Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/best-dst-brokers-2026-a-selection-framework-for-investors-seeking-a-second-opinion
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-18T07:42:15.214Z
Updated: 2026-10-18T07:42:15.214Z

# Best DST Brokers (2026): A Selection Framework for Investors Seeking a Second Opinion

## What Is This Article About?

This article explains how to choose a professional to review a Delaware statutory trust (DST) recommendation you have already received. It separates a document check, a personal investment recommendation, and help finding another option. Selected public service descriptions show why the promised scope and payment terms need a close read. Original examples show how to compare two opinions, work through disagreements, and keep unanswered questions visible.

## Table of Contents

- [Define the DST Second Opinion You Need](#define-the-dst-second-opinion-you-need)
- [Compare Public Service Claims With the Actual Assignment](#compare-public-service-claims-with-the-actual-assignment)
- [Check the Reviewer’s Role and Financial Incentives](#check-the-reviewers-role-and-financial-incentives)
- [Give Both Reviewers the Same Evidence](#give-both-reviewers-the-same-evidence)
- [Separate Facts, Assumptions, and Personal Fit](#separate-facts-assumptions-and-personal-fit)
- [Reconcile Conflicting DST Income and Value Models](#reconcile-conflicting-dst-income-and-value-models)
- [Compare Alternatives Beyond the Replacement Sales Pitch](#compare-alternatives-beyond-the-replacement-sales-pitch)
- [Test What a Diversification Recommendation Changes](#test-what-a-diversification-recommendation-changes)
- [Plan the Review Around Real Deadlines](#plan-the-review-around-real-deadlines)
- [Ask for a Written Disagreement Record](#ask-for-a-written-disagreement-record)
- [Choose a Reviewer Without Inventing a Quality Score](#choose-a-reviewer-without-inventing-a-quality-score)
- [Use the Second Opinion Without Outsourcing the Decision](#use-the-second-opinion-without-outsourcing-the-decision)
- [FAQ](#faq)

## Define the DST Second Opinion You Need

A useful second opinion starts with a clear question. Asking someone to look over a deal leaves too much room for different expectations. One person may check the summary page. Another may compare the investment with your broader finances. A third may offer a different DST to buy. Each is a different assignment.

Write the decision in one sentence. Do this before you contact a reviewer. For example: I need to understand whether the loan and cash-flow risks in this proposed DST fit my need for reliable spending money. That question tells the reviewer what matters. It leaves room for an answer you did not expect.

Then name the investment exactly. Include the trust name and offering version. Add the proposed amount, class of interest, and date of the advice. A sponsor may have several products with similar names. A review of one product does not automatically cover another product from the same sponsor.

### Decide Whether You Need Education or a Recommendation

A plain-language explanation can help you read documents. It may not include a judgment about whether you should invest. To recommend an investment, the reviewer needs to understand it. They also need to understand your situation. A tax or legal question may require a different professional with a separate assignment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) explains that brokers and investment advisers can provide advice, but their services depend on the agreement. Form CRS, the relationship summary, describes services, costs, conflicts, and reportable history. Read it with the proposed engagement terms to understand what relationship is being offered. [SEC relationship-summary guide](https://www.investor.gov/CRS)

Create a short list of requested outputs. You might want a document list with notes and a comparison of assumptions. Add a written response to five concerns and a meeting to discuss the result. State what falls outside the job as well. A clear boundary makes a limited review useful rather than misleading.

Do not demand agreement with your first broker. Do not demand rejection either. Both requests turn a review into a search for a preferred answer. Ask what the evidence supports. Then ask what remains unknown and what could change the conclusion.

## Compare Public Service Claims With the Actual Assignment

Public pages can help you find possible review services. They do not show that a provider has accepted your file. They also do not prove the firm can meet your timing or has examined the offering. The following examples are selected service descriptions read on October 18, 2026. They are not a ranking or a test of delivered work.

