Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-1031-reviews-what-to-ask-about-lender-consent-and-transfer-conditions
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-17T23:53:05.549Z
Updated: 2026-10-17T23:53:05.549Z

# Delaware Statutory Trust 1031 Reviews: What to Ask About Lender Consent and Transfer Conditions

## What Is This Article About?

This article explains how to review the approvals and conditions that may affect a transfer of a DST interest. It shows how to connect a proposed change with the right trust, loan, and other records. A short public-document example and separate invented cases explain why one favorable response may leave other questions open. The goal is a clear request for the people who can confirm the terms, authority, and next steps.

## Table of Contents

- [Start With the Exact Action](#start-with-the-exact-action)
- [Map the Documents and Approval Roles](#map-the-documents-and-approval-roles)
- [A Limited 2026 PPM Example](#a-limited-2026-ppm-example)
- [Trace Direct and Indirect Ownership](#trace-direct-and-indirect-ownership)
- [Read Consent, Notice, and Exceptions Separately](#read-consent-notice-and-exceptions-separately)
- [Build a Transfer Conditions Register](#build-a-transfer-conditions-register)
- [Test the Timing Assumptions](#test-the-timing-assumptions)
- [Recheck Changes to an Approved Proposal](#recheck-changes-to-an-approved-proposal)
- [Review Other Actions That May Need Consent](#review-other-actions-that-may-need-consent)
- [Prepare a Useful Written Request](#prepare-a-useful-written-request)
- [Keep Approval and Completion Separate](#keep-approval-and-completion-separate)
- [FAQ](#faq)
- [About Sequoia Research](#about-sequoia-research)
- [Sources](#sources)

## Start With the Exact Action

Begin with a sentence that states who wants to do what. “Can I transfer my DST?” leaves out facts that may change the answer. A sale to a new buyer, a gift to a family member, and a change inside an entity that owns the interest are different proposals. The people reviewing them need enough detail to identify the right terms.

Include the current owner’s full legal name, the trust name, the amount involved, the proposed new owner, and the planned date. State whether the change involves all or part of the owner’s interest. Also say whether cash will change hands. These are request details, not proof that the transaction can proceed.

Delaware’s statute allows a trust’s governing instrument to limit transfers. It also places management with the trustees by default, subject to the governing instrument. The statute’s default transfer language therefore cannot establish the terms of a particular investment. Read the actual agreement and its changes. [Delaware Code, Sections 3805(d) and 3806(a)](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c038/sc01/index.html)

A useful opening might read: “Nora proposes to transfer three percentage points of Juniper Crossing DST from her eight-percent holding to Elm Family LLC. The proposed effective date is November 20. Please identify the required approvals, documents, and conditions for this exact proposal.” All names, ownership figures, and transaction dates in this case are invented.

That wording fixes a common size error. Three percentage points of the entire trust would leave Nora with a five-percent direct holding. Transferring three percent of Nora’s eight-percent holding would instead move only 0.24 percent of the trust. The recipient should not have to guess which proposal she means.

Before signing or funding a separate deal, establish what the reply covers. An incomplete question can produce an incomplete answer. An early reply may say a transfer is generally possible. Does that mean a process exists? Does this buyer qualify? Has each required party given consent? Ask which of those questions has been answered.

This review addresses the path to a decision. It does not supply legal approval, a buyer, a resale price, or a promise of liquidity. The SEC explains that private securities can be hard to resell and can carry contractual transfer limits in addition to securities-law requirements. [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)

## Map the Documents and Approval Roles

Use a document map before building a deadline list. The map should identify the records that might control each part of the proposed action. A private placement memorandum, or PPM, can point to those records. A summary may leave out definitions, exceptions, or later changes that matter to the answer.

For a review file, useful document categories include:

| Record to request or locate | Question it can help answer |
|---|---|
| Current trust agreement and amendments | Who may approve the proposed transfer, and on what terms? |
| Loan agreement and relevant amendments | Does the loan restrict this action or require a separate consent? |
| Definitions and referenced schedules | What counts as a transfer, control change, or permitted recipient? |
| Transfer procedure or application | What information must the reviewer receive? |
| Written response for the exact proposal | What has been accepted, subject to which conditions? |
| Completion and ownership records | Was the accepted transaction carried out and recorded? |

This table is a research plan. It does not assert that every DST uses the same six records or requires the same process. A missing public copy is a reason to request the record. It is not proof that the sponsor lacks it.

