

BUT BECAUSE JAY'S INVESTORS ARE BLACK AND INEXPERIENCED, HE SAW AN OPENING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM.

if any nikkas in this thread are investing in TREF. I WOULD TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT ASAP OR BRING THIS TO JAY'S ATTENTION.

WHATS EVEN MORE SCANDALOUS IS THE FACT THAT HE IS GUARANTEEING HIS INVESTORS 8% RETURN BUT THEN TURN AROUND AND IS CHARGING 5.5% IN FEES SO THE INVESTOR WILL ONLY SEE AN ADJUSTED RETURN OF 2.5% AFTER FEES ARE DEDUCTED.
Ya'll nikkas that are investing in him need to go AWFF because white investors wouldn't stand for this. AT ALL. It's legal for funds to set their own management fee but there is an industry-wide standard that is typically followed by most funds.

Im not invested in him but Jay is doing the same thing as Grant Cardone is doing with Cardone Capital or what any Real Estate syndicator does.

I dont have time to go into this but hes not charging anything out of the ordinary.
These are pretty much standard fees, "guarantees" in these types of deals.

 

[invalid]

Im not invested in him but Jay is doing the same thing as Grant Cardone is doing with Cardone Capital or what any Real Estate syndicator does.

I dont have time to go into this but hes not charging anything out of the ordinary.
These are pretty much standard fees, "guarantees" in these types of deals.

There may be irregularities here and there but for Real Estate Funds, the investment management fee is actually around 1-2%.

Investment Management Fee: This fee is charged by both fund managers and managers sponsoring individual deals and is sometimes referred to as the Asset Management Fee. For real estate funds, this fee replaces the committed capital fee once the capital is invested so that investors are not being charged on the same capital twice. The commitment fee is reduced proportionally as money becomes invested. This fee ranges between 1% and 2% of invested equity and is used to pay for investment management services. This fee should be a function of invested equity and not total deal size.

An Introduction to Private Real Estate Investment Fees - Origin Investments

Let's say Jay is also including in his "management fee" an "acquisition/disposition fee" (which is actually double dipping). Even there, for the size of his fund, it should not top 1%.

He should be charging at most 2% and that's generous.

Cardone Capital is managing $1.3 Billion. Jay is managing pennies - $2.9 million, so their fee structure should not be the same. At all.

My own personal opinion, his fee should be around .8% until he can make it to about $10 million in subscriptions. Then I would charge 1%. Get up to $20million, then charge 1.5%. Make it to $30, go up to 2%

5.5% is just too much of a rip off for the size.

It's the equivalent of those subprime mortgages overcharging on interest.

 

[Dirien]

There may be irregularities here and there but for Real Estate Funds, the investment management fee is actually around 1-2%.

Investment Management Fee: This fee is charged by both fund managers and managers sponsoring individual deals and is sometimes referred to as the Asset Management Fee. For real estate funds, this fee replaces the committed capital fee once the capital is invested so that investors are not being charged on the same capital twice. The commitment fee is reduced proportionally as money becomes invested. This fee ranges between 1% and 2% of invested equity and is used to pay for investment management services. This fee should be a function of invested equity and not total deal size.

An Introduction to Private Real Estate Investment Fees - Origin Investments

Let's say Jay is also including in his "management fee" an "acquisition/disposition fee" (which is actually double dipping). Even there, for the size of his fund, it should not top 1%.

He should be charging at most 2% and that's generous.

Cardone Capital is managing $1.3 Billion. Jay is managing pennies - $2.9 million, so their fee structure should not be the same. At all.

My own personal opinion, his fee should be around .8% until he can make it to about $10 million in subscriptions. Then I would charge 1%. Get up to $20million, then charge 1.5%. Make it to $30, go up to 2%

5.5% is just too much of a rip off for the size.

It's the equivalent of those subprime mortgages overcharging on interest.

The Bigger Pockets community had the same issues you did at first. They thought 5.5% was far too high compared to other funds. But once they found out there were no other hidden or transactional fees, it made a little more sense. In fact, one poster who manages a review site for various Crowdfunds said it's actually quite cheap.

Thank you for your insight and knowledge though! My wife is in a similar field. She'd appreciate all that financial jargon. Most of it goes over my head.

