Research guide

Delaware Statutory Trust Horror Stories (2026): How to Compare Reported Losses With the Underlying Records

By Sequoia ResearchPublished Read as Markdown

What Is This Article About?

This article explains how to test a reported Delaware statutory trust loss against the records behind the number. It compares three public record examples available in October 2026, including a pending claim, a settled income complaint, and a dated recovery account. Those sources do not provide complete investor cash histories or enough valuation evidence to audit final lifetime losses. Separate worked examples show how to distinguish a smaller payment, an estimated value decline, sale proceeds, and money later recovered.

Table of Contents

Start by Defining the Reported DST Loss

A loss figure needs a label before it needs a calculator. Someone may have received less income than expected. Another person may have a lower value on a statement. A third may have sold an interest and received less cash than originally invested. All three can describe a painful result. They measure different things.

Start with the exact sentence that drew your attention. Write down who made the statement, what investment it covers, its date, and the stated dollar amount. Then ask what was subtracted from what. If the answer is unclear, the figure is not yet ready for comparison.

For example, a change from $1,250 to $750 a month measures a payment cut. A change from $250,000 to a $175,000 estimate measures a value mark. Neither calculation includes the full history of money received. A sale statement brings another set of facts, including closing costs and debt paid off before owners receive cash.

Keep these categories separate:

Reported figure What it measures What it does not establish alone
Payment shortfall Cash below a stated payment baseline Final investment loss
Lower estimated value A change in a dated value estimate A completed sale price
Net sale proceeds Cash left for an owner after specified closing uses All cash received over the holding period
Alleged damages A claim made in a dispute An amount proved or paid
Settlement amount A reported resolution amount The owner's complete investment result
Recovery received Money collected from a recovery process That all future claims are finished

These labels do not minimize harm. They make it possible to explain the harm accurately. A household may struggle with a payment cut even if a later sale restores its capital. A favorable sale cannot retroactively pay bills that came due years earlier.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's performance bulletin asks readers to examine calculation methods, included fees, and hypothetical projections. That same discipline is useful when examining a negative result. A precise loss claim needs a clear method just as a strong return claim does. SEC, Performance Claims.

Three Public Record Examples Available in 2026

The following sample is deliberately limited. It compares what three source records actually report and which financial questions they leave open. It is not a loss survey, a ranking of firms, or a finding that the cases share a cause.

A pending claim is still an alleged amount

Dean Patrick McDermott's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure report lists a DST dispute, case 26-00555, with $227,000 in alleged damages. The selected entry reports service on March 19, 2026 and says the arbitration is pending. His statement denies wrongdoing and identifies him as a firm principal rather than the claimant's broker of record. The report summary says its information was last updated April 21, 2026. We read it on October 17; that retrieval date does not prove a later case update. The entry supplies neither a complete payment ledger nor an owner-level value calculation. The figure therefore remains a reported allegation, not a verified realized loss. IAPD report, printed pages 1 and 20.

A settlement contribution is part of a payment chain

James Paul Clemensen's IAPD report describes a complaint about an error in projected income from a DST exchange. It reports $95,000 in alleged damages, a $95,000 settlement, and a $76,000 individual contribution. The complaint arrived July 22, 2016; the settlement date is February 7, 2017. This is a historical disclosure retrieved in 2026. The contribution is a funding field, not another $76,000 of investor recovery to add to the settlement. Dividing it by $95,000 gives 80% of that reported settlement amount, not an 80% investment loss. The selected record provides no full investor cash or value history and is not a court finding of the owner's lifetime loss. IAPD report, printed pages 7–8.

A dated recovery account has its own denominator

The Skyloft administrator's FAQ reports combined settlement recoveries of 15% of allowed claims as of June 1, 2025. Its $100,000-claim example lists $8,040.44 from the 2023 Nelson plan distribution, $1,179.79 from its 2025 distribution, and $5,767.38 from the 2025 Axonic distribution. Our sum is $14,987.61, or 14.98761%, consistent with the rounded 15%. The FAQ defines allowed claims using actual cash invested, excluding promised or provided interest, profits, bonuses, commissions, and incentives. It leaves further recovery amounts and timing unknown. We inspected the underlying table image, but obtained no individual's complete bank, operating-distribution, or tax records. Subtracting the example's recovery from its claim leaves $85,012.39 unrecovered through those listed payments. That is not proof of an 85.01% final lifetime loss. The source cutoff remains June 2025 despite our October 2026 review. Skyloft administrator FAQ and distribution example.