Keep the party that receives a request separate from the party with approval power. A sponsor’s service team may collect forms. A trust officer may decide whether the trust’s requirements are met. A loan servicer may process a lender request. Counsel may explain a clause. Those roles can overlap, but the reviewer should confirm the overlap instead of assuming it.

For each response, record the person’s role and the entity they represent. “Approved by the bank” is too vague if the file contains only a message from a service contact. Ask whether the sender can give the required approval, is relaying it, or is still preparing a submission for someone else.

Also distinguish the named lender in an old document from the current party authorized to handle the request. Do not infer the current decision maker from a logo or a familiar email address. Request a confirmed route through the existing verified contact. This avoids treating a directory search as proof of authority.

FINRA’s private-placement notice calls for care in checking issuer claims. It discusses using underlying records, including contracts. The notice addresses covered member firms. The map here helps a reader organize questions. Filling it out does not show that a firm has met its legal duties. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08)

## A Limited 2026 PPM Example

**NewStar 17 Sweetwater Springs, DST.** The February 9, 2026 PPM illustrates separate layers. Printed page 25 describes prior Administrative Trustee consent for transfers and compliance with loan restrictions among its conditions. Printed page 40 says the loan summary is qualified by the full loan documents, available on request. Printed page 41 describes conditional permission for direct or indirect interest sales, with holder-count, control, and identification provisions. Its more-than-25-percent provision concerns specified identification checks; it is not a general statement that smaller transfers need no approval. The same page separately describes prior lender approval for certain other actions, subject to loan-document exceptions. We reviewed these selected public passages, not the underlying executed loan package, amendments, or any investor’s transfer request. They do not establish current permission for a proposed transaction. [NewStar PPM, printed pages 25 and 40–41](https://pcsalts.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/NewStar-NewStar-17-Sweetwater-DST-Private-Placement-Memorandum-PPM.pdf)

The reading method is more useful than a broad label such as “transfer friendly.” One passage can identify a route that is allowed if conditions hold. Another can require a different party’s consent. Both can apply to the same proposal. Finding the favorable passage does not make the rest disappear.

Tie the open question to the source: “Which loan provision covers this proposal? Have its conditions been met? Is separate lender consent required?” Ask the trust’s authorized reviewer for the trust-level answer too. Link the two replies to the same description of the transfer.

A source limit belongs beside the conclusion. If only a PPM summary is available, label the loan conclusion as pending the underlying record or an authorized written explanation. Do not call a public search a full contract review. Equally, do not describe the absence of a public loan agreement as misconduct.

The remaining cases are invented. Their percentages, approval steps, and time estimates are not this offering’s terms. They show how to keep a review accurate when different records answer different questions.

## Trace Direct and Indirect Ownership

An ownership chart should show both the name on the trust’s records and any relevant owners behind that name. “The trust owner is unchanged” may answer one question while leaving a change inside that owner unexplained. Ask the reviewer which levels and types of control the actual documents require them to examine.

Return to the invented Juniper Crossing proposal. Nora starts with eight percent directly. She proposes moving three percentage points to Elm Family LLC while keeping five percent directly. Suppose Elm’s economic interests are sixty percent Nora and forty percent Lee. For this example, the percentages share one simple economic basis, with no special classes or unequal rights.

The proposed look-through amounts are:

| Person | Direct trust interest | Share through Elm | Combined economic share |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Nora | 5.00% | 60% × 3% = 1.80% | 6.80% |
| Lee | 0.00% | 40% × 3% = 1.20% | 1.20% |
| Combined | 5.00% | 3.00% | 8.00% |

This arithmetic describes the assumed economics. It does not decide how a real agreement counts beneficial owners, related parties, voting rights, or control. A manager with little economic ownership might hold powers that the percentage table does not show. Counsel needs the actual rights and definitions to assess those issues.