 

[hashmander]

So I scoured all through Jay's financials statements and here are my final thoughts on the TREF. The setup of this fund is legitimate. This isn't a ponzi scheme in any way. Investors buy into the fund, where the underlying investments are real estate properties and mortgages. The idea is for the real estate properties to appreciate after a certain period of time and the mortgages to accrue interest, so that gains could be realized, and disseminated back to the investors.

A thing to note: According to the audited 1Ks, Jay suggests that he can deliver an 8% return to investors. In addition to the stated 8% return, Jay states that collectively investors can partake in 50% of all gains made above his 8% target.

This stands out to me for a number of reason. The second and most crucial I will address later. But the first is because most funds try to aim to deliver an average annual return of 7%. So the return he is suggesting he can provide is not unattainable.

Looking at the financials and reading the notes, I noticed a few things.

1) Jay was hoping to bring in $50 million from investors into this fund. He has only been able to raise $7,493,660.
This is a SUPER small fund. His ability to offset his operating losses is dependent on two things. 1) capital subscriptions and 2) capital gains. Capital gains will not be realized, barring some uncontrollable event like a recession, until he sells off his real estate holdings. Capital subscriptions, are then, his only mode to offset those losses month-to-month until he's ready to cash in on his portfolio. If Jay cannot regularly attract more funding into his portfolio, those losses are going to eat away at any gain that investors should see.

Remember this NAV calculation?

Beg Nav Subscriptions PnL Withdrawals End Nav
$0 + $10,000,000 + $100,000 + $0 = $10,100,000 January
$10,100,000 + $1,000,000 + ($100,000) + $0 = $11,000,000 February
$11,000,000 + $1,000,000 + ($100,000) + $0 = $11,900,000 March
$11,900,000 + $1,000,000 + ($100,000) + $0 = $12,800,000 April

What happens starting in February when there is not a subscription of $1 million into the fund each month while also sustaining an operating loss? By April, the fund will only be worth $9.8 million instead of $12.8 million. If sold with an assumption of a $3 million appreciation, the portfolio will be worth $12.8 million instead of $15.8 in the prior example.

So the quality of return the investor sees and the ability to offset operating losses is dependent on the ability of the fund manager to 1) attract more funding and 2) realize capital gains.

$7.5 million is a long way away from $50 million. This is daunting considering one of the risk factors mentioned in the 1K regarding the fund was it's ability to attract new funders to it's platform.



2) Of the $7.5 million invested money to the fund, only roughly $2.9 million is actually invested in real estate assets. The balance sheet (BS) breaks down the following:

- Projects under development - $2.23 million
- Properties held for resale (going to flip) - $364,363
- Escrow deposit - $341,200

The other $3.7 million is sitting in cash or government bonds waiting to be invested in other projects.

This is interesting to me because once properties are developed and then probably rented, how will they treat rental income? In traditional REITS, rental income is disseminated to investors as dividends. In RE Funds, rental income shows up as "income" on the Income Statements.

So I think, once these properties are developed and rents collectible, the fund MAY be able to realize operating profit because of where rents may hit on the financials, on the income statement as "rental income" or "gain on dividends" which hits on the balance sheet.

Because this is an uncertainty, the financial statements have to legally understate an assertion of operating profits, a legal CYA, hence....

"There is no guarantee we will ever generate a profit"

For those who don't understand, this is just legal jargon to cover your butt in the instance that you claim you can generate a profit and don't actually deliver.

Speaking of operating lossess.....

3) On the income statement, the biggest factor in the large operating losses is the management fee.

Operating expenses for the year totaled $198,942. Of that amount, $182,935 are management fees.

Remember, management fees is the fee that the fund manager charges the investor to manage the portfolio.

Okay folks. Here is where Jay is FINESSING THE fukk out of investors of his fund.

I mentioned that I was an auditor for a public accounting firm. I also worked as a controller for a number of hedge funds before I jumped into equity research.

Having worked in the industry and also as a serious investor, I know that there is a financial industry-wide standard on management fees and how they should be charged.

The standard is "2/20" or "2 and 20".

This means, the fund manager will charge a fee that is 2% of the fund principal amount and 20% of all gains incurred.

This is a standard almost EVERYWHERE, with a few exceptions, for instance the size of a fund.

If it's a small fund, the management fee would be reduced, so that it's not heavily eating into investors earnings.

For instance, I was controller of a fund that had $25-30 million AUM (assets under management) which is a SUPER small fund. The management fee that we charged to investors was 1.5% of aum. It was below industry standard because it was a small fund. If we charged anything higher, investors would have bytched and took their money out the fund.

