Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/1031-exchange-dst-brokers-2026-how-to-compare-research-packages-before-choosing-a-firm
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-17T07:16:20.481Z
Updated: 2026-10-17T07:16:20.481Z

# 1031 Exchange DST Brokers (2026): How to Compare Research Packages Before Choosing a Firm

## What Is This Article About?

This article explains how to compare the research materials you can inspect before choosing a broker for a Delaware statutory trust, or DST, investment. It examines three public access routes checked on October 17, 2026, including two readable files with older document dates. You will learn how to distinguish a brochure, an offering document, a research report, and a promise of access. Original examples show how to compare package contents, trace a financial claim, and keep unanswered questions visible.

## Table of Contents

- [Define the Research Package You Need](#define-the-research-package-you-need)
- [What the Public Access Comparison Establishes](#what-the-public-access-comparison-establishes)
- [Kay Properties: Read the File Behind the Brochure Link](#kay-properties-read-the-file-behind-the-brochure-link)
- [1031 Crowdfunding: Separate Listed Documents From Delivered Documents](#1031-crowdfunding-separate-listed-documents-from-delivered-documents)
- [Anchor1031: Separate a Readable File From a Current Package](#anchor1031-separate-a-readable-file-from-a-current-package)
- [Build an Index Before Comparing File Counts](#build-an-index-before-comparing-file-counts)
- [Check Which Dates Apply to Each Claim](#check-which-dates-apply-to-each-claim)
- [Trace One Cash-Flow Claim Through the Package](#trace-one-cash-flow-claim-through-the-package)
- [Read the Scope of Third-Party Research](#read-the-scope-of-third-party-research)
- [Keep Missing Evidence and Conflicting Evidence Separate](#keep-missing-evidence-and-conflicting-evidence-separate)
- [Compare the Broker's Explanation With the Source Material](#compare-the-brokers-explanation-with-the-source-material)
- [Test Whether You Can Use the Package](#test-whether-you-can-use-the-package)
- [Make a Firm-Selection Note Without Scoring the Investment](#make-a-firm-selection-note-without-scoring-the-investment)
- [Frequently Asked Questions](#frequently-asked-questions)
- [About Sequoia Research](#about-sequoia-research)
- [Sources](#sources)

## Define the Research Package You Need

A research package should help you answer a question about a particular investment. More files or a longer portal menu do not make it better. Start with the claims you need to understand, then ask which materials support them.

A brochure may describe the property and the sponsor's plan. A private placement memorandum, or PPM, describes the offering and its risks. Agreements address particular rights and duties. An outside report may examine one part of the deal. A broker can explain how those sources support the proposed choice. Those roles overlap. They do not serve the same purpose.

Before comparing firms, define the proposed review. Do you want an overview of several offerings? Do you need to compare two choices? Or do you want help understanding one proposed investment? A package that works for the first purpose may be too thin for the third. Ask for what you need at that stage.

Keep the broker's service documents in a separate part of the file. The Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, explains in its Form CRS guide that a relationship summary covers services, fees, conflicts, reportable history, and questions to ask. It also notes that actual services depend on the agreement. Those records help you understand the firm. You still need evidence about the property's income and debt. [SEC relationship-summary guide](https://www.investor.gov/CRS).

Start with a request like this: “Please show me what I would be able to review for a proposed DST, what is supplied by the sponsor, what your firm adds, and what I would not receive.” Ask for any access conditions as well. The answer might involve a public sample, a redacted example, or access after the firm completes its required process.

Some files may have limits on who can read them. A firm's internal report may limit how it can be used or shared. Note the limit. Ask what the firm can explain or share. The point is to understand what you can evaluate, not to treat a refusal to share one file as proof of bad research.

The comparison becomes practical when it ends in a defined result: these questions can be investigated, these need another source, and these remain open. A folder marked complete is less useful if nobody defines that word.