Encore Retirement Planning’s DST service page says it reviews up to ten investments, explains private placement memoranda, tests financial models, and examines third-party reports. It says the client receives a written report for each option. These are the provider’s descriptions; no completed client report or private review process was inspected for this article. [Encore DST services](https://encoreretire.com/dst-1031-exchange/)

Its separate pricing page lists a specialized 1031 exchange and DST consulting service at $25,000, with $10,000 at engagement and $15,000 on transaction completion. It describes a broader offering-review scope there. The two pages should not be treated as a single personal quote. Ask which scope, price, and completion terms apply to your proposed engagement. [Encore pricing](https://encoreretire.com/flat-pricing/)

Apollo Advising’s current homepage describes hourly rental-property consulting. It says investment advice, including DST advice, is offered only through Nashional Independent Investment Management LLC under a separate agreement. An older search preview grouped DSTs among Apollo’s strategies; the live page makes the service boundary clearer. These are attributed statements, not our verification of the affiliate’s registration or services. [Apollo service overview](https://www.apolloadvising.com/)

### Turn Each Claim Into a Scope Question

Ask a candidate what review means in the agreement you would sign. Does the work include the full offering package and model formulas? What about updated documents or files you have not supplied? Who writes the report? Will the reviewer explain disagreements with another professional? Are follow-up questions part of the price?

The examples above also show why a search for the best DST brokers can lead to different kinds of providers. A rental-property consultant, an investment adviser, and a selling broker are not interchangeable roles. We have not classified the named providers as equivalent brokers or verified their authority for your state and service.

Keep marketing claims in one column and confirmed engagement terms in another. Add a third column for delivered work after the engagement begins. An advertised skill is not a task already completed. This record also gives you a concrete basis for asking about a missing deliverable.

## Check the Reviewer’s Role and Financial Incentives

A different opinion is not automatically an independent opinion. Two people may rely on the same report. They may receive pay from related sources or gain if you move the transaction. That does not make their views wrong. It makes the source of payment and the scope of the review relevant.

Ask who pays for the review and what changes if you buy, decline, or choose another investment. Include direct fees, transaction-based compensation, referrals, and ongoing service charges where they apply. Have the professional identify the legal firm responsible for the work. A team name or website name is not enough.

The SEC’s Ask Questions page stresses understanding an investment and its risks before buying it. It points readers to interview questions and relationship-summary conversation starters. It also says to press for an explanation when information is missing. Apply that principle to the review itself: ask the provider to explain the proposed work in terms you understand. [SEC questions for investment professionals](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/getting-started/working-investment-professional/ask-questions)

### Map the Payment Triggers

Consider three invented service offers. Reviewer A charges a fixed $1,800 to examine a defined packet, whether or not you transact. Reviewer B charges no separate review fee but may receive compensation if you purchase through the firm. Reviewer C charges $900 initially and $1,100 if you proceed with an offered service. These are examples, not market quotes.

For C, both amounts may become due. The listed total is then $2,000. The initial charge alone is not the full price. For B, a zero separate invoice does not establish that the broader relationship has no cost. For A, a fixed fee does not prove expertise, thorough work, or freedom from every other incentive.

If the proposed investment is $250,000, A’s $1,800 fee equals 0.72% of that amount. That ratio explains scale only. It does not tell you whether the fee is reasonable or whether the review prevents a loss. Compare the work promised and the skills needed. Read the terms for changes in scope.

Ask whether the reviewer can reach a supported conclusion that produces no new transaction for that firm. Get the answer before the work begins. A service designed only to compare products sold by the reviewer may still provide information, but its limits should be plain.

## Give Both Reviewers the Same Evidence

Two opinions can differ because the reviewers read different files. That is a version problem before it is a judgment problem. Build one dated packet and list what it contains. Keep the original recommendation alongside the source documents that supported it.

Use full file names, document dates, and page references. A private placement memorandum, or PPM, is the main offering document in many private offerings. Keep its supplements and relevant exhibits with it. If you have only excerpts, label them as excerpts. Do not let a short file appear to be the full package.

