Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/1031-exchange-dst-brokers-2026-what-changes-between-commission-and-advisory-arrangements
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-17T07:30:57.345Z
Updated: 2026-10-17T07:30:57.345Z

# 1031 Exchange DST Brokers (2026): What Changes Between Commission and Advisory Arrangements

## What Is This Article About?

This article compares commission and advisory arrangements for investors using 1031 exchange DST brokers. DST means Delaware statutory trust. We read three firms' public documents to compare their services and pay, then work through original cost examples. You will learn how to check which option is available, what work it covers, and what to resolve before changing firms.

## Table of Contents

- [Start With the Service Arrangement, Not Just the Fee](#start-with-the-service-arrangement-not-just-the-fee)
- [What Selected DST Firms Disclose in 2026](#what-selected-dst-firms-disclose-in-2026)
- [Check Whether Both Arrangements Are Available](#check-whether-both-arrangements-are-available)
- [Compare DST Broker Services and Ongoing Advice](#compare-dst-broker-services-and-ongoing-advice)
- [Build a Fair Commission Versus Advisory Fee Comparison](#build-a-fair-commission-versus-advisory-fee-comparison)
- [Work Through a Hypothetical Fee Timeline](#work-through-a-hypothetical-fee-timeline)
- [Check the Advisory Billing Base and Payment Source](#check-the-advisory-billing-base-and-payment-source)
- [Ask How Account Recommendations Address Conflicts](#ask-how-account-recommendations-address-conflicts)
- [Separate Changing Advisers From Selling a DST](#separate-changing-advisers-from-selling-a-dst)
- [Review Earlier Commissions Before Adding a New Fee](#review-earlier-commissions-before-adding-a-new-fee)
- [Put the Arrangement and Start Date in Writing](#put-the-arrangement-and-start-date-in-writing)
- [Decide Which Proposal Answers Your Actual Need](#decide-which-proposal-answers-your-actual-need)
- [Frequently Asked Questions](#frequently-asked-questions)
- [About Sequoia Research](#about-sequoia-research)
- [Sources](#sources)

## Start With the Service Arrangement, Not Just the Fee

A commission and an advisory fee can pay for different work. Before comparing their size, identify the work each proposal includes. A low rate tells you little if you do not know the amount it applies to, how often it is charged, or who will do the promised tasks.

Start with a plain question: “Which company is serving me, and in what role?” The person who introduced the investment may act through a broker-dealer for one service and an advisory firm for another. A familiar name, title, or website does not answer which relationship you are entering.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, explains that actual services and fees depend on the agreement. Brokerage work is generally more tied to transactions; advisory work generally focuses on the account over time. Some firms offer both. The SEC urges investors to know which role applies. These general descriptions are a starting point, not a substitute for the firm's specific terms. [SEC guide to relationship summaries](https://www.investor.gov/CRS).

For a DST investor, separate the purchase decision from the work needed afterward. You might need help choosing an offering, checking changed terms, understanding a later report, or reviewing how the holding fits your other assets. Those are distinct tasks. Ask who accepts each one and for what period.

Do not assume that a commission buys lifetime monitoring. Do not assume that every advisory agreement covers your whole household. And do not confuse receiving statements with having someone evaluate them. The documents should explain what you will receive beyond a list of account values.

The comparison becomes useful when you can complete one sentence for each proposal: this named firm will perform these tasks, for these holdings, during this period, using this fee method. Leave any unknown part visible. An incomplete sentence is a reason to ask for detail before treating two prices as alternatives.

## What Selected DST Firms Disclose in 2026

We read these public relationship summaries on October 17, 2026. The comparison covers what they say about services and pay. We did not open accounts, seek personal quotes, or test the service. We have not confirmed which model any reader can use.