## What the Public Access Comparison Establishes

We examined public material from Kay Properties, 1031 Crowdfunding, and Anchor1031. We checked the sites and their public access routes. We did not open accounts, submit personal details, test a private portal, or inspect a complete current package delivered to a client.

The sites also have different business roles. A website brand is not always the legal name of the securities firm. Record who runs the site and which broker-dealer it names. Keep those names separate from the source's author and the offering's issuer.

| Route inspected | Material visible or described | Limit of this review |
|---|---|---|
| Kay Properties public offering pages | A partial list, individual property pages, and a readable linked indication-of-interest brochure | No complete current PPM and supplement set obtained for that example |
| 1031 Crowdfunding platform page | A named list of document types and a route to access after registration and qualification | The listed private documents were not opened or tested |
| Anchor1031 public marketplace and a separately readable historical file | Public PPM and brochure controls, plus a historical Richmond memorandum accessible at a direct file address | No certification of a complete current package or open investment capacity |

The sections below link to the inspected sources and preserve their dates. None of these rows establishes that a firm has better research or that an investment is suitable. An easy download is useful. It does not prove that its contents are better than a file supplied through an access process.

This limited sample does establish an important distinction. A page can describe access, link to a preliminary document, or make an old offering file readable. Those are three different observations. They should lead to different follow-up requests.

For your own review, state exactly what you did. “Opened the brochure and checked its date” is a useful record. “Reviewed the firm's research” would overstate that work. If you later receive a full package, add that new evidence instead of quietly changing the meaning of the earlier note.

This public comparison helps you plan the next step. Obtain the actual materials you are allowed to see. Then test whether the proposed service helps you understand them.

## Kay Properties: Read the File Behind the Brochure Link

Kay's public offerings page says it is a partial list and directs readers to sign up or log in for the full list. It also says availability is not assured. We did not treat a listing as confirmation that a purchase could be made. [Kay current-offerings page](https://www.kpi1031.com/current-offerings/).

The Tractor Net Lease 60 DST detail page links to a property brochure labeled as an indication of interest. It names FNEX Capital as the securities firm. The linked PDF has 40 pages. Its first-page footer shows February 14, 2023. Its opening disclosure calls it nonbinding and subject to change or cancellation. It says a PPM will be supplied when the offering starts. [Kay detail page](https://www.kpi1031.com/current-offerings/tractor-net-lease-60-dst/), [linked indication-of-interest brochure](https://www.kpi1031.com/wp-content/uploads/Indication-of-Interest-Cove-Tractor-Net-Lease-60-DST.pdf).

Those facts tell us the file's type and date. They do not establish current offering terms, current tenant data, or the present status of the investment. The older file's continued public link does not show what an approved client would receive today.

For a reader comparing packages, the useful question is what comes next. Ask whether a current PPM, amendments, and other applicable materials can be supplied for the exact offering being proposed. Ask which parts of the old brochure remain relevant and which have been replaced. Do not use the public page's heading as a date stamp for every linked file.

This also shows why page count is a weak shortcut. A long brochure can include market background, photographs, and repeated disclosures. It may serve a different purpose from a short amendment that changes a key term. Length should not decide which document controls your understanding.

Record the file's stated purpose in your index. If it is preliminary, label it that way. If the present status is unknown, keep it unknown. Neither label is a finding about the quality of the broker's internal review. It tells you what evidence you have and what evidence you still need.

## 1031 Crowdfunding: Separate Listed Documents From Delivered Documents

1031 Crowdfunding's platform page describes self-access materials such as a PPM, tax opinion, forecasts, property-condition reports, appraisals, mortgage documents, leases, agreements, and titles. It says full portal access follows registration and qualification by its team. We read the public description; we did not enter the portal or obtain those files. [1031 Crowdfunding platform page](https://www.1031crowdfunding.com/investment-platform/).

That list is useful for preparing a request. It does not prove that every offering has each type of file or that each file is current. It also does not tell you a report's scope or whether you may keep a copy. Those are questions for the actual package.