The SEC’s private-placement bulletin, updated September 21, 2026, explains that private offerings can provide less information than registered offerings. It highlights illiquidity and the potential for total loss. A second review does not erase those risks or create documents that are unavailable. Its report should state what evidence was missing. [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 a Packet Change Log

In an invented case, the original recommendation used an August 12 PPM and an August 18 model. The second reviewer receives a September 4 supplement. Record the supplement as a new input. Give the first professional a chance to respond. Ask whether it changes the earlier view. Comparing the old and new conclusions without that step creates a false disagreement.

Suppose your packet lists twelve needed files. You have nine, but one is an older version and one covers a different trust. Only seven meet the stated need. Seven divided by twelve is 58.33%, rounded. Calling the packet 75% complete because nine files arrived would hide the two mismatches.

Even the 58.33% figure is only a filing measure. The five missing items may include the most important document. List them by name and explain which question each affects. Do not let a percentage stand in for the reviewer’s judgment about what can be concluded.

Handle sensitive files through an agreed channel. Share what is needed for the assignment and confirm who may access it. Keep the reviewer’s receipt separate from the report itself. A file arriving safely does not show that someone read or understood it.

## Separate Facts, Assumptions, and Personal Fit

Ask each professional to label the type of statement being made. A fact is a claim about an existing condition that should have support. An assumption is an input used to explore a possible outcome. A personal-fit judgment connects the investment to your needs and constraints.

For example, a stated loan maturity belongs in the factual column, with the loan source and date. A future refinancing rate belongs in the assumption column unless it is tied to an actual binding arrangement within its scope. Whether the risk is acceptable for you belongs in the personal-fit column.

A second reviewer may agree with the loan date. They may still choose a different future rate. That is not necessarily a factual correction. They may agree with every model input. They may still disagree about how much illiquid property fits your needs. That is a separate judgment worth discussing directly.

### Classify the Disagreement Before Debating It

Use four labels: different source, different interpretation, different assumption, or different investor priority. Add unresolved when the cause is unclear. The goal is to find what would settle the issue or explain why reasonable views may remain different.

In an original example, one report says the household has $90,000 available for near-term spending. Another says $55,000. The difference is $35,000. Before debating investment strategy, find out whether one reviewer counted money set aside for an upcoming expense. The two reports may use different definitions of available cash.

If both use the same balance but one expects higher spending, record that assumption separately. Do not average the two cash figures to $72,500 and call the conflict resolved. An average can be arithmetically correct while failing to answer the underlying question.

A good reviewer should be able to explain which category matters most to the conclusion. You can then seek the missing source, clarify the term, or decide which personal priority is yours. This keeps a disagreement from becoming a contest over who sounds more certain.

## Reconcile Conflicting DST Income and Value Models

A second opinion should make model differences traceable. Start with the same period, units, definitions, and starting balance. Check whether both models show property income, cash after debt payments, or cash expected to reach investors. Those amounts answer different questions.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) May 9, 2023 private-placement notice discusses reasonable investigation and careful use of third-party reports. It tells members to consider the third party’s independence, incentives, and qualifications. It also discusses checking material claims and following up on concerns. This is guidance about member obligations, not a certification of a second-opinion service. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08)

### Rebuild One Difference at a Time

Use an original simplified property example. Model A assumes $1.20 million of annual revenue and $480,000 of operating costs. That leaves $720,000 before debt payments and other items. Model B assumes $1.14 million of revenue and $500,000 of costs. Its comparable amount is $640,000.

The $80,000 difference has two parts: $60,000 less revenue and $20,000 more cost. That is more useful than saying B is more cautious. Ask what supports each changed input. A lower estimate is not automatically better supported merely because it is lower.

If both models then subtract $500,000 of annual debt payments, their simplified balances are $220,000 and $140,000. A further assumed $40,000 reserve contribution leaves $180,000 and $100,000. Neither number is automatically an investor distribution. Other expenses, reserves, and legal terms may affect what can be paid.

### Avoid Blending Incompatible Valuations

In the same fictional exercise, dividing $720,000 by a 6% capitalization rate produces a $12 million value. Dividing $640,000 by 6.5% produces about $9.846 million. A capitalization rate is an income-to-value ratio used here as a simplifying assumption. These calculations are not appraisals or forecasts for a real property.

