Research guide

Best Delaware Statutory Trust Companies (2026): What to Look for in a Sponsor’s Historical Results

By Sequoia ResearchPublished October 17, 2026Read as Markdown

What Is This Article About?

This article explains how to review a sponsor's history, including programs that remain open or have missing records. It reads selected public sources from ExchangeRight, Inland, and Capital Square on October 17, 2026. The focus is the evidence behind Delaware statutory trust (DST) track records. Original examples show how dates, missing programs, and counting methods can change the results. The goal is a clear account of the past, with no invented company ranking or forecast.

A sponsor's historical results are useful only when the reader knows which programs they describe. A list of successful sales may be accurate while leaving much of the firm's history outside the frame. Start with the list of programs that could belong in the review. Then examine the results for that defined group.

This changes the first question. Instead of asking for the highest average, ask for a complete inventory within a stated scope. That scope might be all apartment DSTs launched by a named sponsor from one year through another. A broad corporate history can provide context, but it should not quietly replace the narrower record being studied.

The key word is complete. A complete list includes strong exits, weak exits, and programs still held. It also shows cases with open questions. It does not require calling every case good or bad. It requires accounting for each case before using the set to support a conclusion.

A reasonable review can still proceed with incomplete records. It should describe the coverage and explain which conclusions the gaps prevent. Suppose nine of twelve program files have the required evidence. That is 75% file coverage. It is not a 75% confidence level, a success rate, or proof that the other three did poorly.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) explains that performance presentations can omit weak periods or highlight profitable investments. Its September 2022 investor bulletin also urges readers to examine fees, calculation methods, and market conditions. That is educational guidance, not a sponsor grading system. SEC performance-claims bulletin.

The practical task is to turn a headline into a traceable record. Each program needs an identity, a place in the group, a status, and the evidence behind any reported result. Once those pieces are in place, the numbers become far more useful.

What Selected Public Disclosures Show in 2026

The following sample shows why sponsor histories need careful labels. These are selected primary pages, not an exhaustive survey. Each company statement is tied to its source. This review did not obtain each firm's complete private program ledger or the underlying audit reports.

Source inspected	Dated observation	What a comparison must preserve
ExchangeRight's track-record page	Its September 30, 2026 table lists 34 full-cycle offerings. These span several categories.	The full-cycle rows include 22 financed DSTs, six multifamily DSTs, three preferred equity/income funds, and three acquisition-note programs.
Inland's company page	Its data are from December 31, 2025. They show 155 completed Section 1031 exchange programs within 670 completed programs overall.	The broader total includes other program types. Its completion definition is broader than a cash sale of all assets.
Capital Square's July 16, 2026 West Creek release	The release reports 47 full-cycle DST programs.	Its footnote dates the aggregate audited record to February 17. Five later completions await inclusion in an updated brochure.

Sources: ExchangeRight track record, Inland company disclosures, and Capital Square's dated announcement.

One visible count also needs a note. ExchangeRight's active-offering/share-class rows add to 100, while the displayed total is 101. The cause was not established here. This arithmetic difference should remain an open source question; it is not a basis for guessing at investor outcomes. The full-cycle category rows do add to 34. ExchangeRight source table.

Each finding calls for a different request. One source requires category filtering. Another requires an exact completion definition. A third requires keeping the date of an aggregate separate from the date of a newer headline. None supports ranking the three firms by investment quality.

Do not repair unequal source records by silently changing their meanings. Keep each publisher's original label. Put the label you use to compare it in a separate field. If a row cannot be translated fairly, leave it outside the combined calculation and explain why. That preserves useful evidence without making it more complete than it is.

Define the Program Behind Each Result

The unit being counted must stay consistent. A building, an offering, a share class, and an investor account are different units. Five buildings inside one trust do not automatically create five distinct program outcomes. Two classes in one offering may share property results while producing different investor returns.

