"Syndicators" with no operational experience

"Syndicators" with no operational experience

Rental Property Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 63 posts · 71 votes

There are people purporting to be experienced "syndicators" who have marketed themselves very well, but they lack operational experience. Many "syndicators" have been unable or unwilling to find their own deals and so they sign up with others to raise capital to get a piece of the promote. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with this so long as they are transparent about it. 

However I take exception to people who build significant reputations on the basis of having done X number of deals but their involvement in those deals is strictly as a capital raiser. They're promoting themselves on podcasts, in person and online as syndicators and implying that they're taking deals through the cycle when in fact they're raising capital and then building little or no asset management experience. When I listen to the podcasts I'm not even sure the interviewers know! I think this is straight-up unethical and deceptive. 

This is not a criticism of capital raising specialists who are transparent about what they do, such as @Alina Trigub, @David Thompson, GoodEgg etc. I'm bringing this up because I know the poser is eventually going to bring a deal to market and pick up investors based on false pretenses. It seriously concerns me that people will invest their money while being misled about the GP's inexperience with regard to multifamily operation. 

12Reply
84 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
7y

Honesty,  I'd love to be more passive.  It's where we want to be after years of being hands-on. Definitely agree there needs to be more transparency about what the capital raisers have done specifically.  

I have colleagues I trust and that are extremely knowledgeable who take on vetting sponsors as pretty much their 'full-time' gig.  They have to. The market is completely saturated.

Everybody and their sibling seems to be a syndicator these days. Instead of underwriting 200 deals to find one, you have to research 200 syndicators.  Still a high bar on my nap or effort/reward index.

It's like drafting a professional athlete.   You will potentially get better returns betting on young talent, but it's risky.  The proven sponsors give up less, because they can.  A new sponsor's cost of capital might be 16%. A seasoned one, 12%. Risk/reward.   

If investors are doing it right, i.e. investing wealth built up themselves over time, they should probably go with the proven provider.  12% is plenty when you are at the capital preservation and legacy wealth stage.  Not so much if starting out and need to take on more risk.  Unfortunately this home run money is usually also a huge % of the new persons world. Careful out there.

See this reply in the discussion

58 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 63 posts · 71 votes
    7y

    @Ben Leybovich I don't think he was being presumptuous. 

    If Deal A and Deal B are identical except for Deal A being sponsored by a less experienced sponsor, which would you prefer as a passive investor? I'd take Deal B all day. Note that like you, I'm a new-in-the-game syndicator myself! 

    The weak deals that I've seen have definitely been sponsored by inexperienced sponsor groups. The stronger deals mostly have at least one very experienced sponsor. You want facts? Here's what I've seen:

    • Stabilized deals with bridge debt - strongly suggestive that the syndicator overpaid and couldn't get the proceeds they wanted from Fannie. If it's not good enough for Fannie it's not good enough for me. Obviously, it's a different story for an unstabilized deal.
    • Big sponsorship groups with 6 or 8 sponsors. When I get deals from experienced sponsors I don't see this. Why is that?
    • D-class deals being presented as if they're C-class deals. I only see these deals from inexperienced sponsors.
    • Pro formas showing that syndicators intend to distribute more than the pref. Yes, I've seen this.
    • A lot of the deals I see are 80/20 straight splits. Or they used to be, at least. Now deals are being bought at prices too high for that to be feasible, so sponsors are taking 10% splits in order to meet their passive investors' cash-on-cash expectations. Some will disagree but as a passive investor if Deal A and B are identical (including projections to the passives) except for A being 90/10 and B being 80/20, I'd take Deal B. 

    I don't think anybody disagrees with you that newbies can do good deals and experienced people can do bad ones. But I highly value experience and I think most people agree with me. For my first syndication I made sure to have highly experienced GP's on board with me for a variety of reasons that I have found to be extremely valuable. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2015 · 501 posts · 504 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Ben Leybovich:
    Originally posted by @Paul B.:
    Originally posted by @Chihiro Kurokawa:

    @Ben Leybovich Yes, "caveat emptor" always applies. You and I also know that the most important factor in deal success is the sponsorship group, not the property. 

    ...................[snip]........................

    I think all of us should always be wary of unscrupulous behavior in our industry. If there's enough bad behavior out there it will eventually affect all of us, and that would be concerning indeed. 

     All good points. Plus, if weak deals are still getting funded because the syndicators are overstating (or flat out misrepresenting) their experience, then they will continue to outbid other more experienced syndicators, who presumably underwrite more conservatively.  

     It's quite a presumption by you that the "weak" deals are being funded by the less experiences sponsors... Quite a presumption. Is there any empirical data you can point to that supports this? 

    All I am saying is - don't be blinded by "I am experienced therefore the deal is good." The deal has to be good, at least by your standards, experienced or not. 

     Yes, it is a presumption. I even used the word "presumably" in my post. I don't know if any such empirical data exists. If it does, I'd love to see it, but I am not aware of any central clearinghouse of performance of real estate deals. (By the way, comparable data does exist for the stock market, which most users of this site love to hate. )

    If all you're saying is experience isn't everything, fine, I agree. The investor should be able to evaluate the deal on its own merits, regardless of who the sponsor is, and only invest if he/she definitely likes the deal. And I'll even concede that I have seen some lousy deals offered by experienced sponsors, perhaps because they know they have loyal investors based on past experience. 