The difference is about $2.154 million. It comes from both the income change and the rate change. Averaging the two values would hide those drivers. Ask each reviewer to show the effect of changing one input while holding the other fixed.

Then carry the model only as far as its evidence allows. Property value does not equal investor sale proceeds. Debt, selling costs, other obligations, and the investor’s interest must be addressed before making that leap. If those inputs are missing, the second opinion should stop short of a personal payout estimate.

## Compare Alternatives Beyond the Replacement Sales Pitch

A second professional may recommend a different investment. Ask them to explain the problem that replacement solves. A new sponsor name alone does not explain why the proposed alternative fits the concern better. The answer should connect to a stated need, risk, cost, or constraint.

Keep two decisions separate: whether the first recommendation is adequately supported, and whether the replacement is adequately supported. A weakness in the first proposal does not prove the second proposal is sound. Each needs its own evidence, scope, and account terms.

### Define the Comparison Set

In a fictional review, a firm lists eight possible DSTs but can currently offer only five. It has reviewed documents for four, and two meet the investor’s stated timing and minimum investment constraints. The relevant counts are eight listed, five available through the firm, four documented, and two within those constraints.

Do not call that an eight-option comparison without explaining the limits. The eight may be a starting list, while the final review includes only two. It is also possible that a documented option fails a constraint. Keep the steps explicit rather than assuming each number is a nested subset unless the file supports it.

Ask whether the review can discuss broader choices even if the firm cannot sell them. The answer may be limited by the service agreement and the professional’s role. Record those limits without treating them as proof that the firm is poor or that an outside choice is superior.

A meaningful comparison can also identify what is not yet ready for a decision. That may involve waiting for a missing document, seeking separate tax advice, or revisiting the purpose of the transaction. Whether any delay or different path is possible depends on the real facts and deadlines. A research preference cannot override them.

## Test What a Diversification Recommendation Changes

A second opinion may suggest dividing money among more DSTs. Count the investments, but also examine the exposures beneath them. More line items do not necessarily produce less exposure to the same sponsor, market, tenant, lender, or property type.

Use an invented $400,000 allocation. Proposal A places all $400,000 in one trust. Proposal B divides it into four $100,000 interests. The largest trust share drops from 100% to 25%. That is a change in trust-level concentration, not a complete measure of portfolio risk.

Suppose three of B’s trusts have the same documented sponsor group. That group still accounts for $300,000, or 75%, of the allocation. If two trusts share the same tenant exposure, that issue needs a separate review. Do not add sponsor and tenant percentages together as if they were separate dollars.

### Check the Denominator and the Relationship Evidence

If the household already has $200,000 invested with that sponsor group outside the new allocation, the broader original-equity total becomes $600,000. The group’s amount becomes $500,000, or 83.33%, rounded. The new-allocation view and the broader view answer different questions.

These figures use original contributed equity for a simple comparison. They are not current values and do not measure future loss. If one holding’s amount or sponsor relationship is unknown, show the gap. Do not make the unresolved exposure disappear by dropping it from the total.

Ask which exposure the change aims to reduce. Ask which exposures remain. A proposal may improve one part. Another part may stay the same. It may also add costs, paperwork, or small positions that the investor finds hard to follow. The written opinion should explain the tradeoff in terms you can use.

The point is not to demand a particular number of DSTs. It is to test the reason given for the allocation. A clear explanation names the relevant exposure, the evidence behind the grouping, and the limits of the calculation.

## Plan the Review Around Real Deadlines

A second review takes time to obtain documents, read them, ask questions, and respond to changes. Ask for a realistic schedule. Get it before you pay for a service. Define what starts the clock: an introductory call, a signed agreement, or receipt of a complete packet.

Keep the review schedule separate from legal, tax, subscription, and funding deadlines. Confirm those deadlines with the responsible professionals and current documents. A reviewer’s promised delivery date does not extend them. This article does not calculate an exchange deadline or determine whether an alternative remains available.

### Make Time for an Incomplete First Answer

In an invented calendar, a packet arrives Monday morning. The reviewer proposes two working days for the first read, one for questions, and two for a response after answers arrive. That is five working days of planned activity only if the handoffs occur without delay. It is not a guarantee of a Friday conclusion.

