Red Oak Capital Intermediate Income Fund, LLC

Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K

LP $869K · Fees $6K · GP $0

Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →

Deal diligence16 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 — Managing broker-dealer / wholesaling fee table (Maximum Offering Amount column)

High

Plan-of-Distribution fee table overstates the maximum-offering fees by ~10x and contradicts the cover-page summary: $1,875,000 + $3,750,000 in fees leaving $69,375,000, versus the cover's $562,500 total fees leaving $74,437,500 to the company.

“Less managing broker-dealer fee: $ 2.50 $ 1,875,000 Less wholesaling fee: $ 5.00 $ 3,750,000 Remaining Proceeds: $ 992.50 $ 69,375,000 || $ 75,000,000 $ 562,500 $ 74,437,500 $ 0”

PPM p.4290% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Bond interest expense (FY2022 and FY2021)

Medium

Note 6 reports bond interest expense of $669,454 (2022) and $97,111 (2021) while the Statements of Operations report $705,888 (2022) and $102,226 (2021) for the same line.

“Company has recorded $669,454 and $97,111 of bond interest expense || Bond interest expense 705,888 102,226”

PPM p.9485% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Net proceeds from the offering (maximum)

Medium

The Use of Proceeds table states net proceeds of $74,062,500 while the same section's narrative (and the cover) states approximately $74,437,500 for the same maximum offering.

“Net Proceeds $ 74,062,500 $ 39,396,938 98.75 || net proceeds we will receive from this offering will be approximately $74,437,500”

PPM p.3785% confidence

Broken cross-reference — ROCF II's indenture

Low

A paragraph describing ROCF IV's bond payments references 'ROCF II's indenture' rather than ROCF IV's, a wrong cross-reference to a different affiliated program.

“ROCF IV has made all interest payments on its outstanding bonds timely to the paying agent in accordance with the terms of ROCF II's indenture and outstanding bonds.”

PPM p.8075% confidence

Document-quality defect — Raymond Davis - title

Low

Raymond Davis's title conflicts within the management section: the officer table lists him as 'Chief Strategy Officer' while his biography on the following page identifies him as 'Chief Business Development Officer.'

“Raymond Davis 56 Chief Strategy Officer* November, 2019 || Raymond T. Davis is Chief Business Development Officer for our Sponsor.”

PPM p.7470% confidence

Document-quality defect — Series C vs Series D Bonds issued in 2022

Low

Note 6 lists two separate 'Series C Bonds' issuances in FY2022; the $0.71 million tranche should be Series D, matching the $710,000 Series D balance shown in the same note's bonds-payable table.

“issued approximately $4.26 million Series B Bonds, $7.76 million Series C Bonds, and $0.71 million Series C Bonds”

PPM p.10080% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2021

Low

Notes to Financial Statements report 12/31/2021 cash of $5,085,550 while the Balance Sheet for the same date reports $5,058,550 (digit transposition).

“held cash and cash equivalents of $4,018,900 and $5,085,550, respectively || Cash and cash equivalents $ 4,018,900 $ 5,058,550”

PPM p.9685% confidence

Spelling / typo — Securities Investor Protection Corporation (doubled)

Info

Doubled phrase: 'Securities Investor Protection Corporation' is repeated back-to-back in the cash-and-cash-equivalents credit-risk disclosure.

“Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or Securities Investor Protection Corporation or Securities Investor Protection Corporation”

PPM p.9680% 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 distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Structure). 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 answered0 partial8 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?Gap
What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?Debt · UnknownAnswered
What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2015.Answered
What is the target offering size?Target offering of $75,000,000.Answered
What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $10,000.Answered

Fees & Expenses

Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?5 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 1.50%

Fee

Trigger

Basis

Rate

Managing Broker-Dealer Fee

Bond sale closing

Gross proceeds of the offering

0.25%

Wholesaling Fee

Bond sale through selling group members

Gross proceeds from certain sales of the Bonds

0.50%

Organization and Offering Fee (O&O Fee)

Each closing; paid from offering proceeds

Gross offering proceeds

0.50%

Asset Management Fee

Ongoing during operating period

Annual rate on outstanding principal amount of all Bonds; paid quarterly in advance

0.25%

Accountable Expense Reimbursement

Ongoing; monthly reimbursement

Documented expenses incurred on behalf of the company; reimbursed monthly; amount indeterminable

0.00%

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

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.

⚛ RSS Start 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

Auor Capital Fund V LLC

Tuttle Land Investments, LLC

Tuttle Land Investments

Connect Invest III LLC

Jamestown Invest 1, LLC

Waterfalls Composite Score

50.9.

LP-favorability score · 5 weighted dimensions

Benchmark · Real Estate Debt

Real Estate Debt / Mortgage Funds

See where this fund sits across 12 indexed real estate debt / mortgage funds funds — median pref, hurdle, splits, GP commit.

Compare to bucket →

Score breakdown5 dimensions

Absolute LP Takeⓘunscored—

GP Timing Riskⓘ25

Pref Qualityⓘ60

Fee Dragⓘ94

Alignmentⓘ25

LP take × exit multiple

at 5y hold · 99% at 1.75×

LP take Fee drag· sim at $500k equity

Exit	LP IRR	LP MoC	LP Take	Fees
1.00×	-0.3%	0.99×	98.8%	1.3%
1.50×	8.3%	1.49×	99.2%	0.8%
1.75×	11.7%	1.74×	99.3%	0.7%
2.00×	14.7%	1.99×	99.4%	0.6%
2.50×	20.0%	2.49×	99.5%	0.5%
3.00×	24.5%	2.99×	99.6%	0.4%

Jump to an exit

1.0× downside 1.5× base 2.0× upside 3.0× home run