Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/best-delaware-statutory-trust-companies-2026-how-to-evaluate-a-familiar-brand-s-new-dst-program Author: Sequoia Research Published: 2026-10-17T22:37:48.715Z Updated: 2026-10-17T22:37:48.715Z # Best Delaware Statutory Trust Companies (2026): How to Evaluate a Familiar Brand’s New DST Program ## What Is This Article About? A known real estate brand can launch a new Delaware statutory trust (DST) program. That program may have a much shorter history than the wider firm. This article reviews public launch news from Origin, Fortress, and NexPoint through October 17, 2026. It compares new platforms and growth into a new sector through original examples of people, duties, assets, and dates. The review does not rank these firms or confirm current capacity, private offering terms, or future results. ## Table of Contents - [Define What Is New About the DST Program](#define-what-is-new-about-the-dst-program) - [Three Public Examples of Different Kinds of Expansion](#three-public-examples-of-different-kinds-of-expansion) - [Separate the Parent Brand From the Offering Entities](#separate-the-parent-brand-from-the-offering-entities) - [Build an Experience Record Around Actual Duties](#build-an-experience-record-around-actual-duties) - [Check Which People Worked Together and When](#check-which-people-worked-together-and-when) - [Match Past Work to the Proposed Property Strategy](#match-past-work-to-the-proposed-property-strategy) - [Distinguish Fundraising From Investment Outcomes](#distinguish-fundraising-from-investment-outcomes) - [Review the Property Operator and Outside Providers](#review-the-property-operator-and-outside-providers) - [Test the New Program's Workload and Reporting](#test-the-new-programs-workload-and-reporting) - [Read Support Promises at the Entity Level](#read-support-promises-at-the-entity-level) - [Check How the Structure Changes the Investment](#check-how-the-structure-changes-the-investment) - [Compare Costs and Cash Without Importing Old Results](#compare-costs-and-cash-without-importing-old-results) - [Ask How the Team Responded to Difficult Conditions](#ask-how-the-team-responded-to-difficult-conditions) - [Keep Independent Research Separate From Brand Access](#keep-independent-research-separate-from-brand-access) - [Use a Worked New-Program Review](#use-a-worked-new-program-review) - [Write a Conclusion That Matches the Evidence](#write-a-conclusion-that-matches-the-evidence) - [Frequently Asked Questions](#frequently-asked-questions) - [About Sequoia Research](#about-sequoia-research) - [Sources](#sources) ## Define What Is New About the DST Program Start by naming the change. A longtime manager might create its first DST platform. An existing platform might enter a new property sector. A new trust might use a team and strategy that have worked together for years. Each case raises its own questions, even when each firm uses the word new. Write down the program name, exact issuer, launch date, strategy, and proposed asset. Then identify what already existed. Was it the firm, the team, the investment method, or only a sales network? A broad company history cannot answer every part of that question. A fictional manager called Cedar has bought apartments since 2010. It starts a student-housing DST in 2026. That gives the reviewer a lead: examine the apartment work. It does not establish that Cedar has run student housing for sixteen years. The date belongs to the work described. The duties still need proof. The same care applies in the other direction. A newly formed issuer may use experienced staff and a long-serving operator. Its recent formation does not prove that everyone involved is inexperienced. A useful review shows which skills carry over and which tasks are new. This article uses a small public sample to illustrate those distinctions. It does not survey every firm or decide which program fits a reader. Public announcements show what a firm said at a given time. For a real purchase, the source records must show the team, duties, terms, and open risks. ## Three Public Examples of Different Kinds of Expansion ### Origin: A Platform Launch and a Later Fundraising Update Origin's May 31, 2024 announcement introduced Origin Exchange and said its first DST acquisition was still under review. It named Michael O'Shea as vice president of the new program. It described nearly seventeen years of prior work, with roles at Cantor Fitzgerald and Inland Securities. The release also described Origin as founded in 2007. The firm, person, and program each have their own history. They do not establish seventeen years of completed results for the new platform. [Origin launch announcement](https://origininvestments.com/press/origin-investments-launches-origin-exchange/). A June 9, 2026 update reported full subscription of the Charlotte and Nashville offerings and called O'Shea Director and head of Private Wealth. This is a later title and fundraising report. Full subscription means the described raise reached capacity; the statement does not establish a property exit or final investor return. The update's discussion of another offering was dated June, not a confirmation of October availability. [Origin June 2026 update](https://origininvestments.com/press/origin-investments-charlotte-and-nashville-dst-offerings-are-fully-subscribed-origin-now-focuses-on-46-3-million-dst-offering-in-orlando/). ### Fortress: A New Platform With Stated Firm Resources Fortress announced Fortress Real Estate Exchange on March 16, 2026. It linked the platform to more than twenty years of real estate activity and identified