| Firm and document date | Documented service and compensation | Limit that matters to the choice |
|---|---|---|
| Capulent, LLC; January 1, 2026 | Describes limited brokerage, commissions deducted from invested funds, and a total upfront sales load ranging from 3% to 10%. It says it is not an investment adviser and does not monitor after a transaction. | Product access depends on the stated product types and issuer selling agreements. The sales-load range is not a quoted commission for your DST. |
| FNEX Capital; June 8, 2026 visible page date | Describes limited brokerage for private securities, including DSTs. Transaction fees may include more than a commission. It does not maintain or monitor client accounts, and investors make the final decision. | Exact charges come from offering materials. This summary does not offer an ongoing advisory alternative. |
| Realized Financial; June 30, 2025 cover, with September 2023 interior labels | Describes brokerage commissions without account monitoring, and advisory service with quarterly asset-based fees and monitoring. Both are non-discretionary, meaning the investor decides. | Scope is a limited real estate investment menu, not the whole outside portfolio. Advisory rates and minimums require the applicable schedule; the summary says they are negotiable. |

Read the source documents: [Capulent Form CRS](https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_155155.pdf), [FNEX Form CRS](https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_166316.pdf), and [Realized Form CRS](https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_22333.pdf). Form CRS is the customer or client relationship summary.

The Realized document describes no upfront transaction fee for advisory service. Fees are billed after each quarter. The cover lists advisory registration in Texas and New Jersey. That dated statement does not confirm current access in every state. Ask for the current agreement and registration that apply to you.

FNEX's electronic document title still refers to August 2024, while the pages display June 8, 2026. We use the visible page date and preserve that difference. The mixed dates in the Realized file also deserve clarification. A retrieval in 2026 does not turn every page into a 2026 revision.

The sample shows why “choose commission or advisory” can be too broad. One disclosed model cannot be assumed to exist at every firm. A person may have access to another relationship through a different entity, but that would need its own evidence and agreement. The table does not establish that route.

## Check Whether Both Arrangements Are Available

Availability has several parts. The firm must offer the service, the professional must be able to provide it in the proposed role, the investor must meet any stated conditions, and the specific holding must fit the arrangement. A website saying that a firm offers advice does not settle all four.

Ask the firm to confirm the proposed legal entity and the relevant service. If another company would provide advice, request its documents too. Keep the two names separate. A referral to an adviser is not the same as advisory service included in the original broker's relationship.

Next, ask whether the service is available for your location and type of account. This article does not map every firm's registrations or exceptions. The question belongs in the written proposal. If the response is conditional, record the condition rather than treating it as accepted business.

Then identify the actual security. Ask whether the proposed arrangement can include the particular DST, its share or interest type, and the planned investment amount. Two interests with similar property exposure may have different charges or terms. Do not assume that matching names make the investments identical.

A useful availability record looks like this:

| Item to confirm | Evidence to request |
|---|---|
| Serving entity and role | Current firm document and written proposal |
| Investor and account eligibility | Conditions tied to the intended relationship |
| Specific DST accepted | Exact issuer and interest identified in writing |
| Applicable fee terms | Schedule, billing method, and any exceptions |
| Required approval | Name of the team that accepts the arrangement |
| Effective date | Written date or clearly defined starting event |

This table is an original comparison method. It is not a claim that every firm uses the same approval process. Use the provider's actual steps and record what has been confirmed.

Do this work before building a cost comparison that assumes two available choices. If only one proposal is confirmed, the other belongs in a pending column. You can still ask about it, but it should not appear as a price you can select today.

## Compare DST Broker Services and Ongoing Advice

Describe the service in verbs. “Review the report,” “explain the fee invoice,” and “discuss the holding each year” are easier to compare than a promise of continued support. Ask what starts the work, what the firm delivers, and who acts on the result.

A purchase-focused proposal might describe the work leading to a transaction and identify later questions it will answer. An ongoing proposal might describe regular reviews and advice during the holding period. Read the actual terms. Those examples are possible service designs, not descriptions of every firm in the sample.

Consider four separate jobs: gathering documents, interpreting them, making a recommendation, and carrying out an authorized action. One firm may do all four for a covered task. Another may do only some. Receiving a document is not proof that someone has reviewed it or agreed to recommend an action.

Make the review schedule concrete. Ask whether meetings occur at set times or when you request one. Ask how the firm handles a material change between meetings. If a report arrives late, ask whether the review waits, uses older data with a warning, or follows another stated process.