The three examples show why an alleged amount, a settlement funding amount, and a recovery percentage cannot share one unlabeled column. Their dates, subjects, and calculation bases differ. None supplies the complete owner file required for a final cash-and-value reconciliation. That gap remains open; the worked examples below do not fill it with invented facts about these people or investments.

Build an Investor Cash Record Before Calculating a Loss

Use one owner, one interest, and one cutoff date for the first calculation. The owner could be a person, a trust, or another legal entity. Mixing records from two owners can distort both the investment amount and the receipts.

The accepted subscription establishes what was bought. The funding record shows how much was paid. The ownership record helps link later payments to the right interest. None can replace the others. A signed request for $300,000 does not prove that the full amount was accepted and funded.

Next, collect cash records in date order. Include original funding, any later owner contributions, distributions, sale proceeds, refunds, recoveries, and separate charges paid by the owner. Keep transactions in their original form before grouping them into annual totals.

Match each issuer notice to the related payment. A notice marked “paid” may refer to an instruction issued before the bank received the money. Record both dates when they differ. For a household cash history, the bank receipt date answers when the money became available.

If one check replaces another, keep the replacement relationship. Do not count both check numbers as cash. The original may have been canceled, lost, returned, or never deposited. A list of payment notices is not enough to decide which event occurred.

The following example is entirely invented. Helena invests $250,000 in Alder Crossing DST. She owns the same interest throughout four years. There are no later contributions in the base example. Her verified distribution receipts are:

Period Cash received
Year one $15,000
Year two $12,000
Year three $9,000
Year four $6,000
Total before the sale payment $42,000

Assume each annual amount has been matched to bank receipts. The table contains cash paid to Helena, not trust-level rent, tax income, or estimated values. No distribution has been reinvested into a second interest. No separate fee has yet been added to this base calculation.

Those assumptions matter. If Helena used a distribution to buy more units, the later purchase would be a new cash outflow. If a statement bundled two interests, the amounts would need to be split using supporting records. If one payment remained unpaid at the cutoff, it would belong in a separate pending column.

A clean record should let another reader reconstruct the total without trusting the author's memory. Retain each source, the amount used, any adjustment, and the reason for the adjustment. A correction should preserve the old figure and identify the replacement. Quietly changing a total destroys the trail needed to review it.

Reduced DST Distributions Are a Different Measurement

In Helena's invented example, the original payment target is $1,250 each month, or $15,000 for a full year. Year two starts with six payments of $1,250. The next six payments are $750 each.

The payment cut is $500 a month. Dividing $500 by the previous $1,250 payment gives 40%. That is the reduction in the monthly payment level after the change. It is not the decline in the full year's cash.

Year-two receipts are $7,500 for the first six months plus $4,500 for the next six months. The total is $12,000. Compared with the original $15,000 annual target, the shortfall is $3,000, or 20%.

Both percentages are correct when labeled. A story that says “income fell 40%” may refer to the new monthly amount. A chart that shows a 20% annual shortfall may cover the full year. Treating the two figures as contradictory would miss the change date.

Now compare cash with invested capital. Year-two receipts of $12,000 equal 4.8% of Helena's $250,000 contribution. The previous annual target was 6%. The difference is 1.2 percentage points. It is also a 20% reduction relative to that target rate. Percentage points and percentage changes are not interchangeable.

This still says nothing by itself about the value of the remaining interest. Nor does it identify the source of each payment. A cash distribution funded partly from a reserve reaches the owner, but the source matters when judging whether the payment can continue.

For a separate illustration, suppose a $12,000 annual payment consists of $9,000 supported by that year's available cash and $3,000 drawn from an old reserve. The owner received $12,000. Labeling all of it recurring earnings would overstate what the current period produced. Excluding the reserve portion from the receipt ledger would understate cash received.

Do not subtract that $3,000 a second time merely because it came from reserves. Its effect on remaining assets belongs in the trust's records and any supported value estimate. This article does not assign a tax label to the payment.

