Waterfalls
Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

Ark7 Properties LLC

Sponsored by Ark7·

Unknown· LLC · 1 class· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
3 data notes▶
Unusual structureLow-confidence extractionUnscored: absolute lp take
Run the numbers
Composite
12.0
median 36 −24
Pref Returnⓘ
—
median 8.0% · Diversified Real Estate
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
median 85.9% · Diversified Real Estate
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$6
ticket size
Offering Size
$6M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $500K · Fees $375K · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KGPFFees to Manager$375,000 · 42.9% of grossLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grosspool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →

Deal diligence15 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 — Asset Management Fee rate 15% vs 10%

High

The offering body consistently states the Asset Management Fee is 15% of Free Cash Flows, but the audited financial statements notes for 2024 state it is 10% of Free Cash Flows, a material inconsistency that could mislead investors about the fee burden.

“Asset Management Fee (1) Equal to 15 % of any Free Cash Flows available for distribution pursuant to Article VII of the Operating Agreement. ... [audited notes:] For services performed, the Series will pay an annual Asset Management Fee to the Asset Manager in respect of each fiscal year, 10% of any Free Cash Flows available for distribution pursuant to Article VII of the Operating Agreement.”
PPM p.795% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — [__________]

High

Unfilled template tokens for Initial Qualification Date, Open Date, and Closing Date shipped in the Series Offering Table for all 13 series, indicating the document is not final.

“Series #MHQNN 2924 Mabel St, Berkeley, CA 94702 $ 97.05 $ 1,112,193.00 0 = Minimum 11,460 = Maximum [__________] [__________] [__________] Pending”
PPM p.599% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Series #WGI3Z

Medium

The Distribution Rights section references 'Series #WGI3Z' as having a 15% Asset Management Fee, but Series #WGI3Z is not listed anywhere in this Offering Circular, suggesting a stale cross-series reference left over from a prior filing.

“The company notes that with regards to Series #WGI3Z the Asset Management Fee is 15%.”
PPM p.10295% confidence

Defined-term defect — Homestead Property

Medium

Every Asset Manager section uses the wrong property nickname 'Homestead Property' regardless of which property is being described (Mabel, California, Bonar, Solitude, Creole, Laminar Creek, etc.), indicating a global copy-paste substitution failure.

“the Series will pay the Asset Manager an annual fee (in respect of each fiscal year, 15% of any Free Cash Flows available for distribution pursuant to Article VII of the Operating Agreement) for managing the Homestead Property.”
PPM p.5498% confidence

Document-quality defect — APL formation date inconsistency

Medium

The unaudited financial statement notes state APL was formed on October 31, 2018, while the audited notes for the year ended December 31, 2024 state APL was formed on July 24, 2019 -- two different formation dates cited in the same document.

“The APL was formed on October 31, 2018, in accordance with the Limited Liability Company Act ... [later:] The APL was formed on July 24, 2019, in accordance with the Limited Liability Company Act (LLCA) of the state of Delaware.”
PPM p.11596% confidence

Document-quality defect — Series #RUSUU loan payoff year 2051

Medium

The Down Payment Loan section for Series #RUSUU states the loan 'was paid off in 2051,' an impossible future date that is a clear typographical error (should be 2021 or similar past year).

“The loan was paid off in 2051, and the outstanding balance of the Loan Payable - Down Payment Loan as of December 31, 2024 and 2023 was $0 and $470,000, respectively”
PPM p.8697% confidence

Spelling / typo — broken sentence in Distribution Upon Liquidation

Low

The Distribution Upon Liquidation section contains a grammatically broken sentence with a missing defined term: 'may include the and its affiliates' (the word 'Managing Member' or similar term has been deleted).

“shall be applied and distributed 100% to the members (pro rata to their Interests and which, for the avoidance of doubt, may include the and its affiliates).”
PPM p.10495% confidence

Spelling / typo — inacceptable

Low

The word 'inacceptable' (not a standard English word; the intended word is 'acceptable') appears in every property's inspection report boilerplate across all 13 series property sections.

“the inspection report indicated that the major property components are inacceptable, functional condition, with no obvious signs of defect.”
PPM p.5497% 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: 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 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.

38%
Coverage
5 answered1 partial7 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?3 distribution tier(s) extracted; structure type not classified.Partial
  • What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2025.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $5,566,655.Answered
  • What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $6.Answered
Fees & Expenses
  • Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?2 fee line item(s) extracted from the offering documents.Answered
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

Total load 18.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Sourcing Fee
Property acquisition / series launch
3% of the maximum offering size of each Series
3.00%
Asset Management Fee
Distribution event from operating cash flow
15% of Free Cash Flows available for distribution pursuant to Article VII of the Operating Agreement; paid only when a distribution is made
15.00%

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

Commonwealth Thoroughbreds LLC
Commonwealth Markets Inc.
—
2023
14%
11.7
GROUNDFLOOR REAL ESTATE 1, LLC
Groundfloor Finance
Debt
2015
—
11.7
YOBI CAPITAL FUND Corp
YOBI
—
2018
—
11.7
RAYVEN PROPERTIES, LLC
Rayven
—
2023
—
13.3
Here Collection LLC
Here
Debt
2022
—
13.8