Check the scope of the assets too. A proposal might cover the named DST and consider other assets only as background. Another might include a broader set of holdings. A firm cannot give a useful account of that distinction if the covered assets are left unnamed.

For an invented example, Morgan wants a yearly review of three DST holdings and a discussion of household cash needs. A proposal includes reviews of the three holdings but excludes advice on the rest of the portfolio. Morgan should ask how that boundary affects the cash discussion. The gap might be resolved by a separate adviser, a revised agreement, or a decision that the service is too narrow.

Do not turn the number of tasks into a quality score. Ten small clerical tasks may not answer one important investment question. Compare each proposal with the work you actually need, and name any task that nobody has accepted.

## Build a Fair Commission Versus Advisory Fee Comparison

Put every fee on a common timeline, but keep its original basis. One charge might use the investment amount. Another might use a measured account value. A third might apply to a separate service. Writing them all as percentages does not make them comparable.

The SEC's July 23, 2025 fee bulletin separates charges for transactions from ongoing charges. It suggests checking the service fee schedule, firm disclosures, account records, and offering documents. Costs for both the service and the investment can affect results. Use the guide to compare those records; it does not give a DST price list. [SEC fee bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/updated).

For each proposed charge, record the recipient, amount or rate, base, timing, and payment source. Mark whether it is included in another disclosed total. This avoids adding a component twice or treating a missing number as zero.

Separate the firm's pay from the investment's other costs. Ask which charges stay under both models and which change. No purchase commission does not mean that every offering cost goes away. Ask for a list that shows what remains and what changes.

Use the same starting date and comparison period. A one-time charge and a recurring fee need more than a first-year snapshot. Test several holding periods, while making clear that the property may not sell on your assumed date. A planning horizon is not a redemption promise.

Check the investments as well as the fees. Different securities can have different risks, rights, debt, costs, or cash flows. A service-fee calculation cannot show that two holdings are equal. Name those differences before deciding what the price gap means.

Finally, show what is omitted. A simple illustration may leave out taxes, changing values, product expenses, and the value of services. That can still teach useful arithmetic if the exclusions are clear. It cannot establish the best arrangement for a real investor until those missing facts are addressed.

## Work Through a Hypothetical Fee Timeline

The following numbers are invented. They are not rates quoted by any named firm. Assume an initial $400,000 investment and two available service proposals solely for this illustration. Proposal C charges a one-time 5% commission. Proposal A charges 0.8% a year on a fixed $400,000 billing base, in four equal quarterly payments.

The commission is $20,000. The annual advisory charge is $3,200, or $800 each quarter. Assume no other charges, credits, taxes, refunds, or changes in value for this fee-only table. We do not assume that the investments produce equal returns or offer equal services.

| Elapsed service period | Proposal C: stated commission only | Proposal A: stated advisory fee only |
|---|---:|---:|
| One year | $20,000 | $3,200 |
| Four years | $20,000 | $12,800 |
| Six years | $20,000 | $19,200 |
| Six years and one quarter | $20,000 | $20,000 |
| Seven years | $20,000 | $22,400 |

The two stated amounts meet after 25 quarterly payments. That is 6.25 years under these assumptions. It is a nominal fee crossover, meaning a comparison of dollar sums without adjusting for when the money is paid. It is not an investment break-even point or a forecast of the DST's holding period.

At four years, the recurring fees shown are $7,200 below the commission. At seven years, they are $2,400 above it. Neither comparison proves which proposal is preferable. The service scope could differ, and the assumed fixed billing base could be wrong for a real contract.

Payment timing also matters. A dollar paid at the start and a dollar paid years later do not have the same time value. We have not assigned a return or discount rate to that difference. Adding one would create another assumption that needs to be explained and tested.

This is why a single “advisory is cheaper” or “commission is cheaper” statement can mislead. The answer depends on the charge, its base, the duration, and the work received. Ask the firm to repeat the calculation using the actual proposal, including charges missing from this teaching example.

## Check the Advisory Billing Base and Payment Source

An annual rate is only half of a fee formula. The billing base supplies the other half. Ask exactly which assets count, what value is used, when it is measured, and how changes enter the next invoice.