Now make a separate later change: Elm’s ownership moves from sixty–forty to fifty–fifty. Its three-percent direct trust holding stays the same. Nora’s indirect share falls from 1.80 percent to 1.50 percent. Her combined share falls from 6.80 percent to 6.50 percent, while Lee’s rises from 1.20 percent to 1.50 percent. The change is 0.30 percentage points of the trust for each person.

That second proposal deserves its own question. Do not tell the reviewer only that Elm still owns three percent. Provide the before-and-after chart and ask which indirect-transfer or control terms, if any, apply. Do not represent the arithmetic as a ruling that approval is required or unnecessary.

There is also a denominator problem in partial transfers. Nora’s proposed three-point transfer is 37.5 percent of her original eight-percent holding. Those figures describe the same transfer using different bases. A form asking for the percentage being transferred needs the intended base stated beside the number.

For each chart, add the source date and identify assumptions. If Elm’s operating agreement has not been received, label its internal rights unverified. A chart based on a family member’s recollection can guide a request, but it should not become the final proof of ownership or signing power.

## Read Consent, Notice, and Exceptions Separately

Turn important verbs into separate questions. Consent asks whether an authorized party has agreed. Notice concerns delivery of required information. Acknowledgment may confirm receipt without approving the action. A certificate may state that specified facts are true. The exact document determines the effect of each term; this vocabulary is a guide for asking precise questions.

Suppose the invented file has three records. One is a signed transfer form. Another proves a notice was delivered. The third is an email confirming receipt. None should become “lender consent” without the source and authorized reply to support that label. The records concern the same event but prove different things.

Exceptions need the same care. A sentence might describe a permitted class of recipients, followed by conditions about ownership, notice, or documents. Read the whole route. Ask which conditions remain even if the recipient fits the stated class. Being related to the seller does not, by itself, answer every contractual question.

Use a separate invented threshold example to see why exact wording matters. Suppose a training clause requires an extra information package when an identified group’s economic interest would become **more than twenty percent**. Assume the group and measurement basis have already been defined for this exercise. Its existing eighteen percent plus a proposed two percentage points equals twenty percent. That does not exceed twenty under this wording. An added 2.1 points would produce 20.1 percent and cross the stated trigger.

Change the wording to **at least twenty percent**, and the first proposal also triggers the extra package. This example concerns an information requirement only. Falling below it does not grant consent, remove another condition, or create an exemption from law. It is not a suggestion to split transactions or change ownership to avoid review.

The reviewer still needs to know whether prior transfers count, which parties are grouped, and what date controls. An accurate sum based on the wrong group can give a false answer. If the grouping rule is unclear, keep the result conditional and send the definition question to the appropriate adviser.

Finally, separate an exception from a waiver. For the review file, an exception is a route described in the governing terms. A waiver is a claimed decision not to enforce a requirement in a particular case. Ask who has authority to give the waiver, what it covers, and whether it must be written. Do not assume a past accommodation for another owner creates the same right for this one.

## Build a Transfer Conditions Register

Use one row for each condition that needs a separate answer. The row should show the condition, controlling source, responsible party, required evidence, and current status. Add the exact proposal version. A condition marked complete for one buyer may have no value for a different buyer.

In the invented Juniper file, assume counsel and the authorized reviewers identify eight rows for tracking:

| Item | Current review status | What the file still needs |
|---|---|---|
| Current seller’s identity | Supported | Retain the checked record |
| Proposed buyer’s formation record | Supported | Retain the checked record |
| Economic ownership chart | Supported | Recheck if facts change |
| Trust’s written consent | Conditional | Complete the stated signing condition |
| Loan-related review | Conditional | Complete the specified buyer information |
| Securities-law path | Open | Obtain the requested legal review |
| Effective date and ownership entry | Open | Obtain final written confirmation |
| Extra form for an unrelated action | Not applicable | Retain the stated reason and reviewer |

These are invented statuses, not findings about a real transfer. “Supported” means the named requirement has the evidence the reviewer requested for this exercise. It does not mean that the entire transaction is approved. “Conditional” means a favorable response still depends on something. “Open” means the needed conclusion or record is missing.