senior housing, student housing, and multifamily as initial targets. It named Orchard Securities as dealer-manager, EA RESIG as fund administrator, and LODAS Markets as transfer agent. These disclosed functions help frame the next questions. They do not make each provider the property operator or establish the new program's completed investment history. The article did not inspect their private agreements or test their work. [Fortress launch announcement](https://www.fortress.com/news/2026-03-16-fortress-investment-group-launches-new-1031-real-estate-exchange-investment-platform). ### NexPoint: An Existing DST Business Adds a Sector NexPoint's October 6, 2026 release called Energy DST its first energy DST. It described mineral rights, with outside operators handling drilling and field operations. The release identified Luke Blackwell as president of its energy platform and described prior energy investments through the firm's balance sheet, affiliates, and management's personal capital. Those are different ways to own assets and gain skills. The statement does not by itself give a comparable investor-level record for this first energy DST. Its referenced September 30 private placement memorandum was not obtained for this review. [NexPoint energy announcement](https://www.nexpoint.com/nexpoint-launches-energy-dst-expanding-its-dst-platform-into-oil-and-gas-mineral-rights/). The sample shows why one simple label is inadequate: | Public example | Kind of change observed | Next evidence needed | |---|---|---| | Origin | New platform followed by later fundraising updates | Actual duties and results within that platform | | Fortress | Platform launch linked to wider firm experience | Current assignments and offering-specific agreements | | NexPoint | Existing platform enters an additional sector | Relevant sector work, ownership rights, and operator duties | These are next steps drawn from the sources reviewed. They do not show that the firms lack those records or failed to do the work. ## Separate the Parent Brand From the Offering Entities A brand can appear across a sponsor, dealer, adviser, property manager, and issuer. The investor may enter an agreement with only some of those entities. Before relying on the parent name, find the legal party that owes each key promise. Use the private placement memorandum, or PPM, together with its current exhibits and supplements. List the trust that issues the interest, the party managing the trust, the property owner, and any master tenant. A master tenant leases property from the owner and may arrange other leases. Where that structure exists, read its contract for the rights and duties. Then place the parent company on the same map. State who owns each entity, based on the records. Do not silently turn it into an obligation to fund losses, complete repairs, or buy an investor's interest. Each claim needs its own written terms. For an original example, Cedar Group owns Cedar Sponsor. Cedar Sponsor manages Willow DST, while Pine Operations runs the property. The four names describe four roles. A strong Cedar Group record could help explain oversight. It does not show Pine's local staff or the trust's cash on hand. If two documents use different names for the same role, resolve the difference before combining their histories. A short brand name may be harmless. An assumed match can still attach the wrong results to the proposed trust. Keep the full legal name and document date in the review record. ## Build an Experience Record Around Actual Duties A staff profile is a starting point. The next step is to identify what the person actually did. Raising funds, approving deals, managing assets, and running a property are related tasks. One is not proof of another. For each key person, record past roles, dates, employer, asset type, and the power to make decisions. Ask which parts of the work have supporting records. A title may not show who led a decision. The person could have served on a team or joined after the hardest work was done. Consider a made-up case of a leader who worked on thirty deals. Twelve involved capital raising, ten involved acquisition analysis, and eight involved ongoing asset management. Assume these groups are separate for this example. The total is thirty, but the evidence describes eight asset-management assignments, not thirty. The other twenty-two still have value. They support different claims. Ask who was in charge during the whole period cited. Someone who joined shortly before a sale may have helped execute the exit without having managed the property during its hold. Someone who sourced a purchase may not have set the operating budget. Preserve those distinctions instead of assigning every result to every person named in a presentation. The review should state how that past work applies. A record may show skill in reviewing similar assets. It may leave direct oversight of the proposed operator unconfirmed. That finding sets a useful limit without inventing a talent score. ## Check Which People Worked Together and When Combined years of experience add separate careers. They do not measure how long the present team has worked together. Even skilled staff need a way to make decisions together. Ask how they handle disputes and cover someone who leaves. Imagine two fictional leaders with twenty and fifteen years of experience. The sum is thirty-five person-years. If they joined the same team in January 2025, their shared tenure through September 2026 is twenty-one calendar months when counted inclusively. Neither measure means thirty-five years running this program together. Prior transaction