For a DST interest, a reported value may arrive on a different schedule from a fee invoice. Ask what happens between updates. Is an older value carried forward? Is another defined amount used? Who supplies the value, and how are errors corrected? These are questions for the agreement, not assumptions to fill with a convenient estimate.

Consider another invented example. Keep the 0.8% annual rate, billed at one quarter of that rate per quarter. This time assume the contract uses the stated value at each quarter's start. The four fictional billing values are $400,000, $360,000, $360,000, and $380,000.

| Quarter | Assumed billing value | Quarterly rate | Fee |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| First | $400,000 | 0.2% | $800 |
| Second | $360,000 | 0.2% | $720 |
| Third | $360,000 | 0.2% | $720 |
| Fourth | $380,000 | 0.2% | $760 |
| Total | Not an asset total | Not a combined rate | $3,000 |

The annual fees are $200 lower than the fixed-base example. That result comes from the stated quarterly values. It does not mean any sampled firm uses this rule, and it does not measure the investment's total return. The ending value alone would not reproduce all four invoices.

Ask where the fee comes from as well. If a hypothetical holding pays $18,000 in annual cash before a separate $3,200 service charge, the amount left after that charge is $14,800. Paying the charge from another bank account does not make the economic cost disappear. It does mean the sponsor's distribution and the separate payment should remain distinct in your records.

Ask how invoices work if distributions stop, the asset value is disputed, or the relationship ends partway through a quarter. Do not invent a refund or proration rule. Get the applicable term and test it with an example the firm confirms.

## Ask How Account Recommendations Address Conflicts

A fee model can create an incentive without proving misconduct. A transaction charge rewards completed transactions. A recurring charge rewards keeping billable assets in the relationship. The useful question is how the firm handles those incentives when recommending an arrangement for you.

The SEC's March 30, 2022 staff bulletin discusses how firms recommend accounts. It covers the firm's role, available choices, costs, and investor needs. The cheapest account is not always required. The choice still needs a sound basis tied to the investor, and limits on the choices considered matter. This is staff guidance, not a new rule. [SEC staff bulletin on account recommendations](https://www.sec.gov/tm/iabd-staff-bulletin).

Ask why the proposed arrangement fits the work you need. A response should connect the recommendation with your facts. For example, a desire for ongoing analysis may help explain a recurring service proposal. A vague claim that one model is always more aligned does not explain its value in your case.

Ask what alternatives were considered and which were unavailable. There is a difference between “we do not offer that service,” “you do not meet its conditions,” and “we considered it and recommend this one instead.” Preserve those distinctions in your notes.

Then ask about compensation beyond the headline fee. Does another party pay the firm for a product or activity? Does the professional have another role connected with the offering? The answer belongs in the applicable disclosures and should be tied to the actual proposed arrangement.

Avoid treating disclosure as a vote of confidence. A clearly described conflict gives you something to examine; it does not establish that the conflict has no effect. Equally, a payment method by itself does not prove that the recommendation was wrong.

A useful written explanation names the service, expected cost, material limits, and reasons for the choice. You can then discuss any weak link with the professional or seek a separate review. The point is to understand the recommendation, rather than infer its quality from the fee label.

## Separate Changing Advisers From Selling a DST

Ending a service relationship and selling an investment are different events. Before planning a change, ask which event you actually want. You might want a new adviser to review an existing holding, a different billing arrangement, a new contact for records, or an exit from the investment itself.

The SEC updated its private-placement bulletin on September 21, 2026. It warns that information can be limited, resale can be hard, and losses can be total. You may have to hold a private security for an unknown period. Hiring a new adviser does not remove its restrictions. [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).

Start with the existing interest and its documents. Ask whether the proposed change affects legal ownership, custody, advisory coverage, the service contact, or only billing. If the proposal uses the word transfer, ask exactly what would move and what would stay in place.

A new adviser may need records before deciding whether it can cover the holding. Ask what acceptance means and when it is final. A conversation or signed intake form should not be treated as proof that all services have begun unless the documents establish that result.

Consider an invented example in which Morgan wants annual advice on an existing DST while leaving the interest where it is held. The prospective firm first reviews the documents and says acceptance is pending. Morgan should keep the existing contact route active until the next arrangement and its start date are clear. This example does not assume any firm must accept the holding.