The practical question has two parts: how much cash arrived, and what funded it? The first describes the owner's history. The second helps explain future payment risk. Keep both answers visible instead of forcing one figure to do both jobs.

Test Unrealized Value Changes Against Their Evidence

An unrealized value change concerns an interest still held. It is not automatically a sale result. Before accepting an estimate, identify what was valued, who prepared it, the effective date, and the assumptions used.

Return to Helena at the end of year two. She has received $27,000 across the first two years. Assume a dated estimate values her remaining interest at $175,000. The difference from her original $250,000 contribution is $75,000, or 30%.

That 30% describes the marked value of the remaining interest compared with the original contribution. If the question is her estimated combined position, prior cash must also be included. The $175,000 estimate plus $27,000 already received equals $202,000. Compared with $250,000 invested, the difference is negative $48,000, or 19.2%.

This second measure remains partly unrealized. It combines actual receipts with an estimate that may never be available in a sale. It is also a simple dollar comparison before separate owner costs and taxes. It is not an annual return.

Now assume the value file is incomplete. Three scenarios use $125,000, $175,000, and $190,000 for the remaining interest, all at the same cutoff. Keep the actual $27,000 receipts unchanged:

Assumed remaining value Value plus prior cash Difference from $250,000 Simple percentage difference
$125,000 $152,000 Negative $98,000 Negative 39.2%
$175,000 $202,000 Negative $48,000 Negative 19.2%
$190,000 $217,000 Negative $33,000 Negative 13.2%

These are invented sensitivity cases. They are not an appraisal range, a probability forecast, or three equally likely sale prices. Their purpose is to show how much the conclusion depends on the value input. Missing evidence cannot be repaired by averaging the three numbers.

Look next for the bridge from property value to the value of the owner's interest. A property appraisal may sit above loan balances, unpaid costs, restricted cash, and other claims. A percentage ownership share applied directly to a building's value can skip those claims.

Also check whether a value already accounts for a recent distribution. Suppose a report gives an interest value immediately before a $2,000 payment. Adding that payment to the unchanged pre-payment value can count the same asset twice if the report has not been adjusted. The effective date and treatment of cash need to be clear.

The SEC's private-placement bulletin notes limited disclosure and difficulty finding a buyer. Those conditions are reasons to examine a value estimate closely. They do not prove that a particular estimate is wrong, or that an unsold interest has no value. SEC, Private Placements Under Regulation D.

Reconcile a Property Sale to Investor Proceeds

A sale price is a starting point for the closing calculation. Owners receive what remains after the relevant claims and costs, under the terms that apply to their interests. Check the actual closing statement and owner allocation before treating a headline property price as investor proceeds.

In the invented Alder Crossing example, Helena's $250,000 represents 2.5% of $10 million of offering equity. Assume the same pro rata share applies to every amount in this simplified closing. There are no preferred claims or special allocations beyond the listed uses.

At the end of year four, the closing records show:

Closing source or use Amount
Property sale proceeds $20,000,000
Remaining trust cash included at closing $200,000
Selling costs paid from closing funds Negative $600,000
Loan payoff Negative $12,000,000
Other documented closing obligations Negative $1,400,000
Net amount available to owners $6,200,000

For this example, the other obligations are unpaid items that have not already reduced the listed cash. No liability appears twice. All remaining cash is included, and nothing is held back. The net amount is $20.2 million less $14 million, or $6.2 million.

Helena's 2.5% share is $155,000. The closing allocation and her bank receipt agree. Applying her share to the $20 million property price instead would produce $500,000 and ignore the claims paid ahead of owners.

The $155,000 sale receipt is $95,000 below her original contribution. That is a 38% shortfall when comparing the terminal receipt alone with initial capital. It excludes the $42,000 paid during ownership.

Including those distributions gives total investment cash received of $197,000. Her nominal cash shortfall is $53,000, or 21.2% of the original $250,000. “Nominal” means this comparison does not adjust for the passage of time or inflation. It also excludes personal taxes and any separate owner charges.

Do not add the earlier estimated value decline to this result. The $175,000 mark was an earlier estimate of the same interest. The eventual $155,000 receipt replaces it in a completed-sale calculation. Adding both would count the interest's loss twice.

