Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-fees-building-a-side-by-side-cost-comparison
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-17T05:44:56.599Z
Updated: 2026-10-17T05:44:56.599Z

# Delaware Statutory Trust Fees: Building a Side-by-Side Cost Comparison

## What Is This Article About?

This article shows how to build a DST cost worksheet that another reader can check. It separates the terms found in documents from the assumptions used to turn those terms into dollars. A fictional two-offering example follows entry, annual and sale costs through a shared five-year model. It also shows how to handle missing charges, overlapping payments and investor-level fees without turning a partial subtotal into a full cost claim.

## Table of Contents

- [Set the Question Before Building the Fee Table](#set-the-question-before-building-the-fee-table)
- [Use Three Connected Parts of the Worksheet](#use-three-connected-parts-of-the-worksheet)
- [Copy the Fee Rule Before Mapping Its Category](#copy-the-fee-rule-before-mapping-its-category)
- [Choose Matching Assumptions Without Changing the Contract](#choose-matching-assumptions-without-changing-the-contract)
- [Build the Upfront Cost Comparison](#build-the-upfront-cost-comparison)
- [Map Ongoing Fees to the Correct Annual Inputs](#map-ongoing-fees-to-the-correct-annual-inputs)
- [Keep Unknown Costs Visible](#keep-unknown-costs-visible)
- [Add Exit Costs Under a Stated Sale Case](#add-exit-costs-under-a-stated-sale-case)
- [Present the Selected Five-Year Cost Model](#present-the-selected-five-year-cost-model)
- [Translate the Model to an Investor Share](#translate-the-model-to-an-investor-share)
- [Separate Fees From Cash Reserves and Other Uses](#separate-fees-from-cash-reserves-and-other-uses)
- [Test Assumptions That Could Change the Comparison](#test-assumptions-that-could-change-the-comparison)
- [Review Dates, Amendments and Double Counting](#review-dates-amendments-and-double-counting)
- [Finish With a Reproducible Comparison Note](#finish-with-a-reproducible-comparison-note)
- [Frequently Asked Questions](#frequently-asked-questions)
- [About Sequoia Research](#about-sequoia-research)
- [Sources](#sources)

## Set the Question Before Building the Fee Table

A useful cost comparison starts with a narrow question. For example: what would the selected disclosed charges cost under the same five-year holding period? That question differs from asking which property will earn more, which sponsor is more capable, or which investment fits a household. Write the cost question at the top of the worksheet.

Then state what is inside the comparison. You might include selling costs, acquisition compensation, selected annual charges and stated sale fees. A complete investment budget would require more. Property operating costs, repairs, borrowing costs and taxes can matter even when they are outside a chosen fee table. A shorter list is useful if its scope is plain.

Avoid the label “all-in cost” until you can support it. The term suggests that every relevant charge has been found and modeled. One unresolved expense reimbursement can make that claim too broad. “Selected five-year fees and closing costs” gives a more precise description of the example developed here.

The SEC's July 2025 fee bulletin points readers to product documents and professional account records. Those sources answer related but separate questions. A PPM can describe offering costs, while an advisory agreement can add a charge for the investor's account. Review both levels when they apply. [SEC fee and expense bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/updated).

The worked example uses two invented offerings, Juniper and Sycamore. Every rate, amount and contract rule is a teaching assumption. These are not current offers or estimates of typical DST charges. No actual sponsor, broker or property is being ranked.

## Use Three Connected Parts of the Worksheet

Keep source records, model inputs and results in separate areas. They can live on three tabs or on three parts of a page. The separation helps readers tell a contractual fact from an estimate. It also lets you change a scenario without overwriting what the source actually said.

The source area records the fee language, document date, page and party that receives payment. The input area states the holding period, revenue, sale value and other chosen numbers. The result area calculates each cost and groups only rows that belong together. Every calculated row should point back to its source rule and input.