I was also one of the controllers over a fund that had $6-7 billion AUM. The management fee for that fund was the full 2%. Rarely did you ever see management fees charged over the 2%.

JAY FUKKING MORRISON HAS A 5.5/50 MANAGEMENT FEE FUKKING RATIO. THIS shyt IS BEYOND UNBELIEVABLE.

THIS nikka IS CHARGING INVESTORS 5.5% OF THEIR INVESTMENTS AND THEN TAKING 50 FUKKING PERCENT OF THE GAINS ON THIS SMALL ASS FUKKING FUND AND THE INVESTORS HAVE TO SPLIT THE OTHER 50% PRO-RATA.

Based off of the size of this fund, he should be charging less than 1% management and should be accorded 10% of gains.

WHAT HE'S CHARGING INVESTORS I WOULD EXPECT FOR A FUND THAT HAS $100 BILLION IN ASSETS UNDER MANAGMENT. THIS nikka HAS $7.5 MILLION AND HE'S ONLY ACTIVELY MANAGING $2.9 OF THAT.

ANY OTHER FUND, INVESTORS WOULD GO OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

BUT BECAUSE JAY'S INVESTORS ARE BLACK AND INEXPERIENCED, HE SAW AN OPENING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM.

if any nikkas in this thread are investing in TREF. I WOULD TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT ASAP OR BRING THIS TO JAY'S ATTENTION.

WHATS EVEN MORE SCANDALOUS IS THE FACT THAT HE IS GUARANTEEING HIS INVESTORS 8% RETURN BUT THEN TURN AROUND AND IS CHARGING 5.5% IN FEES SO THE INVESTOR WILL ONLY SEE AN ADJUSTED RETURN OF 2.5% AFTER FEES ARE DEDUCTED.

IN 2019, INFLATION IS 2%, SO YOU'RE JUST BEATING INFLATION.

There is other shyt, such as his cash flows and working capital and some other rations that are super dismal but I'm tired now and this is a long ass post as it is.
Ya'll nikkas that are investing in him need to go AWFF because white investors wouldn't stand for this. AT ALL. It's legal for funds to set their own management fee but there is an industry-wide standard that is typically followed by most managed funds, whether hedge, PE, mutual, or real estate.

And Jay is not adhering to that of which is causing and will continue to cause that BIG ASS operating loss.

Two and Twenty Definition

And for the record, if any one calls themselves an investor, and can't at least do what I just did (which was very surface level at that) and more, you really shouldn't be investing, because you should be able to dissect and parse through financial statements and other documents like SEC reports to not only understand what's going on with a company but to also be able to leverage them to make your investing decisions.

i think he's ok with people questioning whether or not his fund is legit because that can easily be investigated and vindicate him and then he'll say see the haters were wrong, we are legit. but they don't want a light shined on the actual finesse and that's why they tug at heart strings with the "stopping gentrification" and "black wall street", it's to make you emotional ... this is about empowering our people, etc. etc. now they got you..

 

[No Homo]

There may be irregularities here and there but for Real Estate Funds, the investment management fee is actually around 1-2%.

Investment Management Fee: This fee is charged by both fund managers and managers sponsoring individual deals and is sometimes referred to as the Asset Management Fee. For real estate funds, this fee replaces the committed capital fee once the capital is invested so that investors are not being charged on the same capital twice. The commitment fee is reduced proportionally as money becomes invested. This fee ranges between 1% and 2% of invested equity and is used to pay for investment management services. This fee should be a function of invested equity and not total deal size.

An Introduction to Private Real Estate Investment Fees - Origin Investments

Let's say Jay is also including in his "management fee" an "acquisition/disposition fee" (which is actually double dipping). Even there, for the size of his fund, it should not top 1%.

He should be charging at most 2% and that's generous.

Cardone Capital is managing $1.3 Billion. Jay is managing pennies - $2.9 million, so their fee structure should not be the same. At all.

My own personal opinion, his fee should be around .8% until he can make it to about $10 million in subscriptions. Then I would charge 1%. Get up to $20million, then charge 1.5%. Make it to $30, go up to 2%

5.5% is just too much of a rip off for the size.

It's the equivalent of those subprime mortgages overcharging on interest.

The fee structure does not matter.
He can charge whatever fee he sees fit as the syndicator. There is no syndicator who will charge .8%. Are you insane? It doesn't work like that. No one will charge that. Doesnt matter if you are trying to raise 500k or 200 million.
Anyone who is even just starting out will not do this.

