Waterfalls
Default
Score model

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

Sign in to save models →
Sign in

Tuttle Land Investments, LLC

Sponsored by Tuttle Land Investments·

Unknown· Debt· LLC · 2 classes· ● Low· PPM v1· Updated 26d ago
4 data notes▶
Unusual structureUnscored: pref_qualityUnscored: absolute lp takeUnscored: pref quality
Run the numbers
Composite
51.7
median 52 +0
Pref Returnⓘ
—
median 12.5% · Land Development
LP Take (Base)ⓘ
—
median 100.0% · Land Development
GP Commitⓘ
0.0%
median 0.0% +0.0%
Min Investment
$10K
ticket size
Offering Size
$35M
target raise
Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K
LP $875K · Fees $0 · GP $0
GROSS PROCEEDS$875KLPT1Return of Capital$500,000 · 57.1% of grossLPGPT4Residual Split (100% / 0%) · 42.9%Limited Partners · $375KGeneral Partner · $0pool fully distributed
Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →
Class structure · 2 classes

How Tuttle Land Investments, LLC divides the cap table

The cascade above models the blended LP view. Click a class below to view per-class economics.

Deal diligence14 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.

Broken cross-reference — Risk Factors page location

Low

The cover and front matter point investors to the Risk Factors section in conflicting places: the cover repeatedly says 'on page 1' while the summary says it begins 'on Page 5', so the document gives two different locations for the same section.

“See the 'Risk Factors' section on page 1 of this Offering Circular. ... You should carefully read the entire offering circular, including 'Risk Factors' beginning on Page 5, and the financial statements, before making an investment decision.”
PPM p.178% confidence

Broken cross-reference — Section 4 of this Article VIII

Low

Operating Agreement Section 7.3.3.6 (within Article VII) limits asset-disposition powers 'subject to the limitations of Section 4 of this Article VIII', but the limitations on the Members'/Managers' powers are set out in Section 7.4 of Article VII (Article VIII covers transfer of Member Percentage Interests), so the article reference is wrong.

“to take any other action with respect to agreements made between the Company and a lender or any affiliate thereof, all subject to the limitations of Section 4 of this Article VIII (Members only)”
PPM p.2670% confidence

Defined-term defect — stocks / shareholders / stockholders

Low

The Company is an LLC offering unsecured Notes (LROs) and has Members and Noteholders, but boilerplate carried over from an equity offering refers to selling 'the stocks', distributions to 'our shareholders', and 'Our stockholders' — entities/securities that do not exist in this deal.

“we reserve the right to offer the stocks through broker-dealers who are registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority”
PPM p.180% confidence

Spelling / typo — Nets Proceeds

Low

The defined term for net offering proceeds is botched as 'Nets Proceeds' in the parenthetical, then used elsewhere in the document as 'Net Proceeds' / 'net proceeds', so the term as defined never matches its later usages.

“the net proceeds from the sale of the 3,500 Notes in this Offering will be approximately $33,500,000 (the 'Nets Proceeds'), after deducting the estimated Offering expenses of approximately $1,500,000.”
PPM p.786% confidence

Unfilled placeholder text — Consent of ______________, Auditor

Low

The auditor is never named: both the List of Exhibits and the Exhibit F cover ship with a blank fill-in line in place of the auditor's name, leaving a required disclosure (Consent of Auditor) unfinished in the body of the offering.

“F) Consent of ______________, Auditor”
PPM p.1972% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Article VII subsection numbering 7.3.3.4 et seq.

Info

The enumerated powers in Section 7.3 are numbered 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, then jump to 7.3.3.4, 7.3.3.5, 7.3.3.6, 7.3.3.7 and 7.3.3.8 — the trailing items are mis-numbered as sub-parts of 7.3.3 rather than the intended 7.3.4 through 7.3.8.

“7.3.3 execute and deliver on behalf of and in the name of the Company ... 7.3.3.4 protect and preserve the assets of the Company and incur indebtedness in the ordinary course of business”
PPM p.2674% confidence

Spelling / typo — TUTTLE LAND INVESTEMENTS, LLC

Info

The issuer's own name is misspelled 'INVESTEMENTS' in the Operating Agreement execution clause; the entity is correctly 'TUTTLE LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC' everywhere else.

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF , this Operating Agreement of TUTTLE LAND INVESTEMENTS, LLC, was adopted by the Managers and Members of the company as of the date first above written.”
PPM p.3192% 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?Debt · UnknownAnswered
  • What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2018.Answered
  • What is the target offering size?Target offering of $35,000,000.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.)?3 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 25.00%
Fee
Trigger
Basis
Rate
Member Loan Interest (Operating Agreement)
Member loan outstanding
12% per annum on member capital advances (Member Loans) made by founding LLC members; repaid first in the distribution waterfall before return of capital
12.00%
Offering / Issuance Expense
Note offering
Flat estimated offering cost of approximately $1,500,000 to be financed from note proceeds; covers legal, accounting, and other issuance costs
0.00%
Note Interest Rate
Ongoing until maturity or prepayment
13% per annum on outstanding principal of each LRO note; interest-only payments monthly for 5-year term
13.00%

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

PFG Fund V, LLC
PFG Capital
Debt
2015
—
52.0
Red Oak Capital Intermediate Income Fund, LLC
Red Oak Capital
Debt
2015
—
50.9
Groundfloor Yield LLC
Groundfloor Finance
Debt
2014
—
52.5
Auor Capital Fund V LLC
Auor Capital
—
2018
—
50.6
Connect Invest II LLC
Connect Invest
Debt
2015
—
53.3