Trending Content
| +48 | Being asked to stay behind and train my replacement | 14 | 1d | |
| +32 | Best CRE brokerage firms | 22 | 6h | |
| +30 | What does REPE actually do? | 11 | 29m | |
| +29 | New Comp Database - Google Form (Now with Data Validation) | 15 | 6h | |
| +24 | Thoughts on joining an early-stage REPE fund | 7 | 5d | |
| +22 | REPE/Development GPA | 15 | 22m | |
| +21 | Public Homebuilders | 7 | 4d | |
| +19 | Starting University LP Fund | 4 | 15m | |
| +17 | What would your strategy be? | 14 | 3d | |
| +17 | MSRE/MSRED with no RE experience; Naive to think I’ll land a job afterwards? | 4 | 1d |
Career Resources
Hi greenlander., just trying to help:
I hope those threads give you a bit more insight.
Well 95/5 to a 70/30 is around a 26% promote.
So on a 60/40, assuming the same promote, the splits would be around 45/55 after debt service.
Though 55 is higher than 30, it is still dilutive to the GP since you are using the same promote over a smaller LP equity contribution. Their disproportionat split is not as significant as the 95/5 structure.
As to how this would play out in real life? Idk, I would imagine the promote would be much larger since the LP has a much lower risk at 60% contribution. However, I've never seen a structure that goes straight to promote with no pref return hurdle anyway.
Can you explain in greater detail how this would be dilutive (possibly show the math)?
I have a similar situation I'm thinking through right now and I was asked "why is more equity dilutive to our return (the gp)" The way I generally thought about it is it's essentially getting less financing (leverage), but, we're pari passu to a 10% pref and 70%/30% above that regardless of equity contribution. Financing is typically less than your cost of equity so it's accretive, but in this situation the cost of equity for GP and LP is equal (unless I'm thinking about this wrong).
I just double checked it in my model. Hard to show the math without sending my full blown waterfall, but I'll try to explain it more simply:
Another way to think about it is:
If your fund was $40mm, would you rather do one $40mm deal with a 137% increase in net cash flow or eight $5mm deal with a 600% increase in cash flow?
Yep... that makes perfect sense. Much appreciated. + Banana
Yeh I should've phrased this better. I was trying to figure out how much larger the promote could be if the GP were to raise another 35% of the equity.
So equity would be 5%- GP common 35% - LP2 -pref 60% - LP1-common
I had an idea of turning the additional 35% equity raised into preferred equity and trying to push for a better split than the 70/30 maybe 60/40 bc this would steer all the upside (project currently underwritten to hit 30% IRR) to the GP and LP1.
Then I saw how the GP could squeeze more money out by sticking with the 70/30 split (LP/GP) and utilizing the 35% additional equity as quasi-preferred. GP would collect 30% (on their 5% contributed) + any upside over the pref (from LP2).
Excepturi quidem ullam a ut aspernatur doloremque. Quae eaque et sit et dicta perspiciatis. Expedita ut praesentium sunt eum nihil voluptas quos iure. Laudantium aut rerum quia error optio praesentium atque.
Et molestias eos ut ad voluptas. Libero qui sunt quia inventore laboriosam dolore. Asperiores possimus est et quia.
Dolorum asperiores consequuntur iusto tempora voluptatem qui. Eos quasi possimus accusamus minus. Laudantium occaecati magni ut delectus perspiciatis in. Ratione et eveniet fuga quas. Sunt non natus iusto quam sint aut nemo. Saepe cupiditate sed corporis dolores.
Facilis vero odio sit enim ea quasi non. Dolor maxime aliquid sed illo. Aut aut et quos hic qui. Et in et sed consectetur et laudantium. Non id et doloribus sit nesciunt sed ea. Possimus magnam rerum eum dicta qui. Vel expedita incidunt totam neque aut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...