Begin each row with the exact issuer name and a stable reference. Add the sponsor entity, property or portfolio, class, launch date, and first investment date if relevant. Keep old names and later names linked to that same row. A renamed program should not become a new success just because its current title differs from its original title.

For an invented example, Cedar Sponsor launched Willow One DST. A later report calls it Willow Industrial Trust. If source documents establish they are the same issuer, keep one program row with two names. Preserve the documents that establish the match. Similar names alone would not be enough.

Now assume a brochure describes Willow's three buildings in separate case studies. Those studies may provide useful property detail. They still do not establish three separate subscriptions or three independent sponsor decisions. The counting rule should follow the question being asked, not the number of pages available.

Ownership changes can complicate the history further. A new manager may take over a program several years after launch. Record who selected the property, who managed each period, and who handled the exit. Do not credit or blame one current brand for every earlier decision without that chain of evidence.

All Cedar, Willow, Pine, Alder, investor, and numerical teaching examples below are fictional. They are separate from the three named public-source observations above. The method is designed to reveal questions in a real file, not to imply undisclosed facts about any sponsor.

Choose the Comparison Group Before Reading Returns

Set the inclusion rule before seeing which outcomes look attractive. Otherwise the rule can drift toward the programs that produce the preferred answer. A written rule helps readers see why a case was left out.

A group of programs launched within a defined period is often called a cohort. In plain terms, it is a class of investments that entered under stated conditions. You can define that class by strategy, location, and launch years. The issuer's role may also set a boundary. State each boundary and why it matters to the comparison.

For example, a reader might ask for all Cedar apartment DST programs launched from 2018 through 2020. That is narrower than all Cedar real estate activity. An industrial fund launched in 2019 would be outside the stated scope even if its return was impressive. An apartment DST still operating would remain inside it.

Do not narrow the group to programs that have already sold unless the question is expressly about completed exits. If you do study completed exits, keep a companion list of excluded ongoing programs. Readers can then see what portion of the original group has reached the measured event.

The same rule should apply to both favorable and difficult cases. A program cannot count as part of the firm when it helps the record, then become unrelated when it hurts. If that boundary is unclear, record the issue. Get the ownership and management facts before deciding.

Use an exclusion log with a short reason for each omitted row. Valid reasons might include a different vehicle, an unrelated manager, or a launch outside the date range. A missing result is a data gap. It does not by itself remove the program from the group.

The result is a repeatable set. Another reader should be able to apply the rule to the same records. The resulting list should match. That does not remove every judgment, but it makes the judgment visible before the performance comparison begins.

Reconcile Completed, Ongoing, and Unresolved Programs

Every program in the chosen group needs a current status. A status list helps trace a program from its launch to later result tables. It also helps keep unfinished cases from being marked as wins or losses.

Assume the fictional Cedar launch group contains twelve distinct programs. The latest file supports this split:

Status at the review date	Program count	Evidence needed for the next step
Cash exits documented as complete	5	Final cash record and closure evidence
Investors hold continuing interests after a transaction	2	Transaction terms and current holding records
Original programs remain in operation	4	Recent operating and investor reports
Status is unresolved	1	A dated response identifying what happened
Total programs in the group	12	Reconciliation to the original launch list

Five plus two plus four plus one equals twelve. The table covers the group. It does not assign a return to every row. It also makes clear that only five cases have documented completed cash exits. A broader definition could count other events as complete. Keep that definition visible.

Do a second reconciliation to the underlying records. If the launch list has twelve issuers but the status table has eleven, find the missing name. If the status table has thirteen, check for a duplicate. Then look for a later addition or a change in scope. A matching grand total alone does not prove that the correct names are present.

Keep status and evidence quality in separate fields. A program can be described as active while its latest report is old. It can be described as sold while final cash records are missing. The first field says what is reported to have happened. The second says how well the file supports that statement.

When a status changes, retain its prior entry and source. A later reviewer should be able to trace the steps. A program may move from operating to pending sale, then to sold with reserves still held. Replacing every old label with completed erases that path. It may help explain the investor's experience.