The count is three supported, two conditional, two open, and one not applicable. Seven rows apply. Three out of seven is not the chance of approval or a safety score. One unmet requirement can prevent the transfer from closing. Finishing several simple identity checks does not resolve that requirement.

If both conditional items later become supported, the register has five supported, two open, and one not applicable. It still has two unresolved applicable items. The record should name them rather than hide them behind a higher completion percentage.

Keep the evidence behind each status. “Legal reviewed” is not useful unless it identifies who reviewed which question, using which version. “Buyer information complete” should point to the accepted package and confirmation, not just the sender’s outbox. A checklist row without a source can drift into an unsupported conclusion.

Make each status clear to the next person who reads it. Did the owner supply a fact? Was a document received, or was it also checked? Did a party with authority make a decision? These are different states. Clear labels also help prevent repeat requests for records that have already been accepted.

## Test the Timing Assumptions

A desired transfer date is a planning input until the required steps support it. Ask what event starts any stated review period. An application sent, a fee paid, a complete package accepted, and a formal request delivered can be different dates.

Use an invented calendar example. Nora sends a first package on November 2, 2026. Missing buyer information arrives and the reviewer confirms the package complete on November 6. The reviewer estimates fifteen elapsed calendar days from that complete-package date, with the start date counted as day zero. That points to November 21. Nora’s desired date is November 20, one day earlier.

Counting from the initial November 2 email would instead produce November 17. The difference is four days because the two starting dates are four days apart. This is only the stated convention for the example. A real provision may count business days, apply a cutoff time, exclude holidays, or use a different trigger.

An estimate is not a promise. Even correct date math cannot turn “usually” into a firm deadline. Ask whether extra questions pause or restart the process. Does the estimate include final signing, recording, and confirmation? Keep each unknown part of the timing visible.

Parallel steps should not automatically be added together. Suppose, in a separate planning case, one review takes an estimated ten days and another twelve days. If both truly start together and can proceed independently, the longer path is twelve days before any later completion step. If the second cannot start until the first ends, the two estimates total twenty-two days. Neither calculation proves which process the actual parties use.

The practical question is the dependency: “Can the loan review proceed while the trust review is underway, or must one wait for the other?” Record the answer before adjusting the plan. Do the same for the final signatures and funds, if applicable.

If the proposal relates to an exchange, involve the tax adviser and qualified intermediary, the party handling the exchange process. Ask them to assess the separate tax deadlines and ownership issues. The invented review clock does not set a tax deadline. This article does not decide whether the transfer qualifies for an exchange. It also does not decide whether a pending review changes a deadline.

## Recheck Changes to an Approved Proposal

Approval should stay linked to the facts that were submitted. A changed recipient, ownership percentage, signing party, or effective date can require the response to be checked again. The right follow-up is specific: state what changed and ask whether the earlier response still applies.

Suppose version one of Nora’s proposal names Elm Family LLC as a three-percent recipient. The reviewer responds to that version. Version two instead names a different entity with the same family members behind it. The common family does not establish that the first approval covers the second legal entity. Update the map and ask for confirmation.

For version three, suppose Elm still receives the interest. But its internal economic split changes before the transfer closes. Elm’s trust holding stays at three percent. The ownership facts sent earlier have still changed. Send both charts and mark the change. Ask whether it affects any earlier condition or approval.

A clean change record has four parts: the earlier fact, the new fact, the date the change was proposed, and the response about its effect. It does not need a long narrative. Preserve the old version so a later reader can see what the first approval actually addressed.

Be careful with expiry terms. A response may name a date, require completion within a period, or depend on facts remaining true. Read the actual wording. Do not assume that an undated approval lasts forever or that a dated email expires after a standard number of days.

Changed trust or loan documents are a separate source issue. Ask whether any amendment, consent, waiver, or replacement document affects the provision used in the review. Save the answer and the relevant record. A later document’s date alone does not prove that it replaces every earlier term.