Cardone is managing 1.3 billion now. Do you think when Cardone was starting out managing he said "oh this aint much i should charge .8%"
He didnt just happen to have 1.3 billion fall in his lap to say now I can charge this much. Thats not how that game works.

Jay's problem is he needed to do what Cardone did and get the bigger accredited investors on board first, build his holdings, which would in turn get him the credibility and then reach out to non accredited investors.

Now it just looks like one big money grab.

I know what hes trying to do hes just not presenting it right.

 

[Dirien]

i think he's ok with people questioning whether or not his fund is legit because that can easily be investigated and vindicate him and then he'll say see the haters were wrong, we are legit. but they don't want a light shined on the actual finesse and that's why they tug at heart strings with the "stopping gentrification" and "black wall street", it's to make you emotional ... this is about empowering our people, etc. etc. now they got you..

They've already had the light shined on the management fee and profit split though. That was one of the primary talking points when the fund was launching and in one of his initial response videos to all the criticism from Tone/Yvette. All this has been discussed in the previous threads.

If you look at reviews of Fundrise, you'll see reviewers saying that the advertised fees are low, much lower than Tulsa, but it's the other fees that are buried deep in the paperwork that you have to watch out for. TREF business model is simple. 5.5%, no bullshyt. At one point, they were charging a 5% management fee in addition to 1% of the acquisition price. That was eliminated.

 

[invalid]

He can charge whatever fee he sees fit as the syndicator.

Yes he can. Investors can simply choose whether or not to invest with him. To be fair, he’s not wringing anyone’s hands.

Jay's problem is he needed to do what Cardone did and get the bigger accredited investors on board first, build his holdings, which would in turn get him the credibility and then reach out to non accredited investors.

Now it just looks like one big money grab.

I agree with this.

 

[invalid]

They've already had the light shined on the management fee and profit split though. That was one of the primary talking points when the fund was launching and in one of his initial response videos to all the criticism from Tone/Yvette. All this has been discussed in the previous threads.

If you look at reviews of Fundrise, you'll see reviewers saying that the advertised fees are low, much lower than Tulsa, but it's the other fees that are buried deep in the paperwork that you have to watch out for. TREF business model is simple. 5.5%, no bullshyt. At one point, they were charging a 5% management fee in addition to 1% of the acquisition price. That was eliminated.

Can you link where they address mgt fees and the profit split?

And for syndicators, I’ve seen that there are 3-4 different fees options that they could charge. Some like to jumble 2 or 3 of those fees into one which they say is double dipping and shouldn’t do to investors. Which is where I think they are coming up with that 5.5%, combining fees that they shouldn’t be combining together.


“If a committed capital fee is charged, an acquisition fee should not also be collected, as this is what the industry calls “double-dipping.” Unfortunately, many managers try to get away with double-dipping when serving individual investors, so be careful.“

An Introduction to Private Real Estate Investment Fees - Origin Investments

So this doesn’t particularly strike me as “no hidden fees”.

 

[Dirien]

Can you link where they address mgt fees and the profit split?

And for syndicators, I’ve seen that there are 3-4 different fees options that they could charge. Some like to jumble 2 or 3 of those fees into one which they say is double dipping and shouldn’t do to investors. Which is where I think they are coming up with that 5.5%, combining fees that they shouldn’t be combining together.


“If a committed capital fee is charged, an acquisition fee should not also be collected, as this is what the industry calls “double-dipping.” Unfortunately, many managers try to get away with double-dipping when serving individual investors, so be careful.“

An Introduction to Private Real Estate Investment Fees - Origin Investments

So this doesn’t particularly strike me as “no hidden fees”.

Don't have an exact time stamp but he covers the entire business model here. It's an hour long lol.

 

[theworldismine13]

you dudes keep saying this completely ignoring the fact that this is why he was being investigated in the first place

you can't lie to people about your business prospects publicly, when privately you're operating at a loss and on paper your company isn't set up to even be profitable

he was investigated because somebody reported him ()

his mistake, and i said it from the start, was the flashy pseudo hip hop marketing scheme he had going on, which is very unusual to put it mildly, for any type of fund. But i forgive him for that cuz we all come from nothing so its hard to not be flashy when we get something

the investigation ended and they found nothing because the paperwork was straight, him putting those qualifying statements in saved his ass