A compact worksheet can use these fields:

| Part | Fields to preserve | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Source record | Offering, document, date, page, original label, payer, recipient | Shows where the rule came from |
| Calculation rule | Rate or fixed amount, base, frequency, limits, trigger | Shows what creates the charge |
| Model input | Amount, period, actual or assumed status, source or reason | Shows how dollars were estimated |
| Result | Row ID, calculated amount, included group, unresolved condition | Makes the subtotal reproducible |

Give each charge a stable row ID. A selling package might be J-01 and its internal allocation J-01a. The letters are filing aids, not ratings. If you later find that two rows describe one payment, retain both source references and mark one as a component. Do not erase the evidence merely to make the total work.

Also preserve a short notes column. Some terms cannot be reduced to a rate. A fee may depend on work completed, a consent, a minimum amount or a later agreement. Recording that condition is more useful than forcing a number into every cell. The table can remain incomplete while the evidence request is specific.

## Copy the Fee Rule Before Mapping Its Category

Start with the actual rule, not your preferred category name. “Management fee” could refer to property operations, trust oversight or an investor account. The same label across two documents does not show that the services, payer or base match. Read the relevant agreement and any linked definition.

For each row, answer four plain questions. Who must pay? Who gets paid? What event or service earns the payment? What number is multiplied by the rate? These answers determine where the fee belongs. A column called “annual fees” is too broad if it combines charges paid by different entities for different periods.

Preserve the original label in one field and your comparison category in another. For example, a source may call a payment “placement compensation.” Your worksheet might group it under selling costs. Keeping both names makes it possible to find the source again and challenge your mapping without losing the original wording.

Be careful when documents refer to a larger payment and then describe how it is split. In the fictional Juniper terms, the selling package is 6% of equity. Five percentage points go to selling firms and one goes to marketing. Those two allocations are parts of the 6% total. They are not extra charges on top of it.

If the relationship is unclear, do not guess. Ask whether an amount is included in another line and request the supporting provision. FINRA's private-placement notice discusses covered firms' investigation of material claims and careful use of third-party work. This worksheet is a research aid; completing it does not establish that a firm's duties have been met. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08).

## Choose Matching Assumptions Without Changing the Contract

A shared scenario makes the calculation easier to compare. It does not make two investments identical. Use the same holding period where the question calls for it, while keeping each fee's own contractual base. Changing a property-based fee into an equity-based fee would alter the rule you are trying to study.

In this example, each offering raises $12 million of equity. Juniper buys a $30 million property, while Sycamore buys a $32 million property. Those prices are inputs for acquisition fees only. The example does not supply a full funding plan or claim that equity plus a particular loan exactly pays for either transaction.

The model holds each investment for five complete years and assumes a sale at the end of year five. It uses flat annual collected revenue of $3 million for Juniper and $3.3 million for Sycamore. Both modeled sales have a $36 million gross price. These are chosen comparison inputs, not appraisals or forecasts.

| Shared or separate input | Juniper | Sycamore |
|---|---:|---:|
| Contributed equity | $12,000,000 | $12,000,000 |
| Property purchase price | $30,000,000 | $32,000,000 |
| Annual collected revenue | $3,000,000 | $3,300,000 |
| Complete modeled years | 5 | 5 |
| Gross sale price at end | $36,000,000 | $36,000,000 |

Keep an assumptions note beside the table. Revenue does not grow, fees do not escalate, and no partial year occurs in the base case. An actual term that changes over time would need its own schedule. Equal sale prices also do not imply equal likely outcomes for different properties.

The SEC advises readers to examine performance methods and distinguish hypothetical results from actual history. The same discipline helps here: exact formulas make the scenario reproducible, but do not make its inputs likely. The fee model below does not forecast investment performance. [SEC performance-claims bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-47).

## Build the Upfront Cost Comparison

Calculate each entry charge on its own base before adding the selected rows. Juniper's 6% selling package applied to $12 million is $720,000. Its 1.5% acquisition fee applies to the $30 million property price, producing $450,000. Add an assumed $80,000 of legal and closing costs for this limited entry table.