Separate the Different Meanings of Completion

Completion can refer to an offering raise, a property transaction, a sponsor's role, or the end of an investor's holding. These events may occur on different dates. A useful historical review records the event instead of relying on the word alone.

Inland's cited definition treats a program as complete at the earliest of several events. One is when Inland Investments' affiliates no longer serve as business manager. Others are a national listing of the program's common shares, sale of all or substantially all assets, or a third-party merger in which the program does not survive. That definition should not be rewritten as cash returned to every investor. Inland's completion definition.

For a fictional contrast, Pine DST sells its only property in June but retains a reserve for final bills. Some cash goes to investors in July and the balance is resolved later. The property sale has occurred. The investor's final cash record may still be open. Both facts belong in the file.

A different program might move its assets into another vehicle and give investors continuing interests. The original structure may have ended. The investor still faces the risks and restrictions of the new holding. An event count alone cannot show the cash available to that person.

A capital raise is another distinct milestone. Filling all offered subscriptions shows that the offering was fully subscribed. It does not show that the property was sold or that the investors earned a final return. Keep launch, raise completion, asset exit, and final investor settlement in separate date fields.

This approach allows honest comparisons even when sponsors use different definitions. You can compare the same event across matched cases, while preserving other events in the wider history. There is no need to force unlike endings into one success count.

Test How Selected Results Change the Story

Accurate numbers can still give a false picture if key results are left out. Test whether the results shown cover the group described in the heading. If only profitable exits appear, the heading should not imply that the table represents all exits.

Consider five fictional completed programs with cumulative net profits or losses of 20%, 10%, minus 15%, 30%, and minus 5%. The simple average is 8%. That calculation gives each program the same weight and does not account for when cash moved. It is not an annual return.

If a presentation includes only the three positive outcomes, their average is 20%. No individual result changed. The difference comes entirely from removing the two losses. The selected table may describe those three investments well. It cannot stand for the five-program group.

The missing rows also change what a reader can learn. A loss may reveal a risk that the profitable cases never tested. A delayed program may expose an operational issue hidden by quick exits. The purpose of keeping them in view is to understand the pattern, not to turn every negative event into a broad accusation.

Selection can happen by period as well as by program. A study of exits during one strong sales year may omit properties that could not sell in that market. Ask whether the report follows all programs launched in a period or only deals that happened to exit during it. Those are different questions.

Use a simple check: compare the result-table names against the inventory and status list. Mark each missing match. Then ask whether the reason is scope, timing, missing evidence, or an actual omission. Do not assume the cause before the publisher explains it.

The arithmetic example here illustrates a method risk. It is not a claim that any named sponsor selected results improperly. A fair review needs the underlying population before it can judge whether a presentation leaves out relevant cases.

Check the Weight and Fee Basis of an Average

An average can give equal weight to programs or give more weight to larger investments. Neither choice should remain hidden. The method determines what the number means and how a reader can compare it with another summary.

Use the same five invented cumulative returns from the prior example, now with different starting amounts. Assume each is a completed cash outcome and fees have already been deducted:

Program	Starting capital in the example	Cumulative net profit or loss	Profit or loss in dollars
Alder A	$100,000	20%	$20,000
Alder B	$300,000	10%	$30,000
Alder C	$200,000	-15%	-$30,000
Alder D	$100,000	30%	$30,000
Alder E	$300,000	-5%	-$15,000
Total	$1,000,000	Not a simple sum of percentages	$35,000

The equal-program average remains 8%. Across these stated capital amounts, the combined gain is $35,000 on $1 million, or 3.5%. The amount received, including starting capital, is $1,035,000. This compares total dollars over the holding periods. It ignores cash-flow timing. It is not a time-weighted return or an internal rate of return.

The two answers differ because the program sizes differ. The example does not establish that one averaging method is always preferable. It shows why an average needs a stated rule and the weights used. Without them, the reader cannot reproduce the number.