    But, once you have some solid deal flow, somehow an investor has to filter through the noise, and I only look closely at deals offered by sponsors with whom I have decided I might invest. It's not just experience, but certainly it's a factor. When an employer in hiring mode gets flooded with resumes, somehow they have to eliminate candidates, and they do consider experience. But again, it's not the only factor. In fact, someone with too much experience might exceed the budget for the position. Along the same lines, the most experienced sponsors can justify taking a bigger cut of the deal and charging the highest fees. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    7y

    Guys, I get it. I do tend to play the devil's advocate on BP to get the juices flowing and conversations started.

    I recognize the validity of the argument. There are people here who've raised $1M spread out between 3 deals who call themselves syndicators. That's BS, and we agree on that, and you are right to open a can of whoop-*** on their heads. I've closed $20MM in 6 months as an operator, and the nonsense is just that - nonsense.

    Having said this, I am seeing deals being shopped, and in my opinion, it is very much a stretch to assume that because a deal is shopped by an experienced syndicator it is good.

    There are two sides to this coin. Let's agree to acknowledge both and move on.

  • Carrollton, TX · Member since 2015 · 415 posts · 371 votes
    7y

    All,

    Thanks. Very educational.

  • Rental Property Investor · RVA · Member since 2016 · 5k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Chihiro Kurokawa:

    @Ben Leybovich I don't think he was being presumptuous. 

    If Deal A and Deal B are identical except for Deal A being sponsored by a less experienced sponsor, which would you prefer as a passive investor? I'd take Deal B all day. Note that like you, I'm a new-in-the-game syndicator myself! 

    The weak deals that I've seen have definitely been sponsored by inexperienced sponsor groups. The stronger deals mostly have at least one very experienced sponsor. You want facts? Here's what I've seen:

    • Stabilized deals with bridge debt - strongly suggestive that the syndicator overpaid and couldn't get the proceeds they wanted from Fannie. If it's not good enough for Fannie it's not good enough for me. Obviously, it's a different story for an unstabilized deal.
    • Big sponsorship groups with 6 or 8 sponsors. When I get deals from experienced sponsors I don't see this. Why is that?
    • D-class deals being presented as if they're C-class deals. I only see these deals from inexperienced sponsors.
    • Pro formas showing that syndicators intend to distribute more than the pref. Yes, I've seen this.
    • A lot of the deals I see are 80/20 straight splits. Or they used to be, at least. Now deals are being bought at prices too high for that to be feasible, so sponsors are taking 10% splits in order to meet their passive investors' cash-on-cash expectations. Some will disagree but as a passive investor if Deal A and B are identical (including projections to the passives) except for A being 90/10 and B being 80/20, I'd take Deal B. 

    I don't think anybody disagrees with you that newbies can do good deals and experienced people can do bad ones. But I highly value experience and I think most people agree with me. For my first syndication I made sure to have highly experienced GP's on board with me for a variety of reasons that I have found to be extremely valuable. 

    I think it's important to note that newer sponsors can promise the moon on marginal or bad deals.  More experienced sponsors, from my observation, seem to be more moderate in their projections, and aren't telling investors they'll get crazy high returns at this point in the cycle.

    The more experienced folks focus on protecting the downside, showing that the value add plan is achievable, and having a highly experienced team.

    Your thoughts? I think passive investors need to really dig into the numbers on deals and check the math. Newer folks seem to have more...optimistic math.

  • Syndication Expert and Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2016 · 591 posts · 808 votes
    7y

    I think the "truth" is somewhere in the middle. Experience counts, but it's not everything. The sponsor is critical, but even the best sponsors get over confident, get too big and can loose sight or take their eye off the ball. It's not unheard of for a principal to be over confident in their team and not be really paying attention like they used to. You may have confidence because the lead GP has thousands of units but in reality it's their new acquisitions manager who is green/fresh out of school, has very little experience, who is actually "running" the deal you're investing in. The principal has never even walked the deal and just gives their thumbs up on paper.

    While it's not the case 100% of the time, you usually get what you pay for. If you want the most experience be prepared to pay for it in reduced economics, higher fees and unfavorable terms. Again, experience is irreplaceable but it's not everything. I have invested with some of these more institutional level operators, they are solid operators and do a great job. That being said we have other operating partners who are just as capable, even better in many ways, that are much more reasonable with their fee structure. 

    If you don't know how to evaluate a sponsor you may be better of going with someone who has the pedigree. However if you can properly evaluate a sponsor you might find someone who talented, smart and is doing all the right things, they might just need a break.

  • Burlington, MA · Member since 2017 · 61 posts · 16 votes
    7y

    All - as a newbie investor considering syndication as an avenue, this thread was very eye-opening and educational.  Thank you all for sharing your thoughts as they certainly ran from one end of the spectrum to the other.  To me, after reading all of this, it comes down to the personal comfort level an investor has with the operator and sponsor, the deal and market.  And after running the necessary and proper DD on all three, if everything makes sense to you and you feel good, then I think it's a go.  

  • Rental Property Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 63 posts · 71 votes
    7y

    Hey Taylor,

    There are innumerable reasons why I feel experience is valuable and that is one of them. 

    I highly value experience, and so for my first deal I insisted on having very experienced partners; they have 8,000 doors and over 500mm in multi family acquisitions between them. 

    I’m new in the game and I will be successful, but my requirement is to have experienced partners for my first few or several deals.

    I don’t feel comfortable investing passively in a deal whose partners collectively have little experience; so I don’t feel comfortable syndicating a deal without experienced partners either. 

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.