Use the provider's list to track what you can inspect. For each requested item, distinguish described, access granted, opened, and reviewed for the stated question. An icon may show that a file can be opened in the portal. Open the file to see what it contains. Neither step proves that its claims are correct.

Ask which file types you can get for each choice. If one offering has a property-condition report while another has a summary, record the difference without assuming that the second property is worse. Find out why the material differs and whether another source answers the same question.

Also ask who helps interpret the documents. Access can be valuable, but a folder is not the same as an explanation. You may need the broker to show how a rent forecast connects to a lease schedule, why a cost is treated a certain way, or which open issue affected the recommendation.

This distinction keeps the review fair. Do not mark an unseen report as missing from the firm's system. Mark it as not inspected by you. Likewise, do not mark a promised report as reviewed simply because the page says that such documents are available.

Your note might list the file types named on the public page. Then state that you have not yet received or read those files through the firm's process. That is more useful than judging a package you have not seen.

## Anchor1031: Separate a Readable File From a Current Package

Anchor1031's public marketplace shows controls labeled View PPM and View Brochure alongside some displayed offerings, as well as controls to unlock wider access. Its footer names Quincy Wells Capital as the securities firm and says the two firms are unaffiliated. We did not test every control. We did not assume that every file shown could be freely downloaded. [Anchor1031 marketplace](https://anchor1031.com/marketplace).

We separately opened a publicly readable PPM for CS1031 Richmond Active Living Apartments, DST, hosted on the site. Its filename contains December 17, 2025, while the cover states December 18, 2025. The 291-page file's contents page lists nine exhibits, including agreements, a tax opinion, projections, and financial or historical-results material. We checked those index entries. We did not review every exhibit or endorse its findings. [Richmond PPM, cover and printed page 6](https://anchor1031.com/api/files/marketplace/1768975240959-PPM__12.17.2025__-_CS1031_Richmond_Active_Living_Apartments__DST.pdf).

Capital Square announced on July 13, 2026 that this exact Richmond offering was fully subscribed. We therefore use the readable file as a historical document example, not as evidence of a currently purchasable investment. [Capital Square subscription announcement](https://capitalsq.com/2026/07/capital-square-fully-subscribes-richmond-active-adult-dst-offering/).

For your own files, inspect the date inside. Do not rely on the filename alone. A download name can preserve an earlier working date. Record both when they differ and seek clarification if the difference matters. Do not silently select the date that makes the package look newest.

The exhibit list illustrates another useful check. One PDF can hold several kinds of material. Counting it as one item can hide that range. Counting each repeated copy as new evidence can inflate it. Build the index around distinct sources and their roles.

The historical status is just as important as the file date. A document can remain readable after an offering has closed to new investors. Its continued presence may help explain terms or structure, but it cannot establish available capacity. Record the research question and whether the investment is available separately.

## Build an Index Before Comparing File Counts

Start an index with the exact issuer name and the purpose of the review. Then give each distinct document a row. Include the title, issuer or author, document date, version, source, and the question it helps answer. Add a note for missing parts or uncertain applicability.

You do not need a complex system. A short table can be enough if someone else can use it to find the same passage. Each finding needs a link back to a source.

Consider two fictional packages for the same invented Pinegate DST. Package A contains 12 files. Four are duplicate copies of documents already present, leaving eight distinct items. Package B contains eight files, all distinct. On this narrow measure, each has eight unique items. More attachments do not prove there is more evidence.

Even that corrected count is only a starting point. Package A may contain a current debt summary while Package B has an older one. Package B may contain a relevant report that Package A lacks. The count cannot tell you which difference matters to the question under review.

| Index field | Example of a useful entry | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Offering identity | Exact legal issuer name and relevant interest type | A property nickname alone |
| Document identity | Full title, author, and stated version | “Report final” without context |
| Date | Document date and period covered | Using receipt date as the date of the data |
| Role | Source of loan terms, model assumptions, or rights | Treating every file as general research |
| Review result | Specific supported fact or open question | One check mark for the whole investment |

Keep duplicated files linked to the original record rather than deleting their history without thought. A later email may matter because it shows which version the sender intended you to use. The duplicate can show what was sent, even when its contents are the same.