FINRA tells covered firms to consider new material developments in their private-placement review. Changed facts can matter within that notice’s scope. It does not require the version log used here. It also does not decide whether a specific transfer needs to be submitted again. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08)

## Review Other Actions That May Need Consent

An ownership transfer is only one action to examine. An investment review may raise other questions. Can the manager change? Can the trust change a major lease or add a claim on property? What if a trustee changes? Identify the exact action before asking whether “the lender permits changes.”

Keep a separate action sheet for each proposal. Permission to transfer an owner’s interest should not be treated as permission to sell the building. Permission to replace a service provider should not be treated as approval to change that provider’s contract terms. The relevant authority and conditions may differ.

Consider a separate invented case with two proposed actions. The trust would appoint a new property manager and sign a replacement agreement. The draft has a different fee and termination term. Ask which action each party has reviewed. A reply accepting the named firm may leave the contract terms open.

Then connect each action to its source. Record the trust authority for the decision, the relevant loan provision, and the proposed agreement. Ask who can submit the request and who can bind each party. Do not assume an investor can instruct the lender directly merely because the investor bears some economic exposure.

There may also be a separate tax-structure question. A favorable lender response does not establish that the trust has authority to take the action or that the action preserves the intended tax treatment. Ask the appropriate advisers to address their own areas. Avoid a broad claim that one approval cures every concern.

The useful output is a clear open question. For example: “The lender response addresses the proposed manager. Does it also cover the attached replacement agreement, version three? What separate trust limits still apply?” That can produce a more useful answer than asking whether the overall plan is fine.

## Prepare a Useful Written Request

Send a concise packet that lets each reviewer answer the question within their role. Start with the proposed action and a before-and-after chart. Add the relevant source passages, rather than a folder of unlabeled documents. State which facts are verified and which still need support.

A request for the invented transfer might include:

1. The precise trust and current owner names.
2. The proposed recipient and ownership amount, with the denominator stated.
3. The direct and indirect ownership charts before and after the change.
4. The proposed date and any external timing constraint.
5. The specific clauses or summary passages that prompted the questions.
6. The open conditions, named decision makers, and requested written responses.

This list is not a full legal submission standard. The reviewer may need other records. Ask for the required checklist. Also ask for a secure route before sending personal identification or private entity records. A public article or general email thread is not the place to collect that material.

Group questions by decision maker. The trust reviewer can identify the trust’s process. The authorized loan contact can address loan conditions. Securities counsel can assess the proposed resale path. Tax counsel can address the owner’s tax questions. A coordinator can gather the responses without pretending to supply all of them.

Ask for answers that can be checked. “Please confirm whether consent is required for this proposal and cite the controlling provision” is clearer than “Please confirm no problems.” If an answer relies on an exception, ask which facts support it and which conditions remain.

When two answers appear to conflict, place the exact statements side by side with their source dates. They may address different versions or different approvals. Ask the parties to resolve that gap. Do not choose the more favorable answer simply because it permits the desired timetable.

The SEC encourages investors to ask when and how transfer restrictions may be lifted and explains that private-placement disclosure can be limited. A careful request records what is known and seeks the missing support. It does not turn an unanswered question into proof of a defect or a promise of approval. [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)

## Keep Approval and Completion Separate

The final file should show the path from proposal to response to completion. A permission letter can be important evidence, but it does not by itself prove that every required act occurred. Check the conditions named in the response and obtain the completion records the authorized parties identify.

For Nora’s invented case, the closeout record should identify the final recipient, amount, effective date, and proposal version. It should link the consents to that same version and show how any conditions were resolved. If the transfer is still pending, keep it pending in the file.

Separate the ownership effective date from a payment date. A distribution paid after a transfer may relate to an earlier period or a stated record date. Ask who is entitled to it under the relevant terms and transaction documents. Do not use the bank deposit date alone to decide ownership rights. Delaware law allows governing instruments to set record dates for allocations and distributions. [Delaware Code, Section 3805(e)](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c038/sc01/index.html)

Also confirm which records each party will update. An amended owner register, future correspondence address, and tax-reporting information serve different purposes. One corrected address does not prove all other records changed. Save the confirmation that fits the claim being made.