Fee treatment creates a second comparison problem. One result may exclude investor charges while another deducts them. Adjust the figures before comparing them. Ask which amounts were deducted, whose fees they were, and whether all rows follow the same rule. Do not assume that net means net of every possible cost.

If two investors entered through different routes or on different dates, keep their results separate unless a stated method supports combining them. A figure for the sponsor need not match one account. The review should identify whose experience the reported number represents.

For a deeper explanation of return labels, see the guide to equity raised versus investor returns. Here, the priority is making sure every included row uses a known basis before it enters an average.

Compare Programs at Similar Ages

The share of programs that have finished depends partly on how long they have existed. A recent launch group has had less time to reach an exit. Counting its ongoing programs as failures would confuse age with outcome.

Assume another fictional dataset has three launch groups of four programs each. Three in the 2018 group have completed cash exits. In the 2021 group, two have. In the 2024 group, none has. The completion shares are 75%, 50%, and 0%. Across all twelve programs, five have completed, or about 41.7%.

Those figures describe observed status at one date. They do not prove that the oldest group was managed best or that the newest group will lose money. The groups entered different markets and have had different amounts of time to carry out their plans.

A more useful comparison asks what was known at a similar age. For example, compare each program's first two years of rent collections, costs, debt changes, and distributions using consistent definitions. Then keep final outcomes in a separate view. Do not use a completed seven-year record as if it were the same evidence as a two-year operating report.

Age does not erase delays. If an offering projected a five-year hold and is still active after eight years, the difference deserves review. Ask what changed, how investors were informed, and what the updated plan requires. The projected hold was not necessarily a guaranteed redemption date, so read the actual terms before describing a breach.

Separate market conditions from claims about skill. A property sold when financing was cheap may have faced different bids from one offered during a credit shortage. You can note those conditions and ask how they affected the plan. A calendar difference alone does not quantify the sponsor's contribution.

The goal is to make comparisons more informative, not to excuse a poor result. Similar age and strategy improve the question being asked. The full record still needs to show losses, delays, revised plans, and investor costs.

Keep Ongoing DST Results Visible

An ongoing program has information worth studying even though its final result is unknown. Its history includes the original plan, reports received since launch, cash paid, operating changes, and the work still needed. Put that evidence beside the completed-program view.

An active-program record should show the latest report date and the period it covers. Add cash paid to date and any major change in the plan. Add debt maturity and major lease dates where relevant. Keep the source. Say which values are reported, which are estimates, and which were checked by others.

Do not treat a regular distribution as a complete return. Investors can receive cash while the remaining interest rises or falls in value. The cash record and the value record answer separate questions. Missing value data should stay missing rather than being replaced by original cost without explanation.

For an invented example, an investor put $100,000 into Willow and has received $12,000 in cash. A report estimates the remaining interest at $98,000. Combining those amounts would produce $110,000, or a provisional gain of 10% against the starting amount. That statement relies on the estimate and its date. It is not a completed cash outcome.

Now assume the value estimate is six months older than the cash record. The calculation mixes dates. Show the two dates and request an updated value before describing the result as current. A precise-looking percentage cannot fix stale inputs.

An active program can also have a report gap without having an established loss. Suppose twelve quarterly reports should be in a research file and nine are present. The missing three are a coverage issue. They do not show what happened during those quarters until other evidence supplies the answer.

Ask for an explanation of material changes rather than just a revised forecast. Which assumptions changed? What costs have already occurred? Who approved the response? Which investor decisions, if any, remain open? Those questions keep ongoing programs in the sponsor history while respecting the difference between current evidence and a final result.

Separate Cash Received From a Continuing Value

Keep cash received and the estimated value of a new interest in separate columns. Both may matter to the review. They tell different stories about access to cash and what remains at risk.

