Skip to content

Real Estate

Structuring the Sponsor Capital Stack Without Losing Control

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

Executive summary

Most sponsors negotiate the capital stack one layer at a time and discover the governance consequences at the worst moment: a covenant breach, a capital call, or a sale decision they no longer control. Every dollar above common equity buys a right, not just a return. This piece maps the layers a sponsor typically assembles, the control terms attached to each, and the sequence that keeps decision rights where the sponsor can still operate.

  • Price is the visible term; control is the expensive one. Read remedies, consent rights and removal provisions before rate.
  • Preferred equity and mezzanine sit at similar cost but behave very differently on default.
  • A capital stack should be modelled against downside cases, not the base case that closed the deal.
  • Investor-facing materials should describe the stack plainly — omission reads as concealment in diligence.

The layers, and what each one is actually buying

A real estate capital stack is usually described as a return ladder: senior debt cheapest, common equity most expensive. That framing hides the operating reality. Each layer buys a bundle of rights — information, consent, cure, remedy and, in some cases, replacement of the sponsor.

Senior debt buys collateral and covenants. Mezzanine typically buys a pledge of the equity interests in the property-owning entity, which allows a faster remedy than foreclosure on real property. Preferred equity buys a priority return and, commonly, forced-sale or change-of-control rights after a trigger. Common equity buys residual upside and takes the first loss.

  • Senior debt: covenants, reserves, lender consent on transfers, cash management triggers.
  • Mezzanine: equity pledge, intercreditor terms, accelerated remedies on default.
  • Preferred equity: accrual mechanics, redemption dates, forced-sale and removal triggers.
  • Common equity / LP capital: economic residual, limited consent rights, usually no operating control.

Where control actually moves

Sponsors lose control in predictable places. A missed redemption date on preferred equity converts a financing partner into a decision maker. A cash management trigger on the senior loan diverts distributions before the sponsor sees them. A cross-defaulted guarantee ties one asset's problem to an unrelated asset.

None of these terms are unreasonable in isolation. The problem is that they are negotiated by different parties at different times, and no one models what happens when two of them fire in the same quarter.

Model the downside, not the pitch

Underwriting that only clears in the base case is not underwriting; it is a marketing exercise. Before signing a term sheet, run the stack against a delayed lease-up, a slower exit, a rate reset and a construction overrun — separately and together.

The question is not whether returns compress. It is who holds the pen when they do, and whether the sponsor can still fund a cure without an emergency raise on hostile terms.

  • What is the cure amount at the first covenant breach, and where does that cash come from?
  • Which layer can force a sale, and how many days of notice does the sponsor get?
  • Does a downside case trigger a capital call the existing LP base can realistically fund?
  • Are guarantees recourse to the sponsor personally, and are they cross-collateralised?

How to present the stack to investors

Sophisticated investors do not object to leverage; they object to surprises. A clear stack summary — layer, size, cost, priority, key rights, key triggers — moves diligence faster than a polished return chart.

Where the deal is offered as a private placement, the presentation of structure and risk sits alongside the offering documents prepared by securities counsel. Marketing materials should not contradict, summarise loosely, or soften what the documents say.

The sequence that keeps options open

Sponsors who keep control tend to work the stack top-down and terms-first: size the senior credibly, decide how much structured capital the asset can survive, and only then decide how much common equity to raise and at what promote.

Reversing that order — raising equity first and fitting debt to it — produces stacks that are efficient on paper and fragile in operation.

Sources

  1. Regulation D — exempt offeringsU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
  2. Accredited investor definitionU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

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.

Pressure-test the stack before you sign the term sheet.

A deal review examines structure, control terms and downside cases, then tells you plainly where the capital problem actually sits.