If the requested documents arrive the following Monday, the earlier plan no longer describes the real sequence. Update the dates instead of keeping an optimistic promise in the file. Record which questions can be answered now and which depend on the missing material.

Agree on what happens if the work cannot be completed in time. Can the reviewer issue a limited findings memo? Will the fee change? Which parts remain unfinished? A limited memo can be useful when it states its limits clearly. It should not carry a broad approval label over an unfinished analysis.

Urgency can also affect the quality of the discussion. Leave time to ask why the reviewer reached the conclusion. Receiving a long report just before a deadline is not the same as understanding it. Build the explanation meeting into the engagement rather than treating it as an optional extra.

## Ask for a Written Disagreement Record

When two professionals disagree, ask for a record organized by issue. It should name the original statement and the second reviewer’s view. Add the evidence each used and the next step. Avoid a report that merely replaces one confident summary with another.

An original comparison might look like this:

| Review issue | Original view | Second view | What would help resolve it |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Available household cash | Includes a reserved amount | Excludes that amount | Agree on the spending reserve definition |
| Future revenue | Uses higher rent growth | Uses lower rent growth | Compare dated support and test both inputs |
| Loan extension | Treats it as likely | Treats it as conditional | Read the actual terms and conditions |
| Sponsor exposure | Counts only new money | Includes existing holdings | Choose and label the portfolio scope |

The rows are teaching examples. They do not describe a named broker or offering. Notice that some disagreements can be resolved by a document, while others require a judgment or a clearer definition. The record should make that difference visible.

### Count Resolved Issues Carefully

Suppose six concerns were raised. Three are resolved with evidence, two have replies that do not settle the concern, and one has no reply. Five received some response, so the response rate is 83.33%, rounded. Only three are resolved, so the resolution rate is 50%.

Neither rate measures investment quality. The unanswered item may be decisive. Put the most important unresolved question near the conclusion, with the reason it matters. Do not bury it beneath a favorable completion percentage.

A professional may change a view after seeing new evidence. Preserve the old and new reasons. A revision can show careful work. The key is whether the change is explained and supported. An opinion that never changes is not automatically stronger than one that responds to better information.

## Choose a Reviewer Without Inventing a Quality Score

Choose a service that can do the work you need. Check its role, evidence limits, cost, and timing. A numerical ranking can hide a missing essential task. Use clear requirements first, then compare the details that matter among candidates who can meet them.

In an invented selection, Candidate A can explain the PPM and review a model but will not issue a personal recommendation. Candidate B can provide a personal recommendation but will not examine an outside model. Candidate C offers both within a confirmed engagement. These are assumed offers for illustration, not claims about real firms.

If your essential need is a model review, B’s other strengths do not fill that gap. If you only need help understanding the documents, A may cover the defined assignment. C’s broader scope may be useful, but breadth alone does not prove better work or justify every price.

### Read a Sample for Method, Not for Reassurance

If a provider can share an appropriate sample, look at how it separates facts from assumptions and tracks unresolved issues. Does the reader know which documents were examined? Can you trace an important number? Does the conclusion match the limits stated earlier?

A sample may be redacted or based on an invented case. That is acceptable if the status is clear. It cannot prove how your own file will be handled. Use it to discuss the method and agree on deliverables, then assess the work actually received against those terms.

Also ask who will do the work. Find out who handles later questions. A strong first meeting with one person does not establish that the same person will write the report. Record the responsible professional, expected handoffs, and procedure for correcting errors in the final document.

## Use the Second Opinion Without Outsourcing the Decision

At the end, bring the review back to the original question. Did it explain the risk you were worried about? Did it uncover a factual error, identify a missing document, or clarify a tradeoff? A useful second opinion can improve the decision even when it does not supply a simple yes or no.

Write a short decision note in your own words. State what you understand, which facts support it, and what remains uncertain. Identify any specialist question still open. If you cannot explain a central conclusion, ask for a clearer explanation before treating the report as finished.

Keep the second reviewer’s conclusion separate from your action. A report may recommend further work. You may choose not to proceed. A new document may require both opinions to be revisited. Record the actual next step rather than marking every completed report as approval to invest.