Imagine an investor put $100,000 into a fictional program. It has paid $25,000 in cash. A transaction now replaces the holding with continuing units valued at $90,000. The combined cash-plus-value figure is $115,000. That is 15% above the original amount before any omitted costs. Only $25,000 has been received in cash under these facts.

The $90,000 entry needs its own basis. Was it a transaction price, a valuation estimate, or another stated measure? What date does it use? Can the holder sell or redeem the units, and under what conditions? A recorded value does not answer those liquidity questions.

Keep the original program and the continuing investment linked. A report might count the first transaction as complete, then lose track of the investor's later exposure. Linking the records allows each stage to remain visible without counting the same capital twice.

Also distinguish an investor's choice from a universal outcome. Some transactions may offer different paths to different holders. If the history reports one path, identify it. Do not assume that every investor took cash, accepted units, or faced identical fees unless the records establish that fact.

This is a recordkeeping method, not advice about choosing a tax or exit route. The investor needs professional help to read the actual agreements. Rights, tax effects, and personal fit need review. The historical review should first establish what happened and what remains, using the same definitions throughout.

Review Dates, Corrections, and Audit Coverage

A sponsor history can contain several valid dates at once. A press release has a publication date. A results table has a data cutoff. An audit has a period and a defined scope. A later exit may postdate all three. Record each date beside the claim it supports.

The Capital Square observation above illustrates that distinction. It is a reason to request the dated underlying record before treating a later count and an earlier average as one matched dataset. This review has not inspected that audit. The release's footnote should travel with any summary based on it.

For an original timing example, a January report shows six completed cases. Two more events occur by April. A current count of eight is not enough to update the January average. The two later results and a consistent calculation method are still required.

A correction creates a different problem. Suppose a program's recorded final proceeds change from $125,000 to $121,000 after a previously omitted $4,000 expense is identified. With a $100,000 original investment and no other cash flows, cumulative gain changes from 25% to 21%. The corrected version should identify what changed and which summaries need revision.

Keep the earlier version for the research trail. Mark it as replaced and use the corrected amount for the current calculation. Do not leave both versions in the active result set. That would turn one investment into two records and distort the count as well as the average.

Audit language also needs a subject. Ask which statements, periods, entities, and methods were examined. An audit of financial statements is not automatically an audit of every marketing return or later transaction. Read the actual opinion and report scope when available, rather than treating the word audited as a label for the entire company.

The auditor-opinion guide explains that separate reading task. Keep the reported result in the history file. Also keep the evidence of what any outside review covered.

Handle Difficult Outcomes and Missing Records Fairly

A loss, a delayed sale, a lender action, and a missing report are different findings. Describe each according to the evidence. A fair history neither hides difficult cases nor fills unknown periods with assumptions about failure.

When a program reports a loss, ask how much capital was contributed, what cash came back, and what interests or claims remain. Check whether the stated loss is realized, estimated, or only a decline from a prior valuation. Those facts help place the case in the completed or ongoing record.

The sponsor's response can also be relevant. Build a dated record of the problem and the options considered. Add the chosen action and what investors were told. Separate that sequence from your view of whether the decision was reasonable. A later gain does not prove every earlier choice was sound. A loss does not by itself prove misconduct.

A request for records should be specific enough to answer. Ask for the missing final distribution record or the dated status of a named issuer. A broad demand for a perfect track record is less useful than a short list tied to identified gaps.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) describes reasonable-investigation duties for member firms recommending private placements. Its May 2023 notice includes investigation of the issuer, management, assets, claims, and intended use of proceeds. That duty applies to brokers in the notice's stated scope. It does not rate a sponsor or make a reader's checklist complete. FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08.

If the needed evidence remains unavailable, write that limit into the conclusion. Do not force a numerical score from missing facts. The unanswered question may itself limit how much weight a reader can place on the historical comparison.

A useful conclusion says what was studied and what the evidence shows. Name the sponsor entity, strategy, and launch period. State the review date, program count, and gaps. Then explain completed and ongoing cases separately.