Also identify attachments referenced inside a document. If a summary points to an appendix that is absent, note the missing appendix. If it cites a separate lease or report, ask to see it. If it cannot be shared, ask for an explanation of its relevant terms. A complete download is not necessarily a complete set of sources.

An index can make research easier without judging it. Its role is to reveal what is present and where it fits. Next, read the contents. Do they answer your questions?

## Check Which Dates Apply to Each Claim

A package often contains several legitimate dates. A report has an issue date. Its figures cover a period. A supplement changes certain terms from another date. You receive the file later still. Do not replace these dates with one latest date.

For an original fictional example, suppose Pinegate's cash-flow model is dated October 1. A supplement dated October 12 changes the assumed debt payment. You receive both on October 14 and review them on October 17. Receipt on October 14 does not turn the old model into an October 14 forecast.

Find out which assumptions changed and which still apply. Ask for a new model or an explanation that connects the old model to the supplement. Do not choose whichever document has the most attractive result. Some parts of the earlier file may still apply.

Make a small change note: what changed, the source, the affected calculation, and the answer received. Preserve the earlier version so the difference remains visible. A change may affect only one property or one type of interest. Keep that scope in the note.

Check the period covered too. A newly issued report can use older operating data. That may be reasonable for its purpose, but the gap should be visible. Ask whether there is a later rent roll, financial statement, lender update, or other source relevant to the claim you are checking.

Avoid automatic age rules that pretend every document becomes stale at the same speed. An agreement and an occupancy figure can stay useful for different lengths of time. The question is what could have changed and what evidence addresses that change.

A dated review is better than a timeless approval label. It tells you what was available when the conclusion was reached. If new information arrives, revisit the affected finding. An old review cannot cover facts that did not yet exist.

## Trace One Cash-Flow Claim Through the Package

Choose one material claim and follow it through the documents. A proposed cash-payment rate is a useful example. You need the cash amount and the amount it is divided by. Ask what cash is being measured, what costs have been deducted, and which equity amount is used.

Use an entirely fictional Pinegate model. Assume annual property income after property operating costs is $3 million. This is called net operating income. Assume annual debt service is $1.7 million and another $300,000 is set aside from that income for reserves. This simple example has no other deductions. All cash left is paid in proportion to each investor's share of $20 million of equity.

The modeled annual cash is $3 million minus $1.7 million minus $300,000, or $1 million. Dividing $1 million by $20 million gives 5%. These are invented terms for teaching the comparison, not rates or costs from any sampled offering.

| Fictional model line | Amount |
|---|---:|
| Annual net operating income | $3,000,000 |
| Less annual debt service | $1,700,000 |
| Less new reserve funding | $300,000 |
| Cash left under the simplified terms | $1,000,000 |
| Assumed investor equity | $20,000,000 |
| Calculated annual cash rate | 5.0% |

Now suppose a fictional brochure displays 6% using the same equity base and period. Six percent of $20 million is $1.2 million. That is $200,000 more than the cash supported by the model's stated lines. The mismatch needs an answer. It does not prove that the higher rate is fraudulent or that the lower model is final.

Perhaps a separate source documents a $200,000 release from an existing reserve. If the terms allow that use and the funds exist, it could fill the gap for that period. But a reserve release is a different cash source from recurring property operations. Do not assume the release exists just to make the figures match.

Now apply the invented October 12 supplement, which changes debt service to $1.9 million. Use no reserve release and keep the other model inputs unchanged. Cash becomes $800,000, or 4%. The reduction is $200,000, equal to one percentage point of the $20 million equity base. Using the new supplement with the old debt line would mix versions.

Ask the broker to identify the source of each line and explain any bridge between the model and the displayed rate. That tests whether the package supports a clear explanation. It does not forecast the actual distribution, settle legal distribution rights, or measure total investment return.