### Preserve a File That Can Be Reviewed Later

Save the agreed scope, payment terms, source packet, questions, responses, and final report together. Add the date of your decision and any conditions you relied on. This is a record of what was known at that time, not a promise about future performance.

If the offering changes before you act, ask whether the review still applies. A new loan term or fee can affect the earlier reasoning. So can a changed allocation or new supplement. The professional should identify the parts that need updating. A prior report’s date matters because the underlying facts can change.

The best DST brokers for a second-opinion assignment cannot be chosen from a slogan alone. The useful comparison is whether a specific professional can examine the defined question, explain the evidence, disclose incentives, and document the remaining limits. That process helps you judge the work without mistaking another opinion for certainty.

## FAQ

### Does a Second Opinion Mean I Should Replace My Current Broker?

No. It can clarify a question while you keep the existing relationship. Define whether the new professional is providing education, a separate recommendation, or transaction services. A useful result may confirm part of the original reasoning while identifying a gap. Decide what to do with that finding rather than assuming every review requires a move.

### Is a Free DST Second Opinion Truly Free?

Ask what no separate charge covers and how the provider is paid if you later act. A review may be part of a sales or advisory relationship with other costs. The absence of an upfront bill does not establish either poor advice or freedom from incentives. Compare the complete arrangement and the work promised.

### Should Two Reviewers Reach the Same DST Conclusion?

Not always. They may use different documents, assumptions, or views of your needs. Start with the reason for the difference. A mismatch of facts calls for source checking. A difference in future assumptions calls for explanation and sensitivity work. Agreement matters less than being able to trace each conclusion and understand its limits.

### Can a Second Reviewer Verify Every Claim in a PPM?

Do not assume that. Ask which claims the assignment covers, which source documents are available, and what cannot be checked. Reading a statement is different from independently confirming it. The final report should identify important limits instead of implying that a complete-looking packet proves every underlying fact.

### What If the Reviewer Recommends a DST the Firm Sells?

Ask how that alternative addresses your stated concern, how the firm is paid, and what comparison set was used. Evaluate the replacement on its own evidence. A criticism of the first proposal does not establish that another proposal is suitable for you. Keep the review findings and the replacement recommendation distinct.

### How Much Time Should I Allow for the Review?

Get a schedule tied to the actual scope and receipt of the needed documents. Include time for follow-up questions and changes. A provider’s estimate cannot determine or extend your transaction deadlines. If the available time is short, have the reviewer state which work can be finished and which questions will remain open.

### Does This Article Recommend the Named Service Providers?

No. Their public pages illustrate differences in advertised scope and payment terms. We did not hire them, inspect private client reports, verify all service claims, or rank their work. Confirm the legal firm, role, authority, current agreement, cost, and deliverables for your own proposed assignment before relying on a service description.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research publishes educational research about DST investments, sponsors, brokers, and investment review methods. Our articles separate source-backed statements from original examples and keep missing evidence visible. This article does not provide a personalized investment recommendation, tax opinion, or legal determination.

## Sources

- [SEC relationship-summary guide](https://www.investor.gov/CRS). Current official guidance read October 18, 2026; relationship scope only.
- [Encore DST services](https://encoreretire.com/dst-1031-exchange/). Undated provider description read October 18, 2026; advertised work, not tested delivery.
- [Encore pricing](https://encoreretire.com/flat-pricing/). Undated provider pricing read October 18, 2026; no personal quote or fee-payment tax conclusion.
- [Apollo service overview](https://www.apolloadvising.com/). Undated provider description read October 18, 2026; no classification as a broker.
- [SEC questions for investment professionals](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/getting-started/working-investment-professional/ask-questions). Current official interview guidance read October 18, 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). Updated September 21, 2026; limited disclosure, illiquidity, and loss risks.
- [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08). May 9, 2023; member investigation and third-party report context, read October 18, 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)
- [1031 Exchange DST Brokers: What They Do During the Exchange Process](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/1031-exchange-dst-brokers-what-they-do-during-the-exchange-process)