counts can overlap too. Leader One lists twelve relevant deals and Leader Two lists ten, with seven appearing on both lists. There are fifteen distinct deals: twelve plus ten minus seven. Counting twenty-two unique transactions would double count the shared work. Shared work may be useful evidence of teamwork, but it needs its own label. Ask which staff remain assigned to the new program. A past team record can lose relevance if the people responsible for the claimed skill have moved elsewhere. An outside expert may bring needed skills without a long tenure at the sponsor. Check the current agreement and role rather than relying on a group photograph. The dates should also show gaps. A career history may establish many years in the industry while leaving a particular operating period unexplained. An unanswered date question is a gap, not proof of wrongdoing. Request clarification and record whether the answer changes the claim being made. ## Match Past Work to the Proposed Property Strategy Past work is more useful when it matches the work ahead. Compare the property type, location, tenant base, business plan, debt, and operating demands. A similar look or sector label does not mean the same problems will arise. A stable leased property and a renovation project can both be apartments. The first may depend heavily on lease renewals and cost control. The second may need work schedules and contractor oversight. It may need cash to pay for work before higher rents arrive. Ask which tasks the cited team has performed and which specialist will handle the rest. Use an evidence table with separate rows for acquisition, day-to-day operations, capital work, lender reporting, and sale. Each row should name who does the task and show a matched past example. Do not fill gaps by repeating the same company asset total in every row. For a fictional comparison, Willow plans to renovate sixty apartments. A cited prior project covered one hundred units, but only twenty underwent renovation during the named manager's tenure. For that task, compare the twenty units of proven work. Check the scope and results. One hundred units describes the whole property. A new sector may require a different set of records altogether. Ask what generates cash, who controls the work, which rights the trust owns, and which decisions lie elsewhere. The goal is to see how the plan works. Knowing a broad real estate category cannot replace that work. ## Distinguish Fundraising From Investment Outcomes A launch, purchase, completed raise, time in operation, and final exit are different events. A new program can establish one without having reached the others. Record each event with its own date and definition. Suppose a fictional platform has six trusts. Four have completed their raises, one remains open, and one was withdrawn. None has completed an investment exit. The record can support four completed raises out of six launched trusts if those are the agreed categories. It cannot support four completed investment cycles. Excluding the withdrawn trust would also change the population being described. A program that began recently may have limited exit evidence for a normal reason: its holdings have not reached that stage. The reviewer can still examine acquisitions, reports, and operating performance. Keep the gap in a full-cycle record visible. Do not fill it with the parent's unrelated exits. Even when prior results are available, inspect the calculation. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) advises investors to ask how performance is calculated and which fees or other factors are included. Past results do not establish future results. [SEC performance-claims bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-47). Keep the people and ownership basis attached to those figures. Property performance, a fund's return, and one investor's receipts can differ. An old result may use different debt, costs, and rights. It can offer context while being a poor match for the new DST. ## Review the Property Operator and Outside Providers The sponsor's expertise and the operator's work may both matter. Identify who handles the recurring tasks at the asset. Then inspect the sponsor's power to oversee that party and respond when plans go wrong. For a fictional property, Pine Operations handles leasing, maintenance, and local staff. Cedar Sponsor approves annual budgets and major work. A separate administrator maintains investor records. Check these duties against the actual contracts. Accurate investor records would not prove that the repair plan is sound. Ask what happens when a task crosses those boundaries. Who receives notice of a serious repair? Who can approve the cost? Who can replace a provider, and under what conditions? A provider list may name all the companies without explaining how they work together when a decision is urgent. Review the dates of each appointment. A familiar operator may be newly assigned to this property, or the proposed contract may still be unsigned. Prior work together does not prove that the same terms apply here. Record the status now. Keep a planned hire separate from work done. Outside expertise can strengthen a team. It also creates tasks to link the work, check it, and keep records. The question is not whether every task must be done in-house. Ask whether the plan puts the right skills, powers, facts, and duties in place for this strategy. ## Test the New Program's Workload and Reporting A large staff list does not show how much time is assigned to one program. Ask about the workload of those who oversee it. Treat a headcount as a count, not as proof