Sycamore's selling package is 5.25% of the same equity amount, or $630,000. Its acquisition fee is 1% of its $32 million purchase price, or $320,000. The assumed legal and closing amount is $110,000. The rates and cost estimates are invented terms for this exercise.

| Selected entry row | Juniper | Sycamore |
|---|---:|---:|
| Selling package | $720,000 | $630,000 |
| Acquisition fee | $450,000 | $320,000 |
| Legal and closing estimate | $80,000 | $110,000 |
| Selected entry subtotal | $1,250,000 | $1,060,000 |

The entry difference is $190,000, with Sycamore lower under these inputs. Do not reach that result by adding the displayed fee percentages. Juniper's 6% and 1.5% apply to different amounts. Their sum, 7.5%, is not the percentage of equity consumed by the two charges.

For a separate common-scale view, divide the selected dollar subtotals by $12 million. Juniper's subtotal is about 10.42% of equity; Sycamore's is about 8.83%. Label these as calculated subtotal-to-equity measures. They are not new contractual rates or annual expense ratios.

The legal and closing rows remain estimates. Keep that status visible even though their dollars enter the model. A sum of calculated fee amounts and estimates is a modeled subtotal. It is not evidence that every cost has already been paid, or that no additional entry expenses exist.

## Map Ongoing Fees to the Correct Annual Inputs

Next build one annual row for each selected recurring charge. Juniper's property-management fee is 2.5% of collected revenue. On $3 million, it produces $75,000. Add a fixed $30,000 asset-management fee and fixed $12,000 administration fee. The selected annual subtotal is $117,000.

Sycamore's property-management fee is 2% of $3.3 million, or $66,000. Its asset-management fee is 0.25% of the fixed $12 million contributed-equity base, or $30,000. Its administration charge is reimbursement of actual costs. The source rule alone does not supply a future dollar amount for that row.

This is a useful stopping point. Juniper has a calculable $117,000 annual subtotal under the chosen inputs. Sycamore has $96,000 plus an unresolved amount. The worksheet should show that difference in evidence status. An empty cell does not mean the administrator works for free.

For the model only, assume $15,000 of annual Sycamore administration costs. Mark it as a reviewer assumption awaiting support. The modeled annual subtotal becomes $111,000. Over five flat years, the selected recurring amounts are $585,000 for Juniper and $555,000 for Sycamore.

| Selected annual cost | Juniper | Sycamore |
|---|---:|---:|
| Property management | $75,000 | $66,000 |
| Asset management | $30,000 | $30,000 |
| Administration | $12,000 fixed | $15,000 assumed reimbursement |
| Modeled annual subtotal | $117,000 | $111,000 |

An equal $30,000 result does not mean the asset-management rules are equal. One is a fixed amount and the other is based on contributed equity. The amounts match only under the defined inputs and unchanged terms. If the base or fee rule changes, keep the source distinction and update the calculation.

## Keep Unknown Costs Visible

Use clear statuses for rows that cannot yet be calculated. “Unknown amount” means the rule or forecast does not provide enough information. “Not applicable” needs a supported reason. “Zero” needs evidence that no payment is owed under the case. None of these should be inferred merely because a search found no number.

Keep the evidence view and scenario view side by side. The evidence view says Sycamore administration is actual-cost reimbursement with future dollars unresolved. The scenario view assigns $15,000 annually to test the math. A reader should be able to see the assumption without opening a hidden formula or a separate report.

The error from using zero is easy to measure here. Five years at the chosen $15,000 amount creates $75,000 of modeled costs. Omitting that row would reduce Sycamore's later five-year subtotal by $75,000. The apparent cost advantage would grow by that amount, solely because a missing input was treated as free.

A range can help when its endpoints have a stated purpose. You could test annual administration at $10,000, $15,000 and $25,000. These are sensitivity cases, not a claim about typical prices or a probable range. Their five-year amounts are $50,000, $75,000 and $125,000. Preserve all three outcomes rather than selecting the one that favors a preferred offering.

Also identify unmodeled categories that are outside the selected subtotal. A list of omissions should be specific enough to guide follow-up. If you have not reviewed loan-related costs or performance compensation, say so. “Other fees may apply” gives less help than naming the missing rules and the records needed to resolve them.

