Skip to content

Real Estate

Building a Real Estate Track Record That Survives Diligence

Author
Felipe SoaresFounder, RAW Capital Raise
Category
Real Estate
Dates
Published Reviewed

Executive summary

A track record is not a list of deals. It is a defensible claim about who produced which outcomes, measured consistently, including the ones that went badly. Sponsors lose credibility less often for weak numbers than for inconsistent methodology, unclear attribution and quietly omitted transactions. This piece sets out the record structure that holds up when a capital partner asks for the underlying files.

  • Attribution is the first question: which outcomes belong to this team, in these roles?
  • Realised results carry weight; marks are treated as opinions until they are proved.
  • One methodology, applied to every deal, including the losses — changing basis mid-record reads as manipulation.
  • The supporting file matters as much as the summary page; assume it will be requested.

Attribution before performance

Before any capital partner reads a return column, they establish who did the work. A principal who sourced and asset-managed a transaction at a prior firm has a different claim than one who sat on the investment committee that approved it.

State the role for each transaction plainly: sourced, underwrote, closed, asset-managed, exited, or participated. Where the record belongs partly to a former employer, say so and describe the boundary. Overstated attribution is the most common reason a diligence process ends quietly.

Realised, unrealised and the space between

Separate realised outcomes from marks. A realised deal has a closing statement, a distribution history and a final capital account. An unrealised position has a valuation policy and an opinion.

Present both, never blended. When unrealised positions are shown, state the valuation basis, who prepared it and when it was last updated. Institutional readers discount marks automatically; they penalise marks presented as results.

  • Realised: entry date, exit date, equity invested, distributions, net multiple, net IRR.
  • Unrealised: current basis, valuation method, date, and what would change it.
  • Losses: shown with the same fields, plus a short factual note on cause.

The gross-to-net bridge

Gross deal returns and investor net returns are different numbers, and the distance between them is a description of the sponsor's economics. Show the bridge: fees, promote, financing costs and expenses that sit between the asset result and the investor outcome.

Sponsors who volunteer this bridge shorten diligence. Sponsors who omit it invite a reconstruction of their fee load by someone less charitable.

One methodology, applied everywhere

Fix the methodology once and document it: how IRR is calculated, how partial realisations are treated, how co-invest and sidecar capital is included, how currency and leverage are handled, and what date the record is measured to.

Then apply it to every transaction, including the ones that hurt. A record that quietly excludes two failed deals is worse than a record that includes them with an explanation, because the exclusion is discoverable and the explanation is not available afterwards.

The file behind the page

Assume the summary page triggers a request for the underlying evidence. The record should be backed by closing statements, distribution records, lender payoff letters, capital account statements and the model used at the time.

Keeping that file assembled continuously is far cheaper than reconstructing it during a live raise, and it is the same file a data room will need.

  • Per-deal folder: acquisition memo, closing statement, financing terms, exit documentation.
  • Investor-level records: capital accounts, distribution history, tax reporting.
  • A single source-of-truth spreadsheet or system that produces the summary, not a hand-typed page.

Sources

  1. Accredited investor definitionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
  2. Reporting Template and standardised fund reporting guidanceInstitutional Limited Partners Association

About the author

Felipe Soares

Founder, RAW Capital Raise

Felipe Soares is the founder of RAW Capital Raise. He is a real estate operator, fund manager and speaker based in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, with roughly eighteen years of professional experience across real estate investment, acquisitions and private capital.

Born in Brazil, he built his career in Texas from the ground up, working through distressed and cash-flowing residential and commercial assets before moving into fund management. He founded RAW REI Network, a Texas real estate operating company, and serves as fund manager of RAW Capital Fund, a Texas-focused hybrid fund for accredited investors.

His work at RAW Capital Raise focuses on the operating side of private capital: underwriting discipline, acquisition mandates, investor relations process, fund readiness and the systems that carry a raise through to execution. He writes here about what those systems look like when they hold up, and where they usually break.

Profile and background · LinkedIn

Disclosure

This article is general information about capital structure and operating practice. It is not legal, tax, accounting or investment advice, and it is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Structure, exemption and disclosure decisions must be made with qualified securities counsel and your accountants for your specific facts.

Get the record diligence-ready before the raise starts.

Fund readiness examines attribution, realisations, methodology and the supporting file, and tells you what has to be rebuilt.