Ask who handles sponsor notices during the change. Who receives the next report? Who answers an unresolved question? Who has the necessary permission to discuss the account? Assigning a new person to help does not establish that the information routes have changed.

Keep tax questions separate too. This article does not determine whether a proposed ownership change has tax effects or satisfies exchange rules. Describe the actual proposed action to the relevant tax and legal advisers. A change in a fee label is not enough detail for that review.

## Review Earlier Commissions Before Adding a New Fee

When a commission was already paid, separate the historical record from the next decision. The old payment remains part of the investment's cost history. Whether any amount can be refunded or credited depends on actual terms and approvals. Do not assume a new agreement reverses it.

Here is a fictional future-cost comparison. An investor previously paid a nonrefundable $24,000 commission. The existing arrangement has no future service fee in this example. A new advisory proposal would charge $3,200 a year for three full years, with no credit and no other new costs.

The new proposal adds $9,600 over those three years. Total service charges across the illustrated history would be $33,600 with the new service, compared with $24,000 without it. Those totals are not proof that the new service is wasteful. They show the extra cost that its expected work must justify in the investor's decision.

Do not call the old commission an annual payment just because you divide it by years held. That gives you a past average. It does not change when you paid the fee. Nor does it create an annual bill that stops when you change advisers.

Now change one assumption. Suppose a fictional written agreement allows a $2,400 credit against the first year's $3,200 advisory charge. The remaining first-year charge would be $800. Without a written, applicable credit, the first-year amount remains $3,200. We are not reporting that any sampled firm offers such a credit.

Record what a credit applies to, when it is used, and whether unused amounts expire. Ask whether it changes the fee invoice or reimburses a separate earlier payment. Those are different money flows even if the headline dollar amount is the same.

Look next at the work you need. A past cost will not vanish because you need a new service. Compare the new proposal with the work already covered. If two paid services would do the same task, ask why both are needed before signing a second agreement.

## Put the Arrangement and Start Date in Writing

A proposal can change during review. Keep the version you considered, the version you accepted, and the event that makes it effective. Otherwise, a fee calculation may use an earlier schedule while the signature page accepts a later one.

Ask for a clear record of the serving firm, covered holdings, tasks, fee schedule, and limits. If a professional uses both brokerage and advisory roles, ask which applies to each part of the work. A broad job title is not enough to settle the role of a specific recommendation.

Use the agreement alongside its related documents. A fee schedule might be a separate attachment. An investment's charges may appear in its offering materials. An account form may set delivery or payment instructions. Keep the references together so that the cost and service promises can be read as one proposal.

Check the start of billing separately from the start of service. They may be tied to defined events. Ask what happens if documents are signed but the holding has not been accepted, or if acceptance occurs partway through a billing period. Use the actual contract terms instead of assuming a convenient start date.

For a made-up timeline, an investor signs a proposal on November 2, receives written acceptance on November 6, and has a first review on November 12. These dates describe three events. They do not tell you the billing start without the relevant provision. A spreadsheet should not choose the earliest or latest date by default.

Read how the arrangement can end. Ask about notice, final fees, refunds if any, access to records, and unfinished work. A termination request, the end of billing, and the end of investment ownership may occur under different rules. Record each event separately.

If written terms differ from a conversation, ask which is correct before you rely on either. Keep the revised answer. This is a practical way to review papers. It does not mean a contract can remove legal duties or that this article can settle a dispute over a clause.

## Decide Which Proposal Answers Your Actual Need

Bring the service comparison and the cost comparison together only after each is clear. A useful decision record can be short. It should show the work needed, the arrangements confirmed available, the major differences, and the questions still open.

In an original example, Morgan wants help reading DST reports, a review of cash needs, and a contact for later questions. Proposal One covers sending files and routine account questions. Proposal Two offers a yearly investment review but excludes wider household planning. Neither one, as written, answers every need.

Morgan could ask for revised terms or seek another proposal. A separate adviser might cover a missing task. Each choice needs actual service terms. A longer proposal does not deserve a higher score just because it has more pages.