## Add Exit Costs Under a Stated Sale Case

Sale charges need a trigger and a base. A percentage of gross property sale price differs from a share of profit or a percentage of cash left after debt. Keep those measures in separate rows. Do not use one number as a substitute just because the same word, “disposition,” appears in both documents.

The fictional Juniper contract charges 1% of gross sale price. Sycamore charges 1.25%. At the shared $36 million modeled sale, the amounts are $360,000 and $450,000. Add a separate assumed $75,000 of legal and closing costs to each. In this exercise, that amount does not include either disposition fee.

Selected exit costs are therefore $435,000 for Juniper and $525,000 for Sycamore. Sycamore's exit subtotal is $90,000 higher. That result partly offsets its lower modeled entry and annual costs. The comparison becomes useful because each stage has been calculated before being combined.

The model does not calculate net sale proceeds. It omits loan payoff, taxes, other sale costs and any additional claims on the cash. An exit-fee subtotal cannot tell an investor what will arrive in a bank account. Keep that boundary in the table label and in any sentence that cites its result.

If one investment uses a profit-sharing formula that has not been supplied, leave its exit result unresolved. A fixed sale-price model would not fill that gap. You would need the exact profit definition, payment order, prior cash history and applicable thresholds. This worksheet can display an unanswered question without inventing the missing contract.

## Present the Selected Five-Year Cost Model

The combined table brings the chosen entry, recurring and exit rows together. It adds nominal dollars, which means it does not adjust for when the money is paid. Each subtotal keeps the earlier scope and assumptions. A complete cost or return analysis would require more inputs.

| Selected modeled cost over five years | Juniper | Sycamore |
|---|---:|---:|
| Entry subtotal | $1,250,000 | $1,060,000 |
| Five years of recurring costs | $585,000 | $555,000 |
| Exit subtotal | $435,000 | $525,000 |
| Total of selected rows | $2,270,000 | $2,140,000 |

The selected modeled total is $130,000 lower for Sycamore. That is the finding the table supports. It does not establish that Sycamore has lower complete costs, will earn a higher return or offers better value. The administration input and legal estimates remain assumptions; other categories remain outside the model.

Relative to the common $12 million equity amount, the totals are about 18.92% and 17.83%. Those are five-year selected-cost amounts divided by original equity. Dividing again by five would create an average annual dollar burden relative to that starting amount. It would not create a contractual annual fee or an investment return.

Do not subtract these totals from an investor's projected distributions without checking what the projections already include. If a forecast is already after property and asset-management fees, a second deduction would count them twice. The worksheet can explain costs without being an extra expense line in another model.

Save an inclusion list with the table. It should name the exact rows entering each subtotal and the assumption version used. A reader can then rebuild the $130,000 difference from the underlying records. A screenshot of the final total alone would lose the conditions that make the result meaningful.

## Translate the Model to an Investor Share

An investor may want the dollar comparison at a smaller scale. Make that step only after defining the economic share. In this separate illustration, assume a $240,000 contribution gives the investor a 2% share of all modeled costs in either offering. That is an invented allocation rule, not a universal consequence of contributing that amount.

Two percent of Juniper's $2,270,000 selected costs is $45,400. Two percent of Sycamore's $2,140,000 is $42,800. The modeled difference is $2,600 for this investor. These are allocated economic costs in the example, not extra bills to add to the subscription amount.

Investor account charges belong in their own section. Suppose a separate service agreement charges 0.5% annually on a fixed $240,000 base for all five years. It has no offsets in this example and is additional to the selected offering costs. That creates $1,200 a year, or $6,000 over the model period.

If that same account arrangement applies to both choices, their expanded selected amounts become $51,400 and $48,800. The difference stays $2,600, but the total burden is higher in each case. Equal costs can be irrelevant to the difference while still mattering to the household budget.

The SEC explains that Form CRS covers a firm's services, costs and conflicts, while the agreement determines the actual service relationship. Use those records to establish whether an account fee applies and what base it uses. Do not assume every DST buyer pays an annual advisory charge. [SEC Form CRS guide](https://www.investor.gov/CRS).