## Read the Scope of Third-Party Research

An outside report can add useful analysis. Ask what it examined, which evidence it used, and what it left out. Start with the work it covers and its date. The logo on the cover cannot tell you those things.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, says in its private-placement guidance that brokers should review third-party work with care, considering independence, incentives, and qualifications. It also stresses independent verification of material issuer claims and further work where reports leave concerns unresolved. An outside report does not end that work. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08).

For a report you can inspect, find who wrote it and for whom. Check who may use it and what it covers. A property review is different from a sponsor review. A tax opinion addresses a different question from an analysis of likely cash flow. A value based on one date does not promise a future sale price.

Ask what the report relied on. Did the author inspect original records, use sponsor-supplied summaries, or apply assumptions to missing facts? The answer helps you judge how well a finding is supported. It should not become a blanket rule that any sponsor-supplied information is wrong.

Read the qualifications beside the conclusion. A report might support a figure only under stated conditions. A broker's summary should preserve those conditions. If a summary says the investment passed, check the report. If a major question remains, ask how it was resolved.

Some reports cannot be distributed to prospective investors. If that is the case, ask the broker what material findings it can discuss, which issues were unresolved, and what work addressed them. You can evaluate the explanation without pretending to have independently read a report you were not given.

The public sample in this article did not include a completed, current, third-party report delivered to an investor. We cannot compare the sampled firms' report quality from that evidence. Their public routes tell us where to request evidence, not how that evidence will withstand a full review.

## Keep Missing Evidence and Conflicting Evidence Separate

A missing file and a conflicting file create different tasks. If the loan summary is absent, you need the source. If two files show different debt payments for the same period, ask why. Calling both incomplete can hide what to do next.

Use a few plain status labels. Not received means you do not have the material. Partial means it answers only part of the question. Supported means the reviewed source supports the specific fact you recorded. Conflicting means relevant evidence disagrees. None of these labels approves the investment.

Return to the fictional Pinegate comparison. Define six questions in advance: issuer identity, property identity, debt payment, cash-payment bridge, fee base, and exit assumption. Suppose Package A supports four, has conflicting evidence for one, and lacks evidence for one. Package B supports three, partially addresses two, and lacks one.

Package A supports four of six questions, about 66.7%. Package B supports three of six, or 50%. Those figures describe this small review's progress. They do not show a 66.7% safe investment, a 50% reliable broker, or a reason to choose A. The unresolved conflict may be more important than several answered identity questions.

Keep each question visible rather than averaging its importance away. A confirmed address and an unresolved loan term do not mean the same thing. Each may take one row, but the loan question may have much greater weight. Use counts to manage the work. Use the facts to make the decision.

When an answer arrives, record what it resolves. A later debt schedule may settle the payment amount but leave uncertainty about a proposed extension. Close the first issue and retain the second. Avoid changing the entire package to approved because one missing item appeared.

Also distinguish an unresolved question from an allegation. “The model and summary use different reserve amounts” describes an observable mismatch. “The broker hid a reserve problem” adds a claim about conduct that the documents may not support. Clear, neutral wording makes the follow-up more likely to reach the real issue.

## Compare the Broker's Explanation With the Source Material

A broker can explain why a source matters to the proposed investment. Test that explanation against a concrete passage or calculation. A statement that much research was done tells you little by itself. Ask what finding it supports.

Ask the person to walk through one issue from start to finish. Which source was used? What did it establish? What assumption remained? How did the result affect the recommendation? The purpose is to understand the reasoning, not to turn the conversation into a trivia test.

A useful answer can acknowledge uncertainty. For example, the source may establish the current lease payment while future renewal rent remains an assumption. Separating those facts tells you more than calling the whole forecast conservative.

Watch for a change in subject. A strong sponsor history does not answer a question about a particular loan maturity. A favorable appraisal does not answer whether a fee is included in the forecast. Ask the broker to connect the supporting material to the exact point you raised.