Likewise, the $200,000 remaining trust cash is already in the closing pool. Helena's share of it is $5,000, but that amount is already inside her $155,000 receipt. Adding another $5,000 would overstate what she received.

The sale closes the property-interest portion of this example. A separate legal claim could still exist. In that case, describe the result as through the sale payment and state that later recoveries remain outside the current total. A closed property sale does not prove that every related cash flow has ended.

Add Recoveries and Costs Without Counting Them Twice

A recovery belongs in the owner's cash record when the owner receives it. A requested amount, a promised payment, and a collectible balance are separate facts. Record their status without turning them into cash before payment occurs.

Extend Helena's invented example by adding $3,000 of separate owner charges paid during ownership. These charges were outside the original contribution and were not deducted from the distributions or sale proceeds. Her total cash outlay becomes $253,000.

Against $197,000 received, the shortfall is now $56,000. Dividing by total outlay gives about 22.13%. Using the original $250,000 as the denominator would give a different rate. State which base you chose and why.

In a later, separate recovery event, assume a documented $20,000 gross settlement is paid. A $6,000 legal fee is withheld from it, and Helena receives $14,000. Her total net receipts rise from $197,000 to $211,000. Against the $253,000 outlay, the remaining nominal shortfall is $42,000, or about 16.60%.

Two ledgers can describe the same result. One records the $14,000 net recovery. Another records $20,000 of gross recovery and a $6,000 fee. Either produces the same dollar difference if used consistently. Recording $14,000 and then subtracting $6,000 again would overstate the shortfall by $6,000.

Do not mix their percentage denominators without explanation. The net-receipt method above retains $253,000 as the outlay base. A gross-flow presentation that includes the withheld fee among total costs would show $259,000 of outlays and $217,000 of gross receipts. The dollar gap is still $42,000, but the ratio to that larger outlay base is about 16.22%.

This is one reason a percentage without its method can mislead even when the underlying dollars are correct. The article uses the net-receipt method for Helena's headline recovery comparison. It shows the other method only to explain the difference.

Now change only the recovery's status. Suppose the agreement is signed but no funds have arrived. The realized receipt total remains $197,000. The expected net payment can sit beside it as a pending item. It should not erase an existing cash shortfall before collection.

Keep the same discipline with claims held through a liquidating trust. A listed claim amount does not establish what that trust will collect, what costs it will incur, or when it will distribute money. Preserve the documents that explain those separate steps. An estimated recovery may help with planning, but its uncertainty belongs beside the estimate.

Compare Two Loss Reports on the Same Basis

Even two accurate reports may answer different questions. Before deciding that one investment did worse, match the subject, dates, included cash, remaining value, and costs. If any field is unresolved, mark the comparison as incomplete.

Consider two separate invented completed investments. Each required $100,000. Investment A paid $20,000 during ownership and $70,000 at exit. Investment B paid $5,000 during ownership and $85,000 at exit. There are no separate charges or later claims in this example.

Both returned $90,000 in total cash. Both have a $10,000 nominal shortfall, or 10%. Looking only at exit proceeds would show a 30% terminal-capital shortfall for A and 15% for B. Those terminal figures do not show the equal total cash result.

Now suppose A took three years and B took seven. Equal nominal totals do not imply equal annual returns or the same household experience. A full dated cash-flow calculation is needed to compare annual performance. A single total cannot capture when each distribution arrived.

The comparison also changes if one investment remains active. An active interest with a $70,000 estimate and $20,000 received has a partly estimated $90,000 combined position. A sold interest with $90,000 actually received has a completed cash record. Presenting them as equally realized would erase a material difference.

Check the denominator across owners too. Two people can buy into the same offering at different amounts, times, or terms. They may have different outside charges or may sell different portions. A trust-level result does not automatically describe either person's full result.

Population claims need the same care. In a separate invented review file, ten investor accounts are listed. Six have complete sale and receipt histories. Two remain active, and two lack enough records to classify. Four of the six complete files show a nominal cash shortfall.