that every person is available to this trust. In an original planning example, three asset managers each have twenty hours a week allocated to a new platform. That creates sixty scheduled hours. Six properties needing eight hours each would use forty-eight hours, leaving twelve under that assumption. If the same team adds four similar properties without more time, the estimated need becomes eighty hours. The gap is twenty hours. These figures raise a workload question. They are not industry staffing standards. Averages can also hide a deadline peak. Two properties may need major budget reviews in the same week, while another is quiet. Ask how the team covers busy periods and time off. A proposed hire should remain a proposed hire until the relevant facts are confirmed. Request an actual reporting example, with confidential information removed where appropriate. Check whether it explains operating changes, cash use, and decisions. A sample template shows planned fields. A completed report shows how one period was described. Neither proves that every future report will arrive or be correct. For a newer program, the first reports can test launch promises. Keep a record of what was promised, what was delivered, and what remains open. That gives later reviews a factual basis beyond the original announcement. ## Read Support Promises at the Entity Level A parent firm's resources may help a platform hire staff, build systems, or source assets. How they protect a buyer depends on the actual terms. Separate broad resources from a stated promise. Ask who owes the obligation, what it covers, how much is available, and when it ends. A commitment to complete a defined repair is different from a promise to fund every operating shortfall. Help with past investments does not prove a legal duty to help a new trust. In a fictional case, the sponsor commits up to $500,000 for specified roof work, subject to written conditions. A $700,000 covered cost would exceed that stated cap by $200,000 before considering other available funds or conditions. The same commitment does not automatically cover a $100,000 shortfall in rent. The examples concern different uses. Keep chosen acts of support separate from contract rights. A parent may choose to help without a prior promise to do so. If the investment case depends on that choice, label the dependence and test what happens if help does not arrive. This is also why assets under management should not be treated as a trust's cash balance. Find the resources that the entity owing the duty can legally use. The full financial review is a separate task. First, avoid assigning a parent-level number to the wrong duty. ## Check How the Structure Changes the Investment A strategy may change when it moves from a private fund, direct ownership, or a company balance sheet into a DST. Compare the buyer's rights, fees, control, debt, and possible exit. Do not assume the same assets create the same experience in every structure. Ask who can make major decisions and which conditions limit that authority. Trace the actual route for a sale, replacement of a provider, or other proposed change. A talk about the parent's prior deals may describe powers the new trust does not have. Some programs describe a possible later transfer to an operating partnership. That partnership may be linked to a real estate investment trust, or REIT. Treat that possible step as its own review. Ask who holds any option, what must occur first, how value is set, and what the investor would own afterward. A possible step is not an assured one. It also does not promise ready cash. The SEC's private-placement bulletin, updated September 21, 2026, explains that private offerings can provide less disclosure and can be very difficult to sell. A well-known name does not change those basic source and liquidity limits. [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). Use qualified tax and legal reviewers for the particular structure and exchange. This article does not determine eligibility or tax treatment. Ask whether the rights and limits match the story used to explain the program. ## Compare Costs and Cash Without Importing Old Results A parent may cite results from investments with different fees, borrowing, or cash rules. Rebuild the proposed program's own cash explanation before using those results as context. Start with matching amounts and periods. Consider a fictional annual budget with $900,000 of receipts and $360,000 of operating costs. That leaves $540,000 before debt payments and the other uses below. Subtract $300,000 of debt service and $90,000 of planned capital work. The remaining $150,000 is the modeled cash before any further excluded uses. It is not automatically the amount that will be distributed. If receipts fall by 5% while these costs stay fixed, receipts become $855,000. The remaining cash becomes $105,000, a $45,000 decline. That is a 30% drop from the original $150,000. A modest change in receipts can have a larger percentage effect on the final residual. The example holds other inputs fixed to show that relationship, not to predict a property outcome. Costs need the same care. If a $200,000 subscription includes $10,000 of stated charges, those charges equal 5% of that subscription. If another program cites $10,000 against a $400,000 gross offering value that includes allocated debt, the ratio is 2.5%. The dollar charge has not changed. The denominators have. Ask for a full sources-and-uses schedule and a clear cost base. Do not infer that the lower percentage is cheaper, or borrow a historical net return without accounting for the current