Also ask what the firm adds beyond forwarding sponsor documents. It may provide a comparison, a written explanation, a discussion of alternatives, or access to people who can answer questions. Ask what work is included. Do not infer a separate independent report merely from the word research.

Keep your own review within its limits. Reproducing a calculation does not make you a property inspector, tax lawyer, or lender. Specialist questions may need the right professional. The broker's duties also do not disappear because an investor has organized the documents carefully.

Record the explanation you received. Do not fill its gaps with the answer you hoped for. If you have not yet had that conversation, mark it as a planned test. Public marketing language is not a record of how the firm handled your question.

## Test Whether You Can Use the Package

A package can contain relevant material and still be hard to use. Check whether you can find the named section, read a table, open an exhibit, and return to the same version later. These checks show whether you can use the files. They do not rate the investment.

Ask whether permitted materials can be downloaded, printed, or shared with your professional advisers. Some access may be view-only or time-limited. Record the actual condition rather than assuming that a visible document can be copied or redistributed without restriction.

A large PDF may have two page numbers: one printed on the page and one in the viewer. Record both if they differ. A citation to page 20 can otherwise lead two readers to different passages. Add the heading or exhibit name so the reference remains useful even if another version inserts pages.

Check tables carefully. A cropped column, unclear unit, or broken footnote can change the meaning of a figure. If the text is unclear, ask for a better copy. Do not fill in missing numbers from a total and call them verified.

Keep confidential materials in the agreed secure location. Your index can refer to an account document without copying account numbers into a shared note. If you use a digital assistant to summarize a file, make sure that use is permitted and check the summary against the original.

Before using a copied figure, check its label and conditions. An automated summary can confuse a property amount with an investor amount, or omit a sentence that limits a conclusion. The package should remain the evidence; the summary is a reading aid.

These steps are not a formal security or accessibility audit. They help you check whether you can use the files. They also show what help the broker offers when access fails. Do not claim that a firm passed checks you did not perform.

## Make a Firm-Selection Note Without Scoring the Investment

Finish with a short record of what the package comparison tells you about the proposed service. Name the materials inspected, the explanations received, the access conditions, and the questions still open. Keep investment findings in a separate section with their own evidence.

For a fictional firm comparison, one provider may offer clear source locations and a helpful model explanation while another gives a broader set of files but leaves a key conflict unresolved. That observation can guide another conversation. It does not automatically identify the best firm for every investor.

Your note might say that you can independently inspect specified materials, that one report remains unavailable, and that the debt-payment mismatch must be resolved before you rely on the income explanation. That gives you a next step. A five-star research rating with no stated method does not.

Ask the firm to confirm what happens when new information arrives before the proposed purchase. Who sends the update? Which earlier explanations will be revisited? What source will show the change? These questions show how the package will support your next decision. Do not assume a service the firm has not agreed to provide.

Even a well-organized package cannot remove private-placement risk. The SEC's updated bulletin describes limited information, difficult resale, and the possibility of losing the full investment. Better evidence helps you understand those risks; it does not guarantee an outcome. [SEC private-placement bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/private-placements-under-regulation-d-updated-investor-bulletin).

The most useful result is a clear account of what you know. You can then list the service questions that need answers and the facts that need expert review. Decide whether you have enough evidence for the next step. The document count should never make that decision for you.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What should a DST broker research package contain?

Ask for the materials needed to understand the particular offering and recommendation. These may include the PPM, applicable supplements, agreements, forecasts, and supporting reports. The exact set depends on the investment and permitted access. Request an index and an explanation of anything missing rather than assuming a universal checklist proves completeness.

### Does a publicly available PPM mean the offering is still open?

No. A file can remain readable after an offering has been fully subscribed. The historical Richmond example shows why document access and investment availability are separate facts. Ask for current availability through the appropriate provider, and do not treat a download date as a reservation or a promise of capacity.