You can report four of six complete files, about 66.67%, with their selection limits. You cannot say that 40% is the confirmed final loss rate for all ten. Four divided by ten counts known shortfalls among the listed accounts; the other four outcomes remain unmeasured. Nor can you infer a market-wide DST loss rate from this small chosen file.

Missing records can bias a result in either direction. People with severe losses may be more likely to contact a researcher. People with poor records may be excluded. A clear report states who was included, why, and what could not be calculated. It should resist filling unknown outcomes with zero losses or assumed total losses.

Write a Loss Conclusion the Records Can Support

A useful conclusion starts with the measured result and immediately states its boundary. Avoid broad labels that force readers to search footnotes for the actual meaning.

For Helena's base example, a defensible statement would say that $250,000 invested produced $42,000 in distributions and $155,000 in sale proceeds. Total receipts were $197,000, leaving a $53,000 nominal shortfall before separate owner costs and taxes. The later cost-and-recovery extension should appear as a separate update, not silently replace the earlier scope.

A value-based conclusion needs different wording. At the end of year two, Helena had received $27,000 and held an interest estimated at $175,000. The combined $202,000 was $48,000 below her contribution. That statement should identify the estimate's effective date and make clear that no sale had yet confirmed it.

For a complaint, the conclusion should retain the source's status. “The claimant seeks” and “the report lists alleged damages” describe a request. “The agreement states” describes terms. “The bank record shows receipt” describes cash. These verbs help readers understand how far the evidence reaches.

A legal damages analysis may ask questions beyond a cash ledger. A tax loss also uses rules that this article has not applied. Do not relabel an economic shortfall as a court-determined damages amount or a deductible capital loss. The dollar calculation should be given to the appropriate professional with its assumptions intact.

Close the review with the next document that could change the result. That might be a missing bank statement, a corrected closing allocation, the underlying value report, or a later recovery notice. State the question it would resolve. “More research needed” is less useful than identifying the missing event and the amount it affects.

The purpose is a conclusion that can be checked and updated. Careful wording should preserve the seriousness of a loss while keeping unsupported numbers out of the result.

FAQ

Does a suspended DST distribution prove a total loss?

No. It shows a change in payments, assuming the suspension is supported by records. A total-loss conclusion would also need evidence about the remaining interest and possible proceeds. Record unpaid or reduced cash separately from a value estimate. The household effect of lost income can be serious even while the eventual capital outcome remains unknown.

Is an alleged damages amount the investor's realized loss?

It should not be treated that way without more evidence. A claim states what a party seeks or alleges. Its method may differ from a simple cash calculation, and its status may remain unresolved. Read the actual disclosure or case document, preserve any response, and seek the underlying cash and value records before assigning a realized-loss label.

Should prior distributions reduce a loss calculation?

Include actual prior receipts when measuring total nominal investment cash against cash paid in. Do not omit them merely because the final sale returned less than initial capital. But identify their source when evaluating ongoing earning power. A payment funded from reserves is still received cash; it is not automatically recurring income or profit.

Can I add settlement amounts shown under several defendants?

Only after checking how the amounts relate. One figure may be a total and another a contribution toward it. Several records may describe the same settlement or the same investor. Build a payment map showing payer, recipient, gross amount, deductions, and receipt. Add distinct amounts only after resolving overlap.

What if a statement shows zero value but the investment still exists?

Find the explanation for the zero. It might be a valuation conclusion, a reporting limitation, or another stated treatment. The entry alone does not explain which. Obtain the dated value method and any remaining rights or assets. Keep a zero estimate distinct from proof that every possible future receipt is zero.

Does recovering part of my investment establish a final recovery rate?

It establishes a rate through a stated cutoff if the denominator and receipts are complete for that scope. Additional costs, withheld amounts, unresolved claims, or later payments may change the result. Describe a partial recovery as partial. A final sale and a final settlement process are separate events.

Is a nominal cash shortfall the same as a tax capital loss?

No. This article compares specified cash paid and received without applying tax basis or loss rules. A tax professional needs the relevant ownership, basis, transaction, and tax records. Keep the financial calculation available, but do not use its label as a substitute for the tax analysis.

About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library explains how to examine sources, compare financial measures, and identify unresolved questions. Its examples are designed to support careful research rather than promise an investment outcome.

Sources