If the proposal is withdrawn or rejected, record that outcome without rewriting the earlier history. Retain which issues were resolved and which were never reached. A later proposal can then start from an accurate file, while still checking whether the old evidence applies.

The final review can be brief. State the action requested and the approvals obtained. List the conditions still open and the proof of any completed steps. That is more useful than a broad label saying the investment allows transfers. It helps the investor and advisers decide what to do next. It also keeps the questions for the parties with authority in plain view.

## FAQ

### Does lender consent mean a DST transfer is fully approved?

No. Check what the lender reply covers. Have its conditions been met? Other trust, securities-law, tax, and closing questions may remain. Link each reply to the same recipient, amount, date, and version of the plan. A favorable answer in one area is not complete legal clearance.

### Is every DST ownership transfer subject to the same rules?

No. Read the specific agreements and current changes. Delaware’s transfer rule leaves room for limits in the trust’s governing terms. This article helps identify those terms. It does not create a standard policy or establish that a given transfer is allowed. [Delaware Code, Section 3805(d)](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c038/sc01/index.html)

### Can a family transfer avoid the approval process?

Family status alone does not answer the question. Ask whether the terms include an exception that fits. How is the recipient defined? What conditions remain? The recipient may fit a category and still need forms, notice, consent, or legal review. State both the family link and the legal owner’s name in the request.

### What if the owner on the DST register does not change?

Provide the proposed changes behind that owner as well. An entity’s owners, managers, or control rights may change even when its legal name stays the same. Ask which direct or indirect changes the governing terms cover. A look-through percentage table helps describe assumed economics but does not decide how the contract defines ownership or control.

### Can a PPM summary replace the loan agreement?

A summary can locate the issue and frame a useful question. If the answer depends on a loan definition, exception, amendment, or consent clause, request that support or an authorized explanation tied to it. Clearly state when only the summary was reviewed. Do not imply that the underlying executed package has been checked when it has not.

### How long does a DST transfer review take?

This article establishes no normal processing time. Ask the actual reviewer what starts the process, what makes the package complete, whether steps can overlap, and what the estimate includes. Record whether the timing is an estimate or a binding term. The invented calendar example shows why using the wrong start date can distort a plan.

### What should I retain after the review ends?

Keep the final proposal and the sources used to review it. Save the ownership charts, written replies, and proof that conditions were met. Record whether the transfer closed or was withdrawn. Keep open legal and tax questions marked open. An old approval should not become permission for a new buyer, a changed ownership plan, or a different date.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library helps readers connect investment claims and transaction questions with the records that support them.

## Sources

1. [Delaware Code, Title 12, Chapter 38](https://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c038/sc01/index.html). Current official text read October 17, 2026; Sections 3805(d)–(e) and 3806(a).
2. [NewStar 17 Sweetwater Springs, DST PPM](https://pcsalts.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/NewStar-NewStar-17-Sweetwater-DST-Private-Placement-Memorandum-PPM.pdf). February 9, 2026; selected printed pages 25 and 40–41. Public summary review only.
3. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08). May 9, 2023; covered-firm investigation, underlying documents, and new material developments.
4. [SEC, Private Placements Under Regulation D](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/private-placements-under-regulation-d-updated-investor-bulletin). August 17, 2022; updated September 21, 2026. Transfer restrictions, resale limits, disclosure, and investor questions.


## Related Reading and Tools

- [Delaware Statutory Trust Reviews: How to Compare Investor Opinions With Offering Documents](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-reviews-how-to-compare-investor-opinions-with-offering-documents)
- [1031 Crowdfunding Reviews (2026): How to Evaluate the Platform and the Underlying Offerings](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/1031-crowdfunding-reviews-2026-how-to-evaluate-the-platform-and-the-underlying-offerings)
- [Kay Properties and Investments Reviews (2026): How to Evaluate the Firm and the Specific Offering](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/kay-properties-and-investments-reviews-2026-how-to-evaluate-the-firm-and-the-specific-offering)