terms. ## Ask How the Team Responded to Difficult Conditions A useful history shows choices made when a plan stopped working. Ask for a relevant example of a missed budget, delayed work, tenant problem, or changed financing. Learn the team's role and response. Do not collect only strong sale results. Request the original plan, the changed facts, the decision date, and the result. A later account can be useful. A dated record helps show which facts were known at the time. Distinguish what the team controlled from market conditions it could not control. In an original example, a property report identifies a repair need in March. The responsible manager seeks bids in April and approves work in May. A review should ask why those steps took that time and what happened in between. Counting two months alone does not establish that the response was reasonable or inadequate. Scope, urgency, access, and actual options matter. Include continuing problems as well as resolved ones. An open case can show how the team reports unknowns and follows through. Its unfinished status should not be turned into a loss estimate without support, or omitted because no neat outcome is available. If the new program relies on people who did not handle the cited setback, state that limit. A firm-level story may show an established process while leaving the current team's use of that process untested. Ask how the lessons have been transferred into present duties and controls. ## Keep Independent Research Separate From Brand Access Access to senior staff can make a review easier, but a meeting is not proof that a claim is correct. Keep the supporting documents and unresolved questions beside the answers received. A confident voice cannot settle a conflict between two dated records. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) says its member firms recommending private placements should investigate the issuer, management, assets, claims, and use of proceeds. Its May 9, 2023 notice also discusses independent analysis of material claims and careful use of outside research. That guidance concerns members' obligations; it is not a certification of the firms named in this article. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08). For a reader, a practical question is which claim has been checked by whom. Compare three kinds of proof. A sponsor supplies a staff profile. Counsel checks a contract. An analyst rebuilds a result from records. These support different claims. Label them accurately rather than calling the whole folder verified. Record the scope of an outside report. It may cover the property but omit the new team's workload. It may assess legal documents without judging an investor's cash needs. A trusted research firm's name does not enlarge the work it did. Missing material should lead to a specific request. Identify the claim affected and why the gap matters. Avoid treating unanswered questions as proof of a defect, but do not silently close them because the parent brand is familiar. ## Use a Worked New-Program Review Return to fictional Cedar and its new Willow program. Reviewer Lena begins with ten separate claims: three about the wider firm, three about key people, two about the operator, and two about program systems. Those ten claims require different records. One company brochure cannot establish all of them. She receives fourteen files. Four are duplicates, leaving ten distinct files. Seven of the ten claims have usable support; two are only partly answered, and one remains unanswered. The count of documents does not equal the count of supported claims. The 70% support figure describes this checklist only. It is not a chance of success or a sponsor rating. The main gap is who will oversee the planned repairs. An operator profile shows experience, but the proposed oversight agreement is not signed. Lena records the profile as received and the assignment as unconfirmed. A logo on a slide does not show that the operator was hired. A later signed agreement resolves the appointment question. It does not automatically resolve whether the budget is adequate or whether the investor can bear a cash decline. Those are separate claims. The review record links the new agreement to the one question it answers, leaving the other two open. Lena's conclusion is narrow and useful: the firm has relevant prior work, some current duties are documented, and specified questions remain before a complete investment review. She keeps the records behind that finding. Another reader can check it without relying on her trust in the brand. ## Write a Conclusion That Matches the Evidence The best finding states what the current record supports. It might establish a relevant team history while leaving the new structure untested. It might establish a clear operator assignment while leaving a key cost assumption unresolved. These findings tell readers more than a broad claim that the company is best. Use a short memo with the exact program, review date, kind of expansion, named duties, relevant prior work, and open issues. Include source dates and explain any change in team, strategy, or ownership basis. Keep the current proposal separate from historic examples and planned future steps. For the public sample here, the announcements establish dated descriptions of program development. They do not provide a full private offering review or a tested operating history for each new strategy. The research method asks what additional evidence would connect wider experience to the specific work ahead. Revisit the memo when material facts change. A new operator, amended agreement, revised budget, or key staff departure can affect earlier conclusions. An old review may still be useful, but the relevant part needs a fresh look before its conclusion is carried forward. A familiar name can be a reason to investigate a program. The review should explain the people, rights, resources, and work on which the investment depends. That is the evidence a reader needs to discuss a new program on its own terms. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### Does a Long Company History Mean Its New DST Program Has the Same Track Record? No. Match each claim to the firm, program, people, strategy, and period it describes. Relevant prior work can inform a review, but it does not become a completed operating or investor-return record for a newly launched program. ### Is a Newly Formed DST Automatically Managed by an Inexperienced Team? No. The legal issuer may be new while the people and operators have relevant experience. Identify their present duties and prior work. Do not assume either strength or weakness from the formation date alone. ### Should I Add the Team's Years of Experience Together? You can describe a stated sum as combined person-years if its basis is clear. It is different from shared tenure. Check how long the people worked together, which deals overlap, and whether the current assignments match the claimed experience. ### Does Full Subscription Mean a Program Has Completed Its Investment Cycle? No. It describes a fundraising milestone in the source's stated context. A later property sale, final costs, and investor cash flows require separate evidence. Keep launch, raise, operations, and exit dates distinct. ### Does Parent Ownership Guarantee Financial Support for the Trust? Do not infer a guarantee from ownership alone. Read the actual commitment, including who owes it, covered uses, conditions, cap, and duration. Separate a contractual duty from help that a parent might choose to provide. ### Can Experience in One Property Sector Support Expansion Into Another? It may support some tasks, such as acquisition review or reporting systems. Other tasks may require different skills or outside operators. Describe what carries over and what needs fresh evidence instead of treating experience as either fully transferable or worthless. ### Are the Three Programs in This Article Recommended Investments? No. The sample illustrates different types of expansion using public announcements. Private terms, current capacity, individual fit, and future outcomes were not established. The comparison creates research questions, not a ranking or advice to buy. ### What Should I Request Before Relying on a New-Program Presentation? Request the current offering documents, entity and role map, relevant experience records, operator agreements, budget, cost schedule, reporting example, and unresolved-issue list. Match each document to the claim it supports. Obtain qualified help with the investor-specific financial, tax, and legal questions. ## About Sequoia Research Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library helps readers inspect source documents, compare stated methods, and identify questions that need further evidence. It does not assign regulatory approval or replace a complete review of a proposed investment. ## Sources - [Origin Investments: Launch of Origin Exchange](https://origininvestments.com/press/origin-investments-launches-origin-exchange/). May 31, 2024; read October 17, 2026. Dated program launch, appointment, prior role descriptions, and firm founding year; no current role or result inferred from that date. - [Origin Investments: Charlotte and Nashville Fully Subscribed](https://origininvestments.com/press/origin-investments-charlotte-and-nashville-dst-offerings-are-fully-subscribed-origin-now-focuses-on-46-3-million-dst-offering-in-orlando/). June 9, 2026; read October 17. Later title and fundraising milestone only; no final return or October availability claim. - [Fortress: Launch of Real Estate Exchange](https://www.fortress.com/news/2026-03-16-fortress-investment-group-launches-new-1031-real-estate-exchange-investment-platform). March 16, 2026; read October 17. Announced platform, wider experience, target sectors, and selected provider functions; no private agreements inspected. - [NexPoint: First Energy DST](https://www.nexpoint.com/nexpoint-launches-energy-dst-expanding-its-dst-platform-into-oil-and-gas-mineral-rights/). October 6, 2026; read October 17. Sector expansion, identified platform leader, stated ownership categories of prior energy work, operator separation, and referenced PPM date; PPM not obtained. - [SEC: Performance Claims](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-47). September 15, 2022; read October 17, 2026. Calculation method, fees, and limits of past results. - [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). Originally August 17, 2022; updated September 21, 2026; read October 17. Disclosure and liquidity limits. - [FINRA: Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08). May 9, 2023; read October 17, 2026. Member investigation duties and careful review of claims and outside research; no finding about a named firm. ## Related Reading and Tools - [How to Choose DST Sponsor: A Step-by-Step Research Checklist](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/how-to-choose-dst-sponsor-a-step-by-step-research-checklist) - [Are DST Investments Safe in 2026? What Investors Should Understand About Risk](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/are-dst-investments-safe-in-2026-what-investors-should-understand-about-risk) - [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)