## Separate Fees From Cash Reserves and Other Uses

A cost table needs to distinguish payment for services from money retained for future uses. Suppose an offering sets aside $500,000 in cash reserves at closing. That allocation is not automatically $500,000 of sponsor compensation. It remains a resource subject to its ownership, spending rules and later use.

If the reserve later pays a $40,000 fee, record the fee when relevant to the cost model and record the movement in a separate cash ledger. Do not count both the original $500,000 reserve allocation and the later $40,000 payment as fees. That would mix a funding source with an expense funded from it.

The same need for clear categories applies to principal repayment. Paying down a loan uses cash but also reduces the debt balance. It should not silently become an asset-management charge. Interest, loan fees and principal each have their own role in the wider financial model. The selected fee comparison here does not calculate them.

Nor should a property purchase price enter the fee total merely because it is large. The price can be the base for a fee without being that fee. Juniper's $30 million purchase-price input creates a $450,000 acquisition fee under the invented rule. Adding both would answer a different funding question.

A practical worksheet can maintain two linked views: selected costs and overall sources and uses. The cost view answers what the defined charges amount to. The funding view shows where transaction money goes and how later bills are paid. Matching row IDs help you connect them without merging unlike categories.

## Test Assumptions That Could Change the Comparison

Test the uncertain inputs before presenting the cost gap as durable. Sycamore's assumed administration cost is a natural starting point. Its $15,000 annual input creates the base-case $130,000 advantage. Raising that input by $26,000 a year adds $130,000 over five years and eliminates the selected gap.

Thus $41,000 of annual Sycamore administration makes the two selected totals equal in this narrow model. That is a mathematical threshold, not a forecast or a fee cap. It also does not mean administration is the only unknown that matters. Any change to omitted costs could affect a wider comparison.

Try a longer period as a separate case. Keep every entry and exit input unchanged, hold annual fees flat, and extend the model from five to eight complete years. Juniper adds $351,000 of recurring fees; Sycamore adds $333,000. Their selected totals become $2,621,000 and $2,473,000. The gap becomes $148,000.

That exercise isolates three additional years of selected fees. It does not estimate three years of net income, financing risk or property value. It does not establish that either investment can be sold at the chosen time. The SEC notes that private placements can be hard to resell and may need to be held indefinitely. [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).

Change one assumption at a time before combining changes. Otherwise, a larger final subtotal may be hard to explain. Keep a short bridge that identifies the change, the affected rows and the resulting dollar difference. A scenario table should show the reason for a result, not just a collection of totals.

## Review Dates, Amendments and Double Counting

A comparison needs a document cutoff and a version history. If a later amendment changes a fee, record its effective date and scope. Do not apply a new rule to an earlier period unless the amendment does so. Keep the superseded source in the archive with a clear status.

Consider a separate amendment example, unrelated to Juniper or Sycamore. An annual fee is $30,000 for nine months, then $45,000 for three months. Assume the agreement expressly prorates by month. The modeled year costs $22,500 plus $11,250, or $33,750. Applying the new rate to all twelve months would overstate this year's amount by $11,250.

Review the payment chain as well. Juniper's $720,000 selling package includes $600,000 for selling firms and $120,000 for marketing. Counting the package and both components would produce $1,440,000 instead of $720,000. The worksheet should retain the component rows for transparency while excluding them from the additional-cost subtotal.

Finally, check whether a stated fee is earned, paid, deferred or waived. These are different statuses. A payment delay can change the cash calendar while leaving an obligation intact. A waiver may have conditions. Copy the relevant terms and show their effect before treating either as a reduction in total modeled costs.

These checks are easiest while the source record is still open. A reviewer should be able to move from a subtotal to the row, then to the page and applicable date. If that chain breaks, label the figure provisional and request the missing support.

## Finish With a Reproducible Comparison Note

The final note should state the result and its boundaries in one place. For this example: Sycamore has $130,000 less in selected modeled five-year costs, using the same $12 million equity scale and $36 million sale price. The calculation assumes $15,000 of yearly Sycamore administration and the stated closing-cost estimates. It excludes the wider investment budget and does not compare returns.