Add the fee facts next. Show the confirmed charge, billing base, period, and payment source. Include any unresolved value or credit issue. If the proposals use different securities or offer different rights, put that difference beside the price comparison rather than hiding it in a footnote.

Decide which unknowns prevent a decision. An unclear meeting date might be easy to resolve later. An unknown legal entity, unconfirmed holding acceptance, or missing fee schedule can prevent a meaningful comparison now. Treat the importance of the gap separately from the count of unanswered questions.

Keep the reasoning in ordinary language. “This proposal supplies the yearly review I want, covers the named holdings, and costs the stated amount under these assumptions” is more useful than “advisory wins.” It identifies what would need to change if the service or cost facts change later.

A sound comparison ends with a documented choice and visible limits. The fee model is one part of that choice. The actual service, confirmed availability, investment terms, and investor's needs supply the rest.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### Can every DST broker offer an advisory arrangement?

Do not assume so. The public sample contains different service models. Ask which legal entity would provide advice, whether it can serve your account, and whether it accepts the particular holding. A referral or a familiar professional's title does not establish that an advisory service is included.

### Does an advisory fee mean the professional can make every decision for me?

No. Ask who makes the decision. A discretionary service allows certain decisions within agreed limits. With a non-discretionary service, you decide. Ask which holdings and tasks are covered too. The label alone does not give the adviser control over your whole portfolio or the DST's property operations.

### Is a recurring advisory fee always cheaper than a commission?

No. Check the rate, billing base, time period, other charges, and service received. Our fixed-base example reaches equal dollar fees after 25 quarters. Those invented terms produce that result. It is not a forecast, a normal market price, or a reason to choose one model.

### Does no upfront commission mean the DST has no other costs?

No such conclusion follows. Ask for the investment's complete charge schedule and the separate service schedule. Identify which costs are included, which remain at the offering level, and which are additional. A fee that does not arrive as a separate invoice can still affect the economics of the investment.

### Can I change to advisory service after buying a DST?

Ask whether the new firm accepts that specific interest and what the agreement would change. Do not assume acceptance, a refund of earlier fees, or a sale of the holding. Confirm the start of service, billing, record access, and responsibility for open questions before treating the new arrangement as active.

### Does ending an advisory agreement let me sell the DST?

Ending a service agreement does not by itself create a buyer or change an investment's transfer restrictions. Identify whether you want to stop advice, change the service contact, or sell the security. Review the actual ownership and offering terms for the proposed action, with qualified help where needed.

### How should I compare a fee charged against changing account values?

Use the contract's valuation dates and billing method. Rebuild each invoice from its own base instead of multiplying the annual rate by the last value you saw. Our four-quarter example totals $3,000 because its assumed bases differ. It is a teaching case, not the billing method of a named firm.

### Which documents should I request before choosing the arrangement?

Request the current relationship summary, service agreement, full fee schedule, and offering documents for the named investment. Ask for any attachment they refer to. Get the terms for acceptance or credits in writing. Keep dates and versions visible. Ask about missing terms instead of borrowing an answer from another firm's document.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library explains research methods, source limits, and questions investors can discuss with their advisers. Its examples do not replace a review of a specific offering or an investor's circumstances.

## Sources

- [Capulent Form CRS](https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_155155.pdf). January 1, 2026. Limited brokerage, sales-load scope, and service limits; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [FNEX Capital Form CRS](https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_166316.pdf). Visible pages June 8, 2026; electronic title retains August 2024. Brokerage and fee scope; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [Realized Financial Form CRS](https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_22333.pdf). Cover June 30, 2025; interior September 2023 labels. Disclosed service choices and conditions; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [SEC guide to relationship summaries](https://www.investor.gov/CRS). Undated current guide. Agreement, role, and service context; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [SEC staff bulletin on account recommendations](https://www.sec.gov/tm/iabd-staff-bulletin). March 30, 2022. Capacity, costs, alternatives, and investor needs; staff views, not a new rule; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [SEC fee bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/updated). July 23, 2025. Service and investment charge review; accessed October 17, 2026.
- [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). Original August 17, 2022; updated September 21, 2026. Resale, information, and loss risks; 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)