The fictional Cedar group has twelve programs. The note should list five cash exits, two continuing interests, four operating programs, and one unresolved status. It would state which records support those labels. It would not call seven cases profitable merely because two transactions ended an earlier legal structure.

Next, show the result method for the cases with enough evidence. Explain how the figure weights the cases and treats fees. Say whether it uses cash alone or includes a remaining value. List exclusions next to the calculation. Readers should not have to infer the denominator from a footnote elsewhere.

Keep the conclusion about the past separate from the decision about a new investment. A historical group can reveal useful patterns and questions. It does not establish a new property's terms, financing, or fit for the investor. Those require a separate offering review.

This article's named-source sample shows a clear limit. Public histories use different categories, completion rules, and cutoffs. Their headline counts do not support a fair best-company ranking on their own. The original examples show how to organize that evidence and test the effect of gaps.

Another reader should be able to trace the final file from source to conclusion. Preserve the group definition, program list, status table, calculation inputs, corrections, and unanswered requests. A transparent history is more useful than a confident ranking that a reader cannot reproduce.

Frequently Asked Questions

The count shows experience with the event being measured, within the publisher's definition. It does not show returns, fees, losses, or how many programs remain open. Compare the complete program group and the meaning of completed before drawing a conclusion. The number alone cannot establish quality or fit.

Should Ongoing Programs Be Given a Zero Return?

No. A missing final result is not a zero result. Keep ongoing programs in the inventory with their current reports, cash history, and any dated value estimate. Show that the outcome remains open. If the evidence is incomplete, state the gap instead of inventing a return.

It is a group selected by a stated rule, such as all apartment DSTs launched by the same sponsor during three named years. Set the rule before comparing outcomes. Include eligible programs that remain active or have missing results, and explain any exclusions from the performance calculation.

Why Can Two Correct Averages Differ?

They may use different program sets, weights, fees, or periods. An equal-program average gives every program one vote. A capital-weighted calculation gives larger investments more weight. Both methods can be correct. They answer different questions. Obtain the inputs before treating the figures as comparable.

Is a Full-Cycle Event Always a Final Cash Exit?

No. Read the publisher's definition and the actual transaction records. The structure or manager may have changed. The investor may still hold another interest. Record cash received, continuing holdings, and unresolved reserves separately. Do not assume the event ended every investor's exposure.

Can an Audit Cover a Later Performance Update?

Its scope and period determine what it covers. A later count or transaction does not automatically fall within an earlier audit. Obtain the report and identify the covered records, methods, and dates. Keep later events separate until you know how they were reviewed.

How Should a Review Treat a Source Count That Does Not Add Up?

Retain the source's stated total and the separate arithmetic check. Ask the publisher to explain the difference. Do not silently replace its number or guess that the mismatch proves poor performance. Limit any calculation that depends on the unresolved count until the correct scope is clear.

They can inform questions about the sponsor's experience and how prior plans unfolded. They do not establish the outcome of another property, financing plan, or investment period. Use the history alongside the actual offering review. The investor's needs, assumptions, and limits still matter.

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

ExchangeRight: Track Record. General statistics as of September 30, 2026; read October 17. Category counts and the unresolved active-count difference only, not independent verification of investment outcomes.
Inland: Our Company. Cited data as of December 31, 2025; read October 17, 2026. Program categories and the stated completion definition.
Capital Square: 47th Full-Cycle DST Announcement. July 16, 2026; read October 17. Headline count and footnote separating the February 17 aggregate record from five later completions.
SEC: Investor Bulletin on Performance Claims. September 15, 2022; read October 17, 2026. Educational guidance on methods, selection, fees, and limits of past results.
FINRA: Regulatory Notice 23-08. May 9, 2023; read October 17, 2026. Reasonable-investigation duties of recommending member firms, within the notice's scope.

What Is This Article About?

Table of Contents

Start With the Full Sponsor History