Attach three things: the row list, the assumptions and the unresolved questions. Name who will answer each question and which source could resolve it. A request for the administration expense history is more useful than a request to “confirm the total.” It identifies the uncertain input instead of inviting a general endorsement.

Before sharing, ask another reader to reproduce a few rows without your help. They should find the same base, period and inclusion rule. A different answer may reveal an unclear label, a duplicated payment or a hidden assumption. Resolve the cause and preserve the change in the version note.

A sound comparison can end with a limited conclusion. It can identify which selected costs are higher, which rules differ and which inputs need evidence. Those findings are useful even when they do not produce a winning offering. The worksheet's value lies in making the comparison checkable.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### Can I compare DST fees by adding the percentages in the PPM?

Only when the percentages apply to the same base and represent separate charges. A fee on equity and a fee on property price cannot be added into one meaningful rate without conversion. Calculate their dollars first, then state any common base used to display the subtotal.

### What should a blank fee cell mean?

It should have an explicit status. The amount may be unknown, the fee may not apply, or a supported rule may make it zero. Those meanings differ. Leave the result unresolved when the evidence is missing, and keep any modeling assumption in a separate field.

### Is a lower five-year fee total proof of a better DST?

No. It is a result for the defined costs and assumptions. Property quality, debt, operating results, exit terms and personal needs remain separate questions. A lower subtotal also may reflect missing categories. State what was included before drawing a wider conclusion.

### Should I count selling compensation again when it is paid to the broker?

Not if that payment is an allocation from a selling package already counted. Follow the source terms to distinguish the original charge from the recipient's share. Keep both records for clarity, but add only distinct costs. An unresolved payment relationship needs further evidence.

### Can I subtract the worksheet total from projected distributions?

First check which costs the forecast already includes. Subtracting included charges again would understate the result. The worksheet is a cost explanation, not automatically an additional deduction. Reconcile each relevant row to the forecast before combining the models.

### How should a longer hold enter the comparison?

Extend the schedule under the applicable fee rules and state what else stays fixed. Include escalators or other changes when supported. A longer fee schedule alone does not model extra income, debt changes or sale value. Keep that limited time test separate from a full delayed-exit analysis.

### What should I save with the final cost table?

Save the source pages, dates, row rules, assumptions, inclusion list and unresolved questions. Keep the version used to produce the result. This record lets another reader reproduce the numbers and update them when a term changes. A total without its inputs is hard to verify.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This library connects source documents, clearly stated examples and practical questions to support informed research into real estate investments.

## Sources

- [SEC How Fees and Expenses Affect Your Investment Portfolio](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/updated), July 23, 2025. Product and professional cost records and the importance of understanding fee scope.
- [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08), May 9, 2023. Covered-firm investigation of material representations and careful review of third-party analysis.
- [SEC Performance Claims](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-47), September 15, 2022. Method, included costs and hypothetical-versus-actual distinctions.
- [SEC Form CRS guide](https://www.investor.gov/CRS), undated current page inspected October 16, 2026. Services, costs and conflicts in relationship summaries; agreement-specific service scope.
- [SEC Private Placements Under Regulation D](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/private-placements-under-regulation-d-updated-investor-bulletin), originally August 17, 2022; displayed update September 21, 2026. Illiquidity and potentially indefinite holding periods.

Sources inspected October 16, 2026. Juniper, Sycamore and all other numerical examples are fictional. The worksheet is an original research method, not a regulator-prescribed form or a current market fee survey.


## Related Reading and Tools

- [Delaware Statutory Trust Fees: All-In Fee Timeline Calculator](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-fees-all-in-fee-timeline-calculator)
- [Delaware Statutory Trust Fees: Fee-Basis Converter](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-fees-fee-basis-converter)
- [Delaware Statutory Trust Returns: Why Distribution Rates Are Only Part of the Story](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-returns-why-distribution-rates-are-only-part-of-the-story)