### Is a brochure the same as a research report?

No. Read the document's stated purpose. A brochure may summarize a proposed investment, while a report may examine defined facts or assumptions. A preliminary indication of interest may also differ from the eventual PPM. The title, author, date, and scope help you decide which questions the document can answer.

### Should I choose the broker with the most documents?

A larger folder can include duplicates, older versions, and material unrelated to your question. Compare distinct sources and what they establish. Eight useful items may answer more than twelve files, but even that does not settle service quality or investment merit. The explanation and unresolved issues matter alongside access.

### What if the broker cannot share an internal due-diligence report?

Ask why access is limited and what findings or supporting material can be discussed. Keep the report marked uninspected in your own record. Do not assume it is poor or complete. Evaluate the permitted explanation and identify which important questions still need evidence before relying on the recommendation.

### How should I handle conflicting numbers in the package?

First check that they use the same offering, period, units, and version. Then ask for a written explanation of the difference. A reserve release, changed debt payment, or different equity base can affect a rate. Do not supply an unstated assumption merely to make two numbers agree.

### Can a current report rely on older information?

Yes, but the period covered should be visible and appropriate to the question. A new cover date does not refresh every underlying fact. Ask what could have changed, whether a later source exists, and how the newer information affects the conclusion. Keep document, data, receipt, and review dates separate.

### Does completing a package review establish that a DST is suitable?

No. A completed record describes the evidence reviewed and the questions addressed. Suitability, tax treatment, liquidity needs, and the proposed investment's economics require their own analysis. A package can be easy to navigate while still describing an investment that does not fit the investor's needs.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library explains source checks, comparison methods, and questions investors can discuss with their advisers. It does not replace review of an actual offering or an investor's circumstances.

## Sources

- [Kay Properties, Current Offerings](https://www.kpi1031.com/current-offerings/). Undated public page; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [Kay Properties, Tractor Net Lease 60 DST](https://www.kpi1031.com/current-offerings/tractor-net-lease-60-dst/). Undated public detail page and brochure link; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [Cove Tractor Net Lease 60 DST, Indication of Interest](https://www.kpi1031.com/wp-content/uploads/Indication-of-Interest-Cove-Tractor-Net-Lease-60-DST.pdf). First-page footer February 14, 2023; 40-page linked file, accessed October 17, 2026. Document-type and date review only.
- [1031 Crowdfunding, Investment Platform](https://www.1031crowdfunding.com/investment-platform/). Undated public page describing access and document types; accessed October 17, 2026. Private portal not tested.
- [Anchor1031, Marketplace](https://anchor1031.com/marketplace). Undated public page; accessed October 17, 2026. Visible controls and legal-entity disclosure only.
- [CS1031 Richmond Active Living Apartments, DST, PPM](https://anchor1031.com/api/files/marketplace/1768975240959-PPM__12.17.2025__-_CS1031_Richmond_Active_Living_Apartments__DST.pdf). Cover December 18, 2025; filename includes December 17. Cover and printed page 6 inspected October 17, 2026. Historical example, not a complete current-package review.
- [Capital Square, Richmond Fully Subscribed](https://capitalsq.com/2026/07/capital-square-fully-subscribes-richmond-active-adult-dst-offering/). July 13, 2026; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [SEC, Investor.gov/CRS](https://www.investor.gov/CRS). Current undated guide; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [FINRA, Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08). May 9, 2023; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [SEC, Private Placements Under Regulation D](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/private-placements-under-regulation-d-updated-investor-bulletin). August 17, 2022; updated September 21, 2026; accessed October 17, 2026.


## Related Reading and Tools

- [DST Brokers: How to Choose One for Your Investment Needs](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/dst-brokers-how-to-choose-one-for-your-investment-needs)
- [Best DST 1031 Exchange Companies (2026): What a Meaningful Comparison Should Include](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/best-dst-1031-exchange-companies-2026-what-a-meaningful-comparison-should-include)
- [DST Due Diligence: A Practical Checklist Before You Invest](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/dst-due-diligence-a-practical-checklist-before-you-invest)