Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/largest-dst-sponsors-2026-comparing-the-use-of-leverage-across-major-sponsors
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-18T08:46:33.187Z
Updated: 2026-10-18T08:46:33.187Z

# Largest DST Sponsors (2026): Comparing the Use of Leverage Across Major Sponsors

## What Is This Article About?

This article compares public loan facts for four Delaware statutory trust (DST) offerings from two sponsors. It uses pages read on October 18, 2026; an open label does not prove room for your purchase. The sample includes stated zero debt, a loan, and one debt figure not found in the chosen records. Original examples show how debt, loan payments, and value bases change the results. The findings apply to these records, not to each firm as a whole or to what you should buy.

## Table of Contents

- [What the Current Public Offering Sample Shows](#what-the-current-public-offering-sample-shows)
- [Define DST Loan-to-Value Before Comparing Percentages](#define-dst-loan-to-value-before-comparing-percentages)
- [Check the Debt Behind an Investor's Subscription](#check-the-debt-behind-an-investors-subscription)
- [Separate Loan Size From the Cost of Carrying It](#separate-loan-size-from-the-cost-of-carrying-it)
- [Compare Debt Maturity With the Business Plan](#compare-debt-maturity-with-the-business-plan)
- [Keep All-Cash Offerings in the Right Comparison](#keep-all-cash-offerings-in-the-right-comparison)
- [Test Value Changes Without Claiming a Forecast](#test-value-changes-without-claiming-a-forecast)
- [Avoid a Misleading Sponsor Leverage Average](#avoid-a-misleading-sponsor-leverage-average)
- [Trace Debt Through the Correct Legal Entities](#trace-debt-through-the-correct-legal-entities)
- [Recheck the Comparison When Loan Terms Change](#recheck-the-comparison-when-loan-terms-change)
- [Build a Useful Sponsor Financing Research Record](#build-a-useful-sponsor-financing-research-record)
- [FAQ](#faq)

## What the Current Public Offering Sample Shows

Start with a defined set of offerings. This review selected two programs each from Capital Square and NexPoint to examine different public disclosures. It did not select every open program or verify a national ranking of sponsor size. A large platform's name does not supply the missing terms of one trust's loan.

Capital Square's home-page index labeled New Braunfels and Colony at Centerpointe open when read on October 18. NexPoint's current-offering section included Waterford and Lodging II. Those are public listing observations, not confirmations of capacity, a reservation, or acceptance of a particular buyer. [Capital Square index](https://capitalsq.com/) and [NexPoint current-offering index](https://www.nexpoint.com/dsts-1031-exchange/)

### Four Named Records, With Their Limits

| Selected program | Source and date | Public debt information | Limit of the observation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CS1031 Texas Active Living New Braunfels, DST | Capital Square launch, October 5, 2026 | All-cash acquisition with no mortgage debt | Launch description; current private terms not reviewed |
| CS1031 Colony at Centerpointe Apartments, DST | Capital Square launch, August 3, 2026, and current offering page | No loan amount or leverage percentage found in these two records | Unknown here; not a zero-debt finding |
| NexPoint Waterford DST | Current offering page, read October 18, 2026 | 48.6% leverage to investors; fixed 4.86% rate; 120-month term; interest-only throughout | Sponsor's public summary, qualified by the offering memorandum |
| NexPoint Lodging II DST | Current offering page, read October 18, 2026 | 0% loan-to-value (LTV); offering size and capitalization each $81,573,000 | Stated structure; no private loan or allocation records inspected |

Capital Square's New Braunfels release explicitly describes the no-mortgage structure. Its Colony release states a $42.95 million equity target but does not supply a loan figure. An equity target alone cannot tell you how the property is funded. The selected Colony property page also does not resolve that gap. [New Braunfels launch](https://capitalsq.com/2026/10/capital-square-launches-fourth-texas-active-living-dst-featuring-age-restricted-cottage-homes-near-san-antonio/), [Colony launch](https://capitalsq.com/2026/08/capital-square-launches-42-95-million-dst-for-apartment-community-near-richmond-virginia/), and [Colony offering page](https://capitalsq.com/offerings/colony-at-centerpointe-apartments-dst/)

Waterford's page lists $61,060,817 in total capitalization and $31,360,817 as offering size. The difference is $29,700,000; dividing that difference by capitalization gives about 48.64%. This matches the rounded headline if the difference is the debt being measured. It checks the math; it does not prove the debt assigned to an investor. Lodging II's page separately states its zero percentage. Both pages direct readers to the private placement memorandum (PPM), which was not obtained for this review. [Waterford terms](https://www.nexpoint.com/dsts-1031-exchanges/waterford-dst/) and [Lodging II terms](https://www.nexpoint.com/dst-1031-exchanges-lodging-ii-dst/)

### What This Sample Can Support

The records show why financing must be studied at the program level. A sponsor can display different loan structures across its offerings. A missing figure also matters. It tells you what to ask for before you compare two programs.

The sample cannot show either firm's usual debt level, loan quality, or future loss rate. The four programs have different business plans, and the source detail differs. No staff member was contacted, no capacity was held, and no lender agreement was reviewed. Those limits remain part of the comparison, even when the published percentage looks precise.

## Define DST Loan-to-Value Before Comparing Percentages

Loan-to-value, or LTV, needs a clear definition. Sequoia Research's headline measure uses investor-allocated debt divided by total investor offering value. In a simple case, that total is investor equity plus the debt assigned to those interests. Check the actual terms before using the formula.

A loan divided by a property's purchase price measures something else. A loan divided by an appraisal is another measure. All three ratios can be useful with clear labels. A chart can mislead when it puts them in one column without naming each basis.

### Use One Original Funding Example

Consider an invented trust called Juniper. Its property costs $36 million. Fees, closing costs, and reserves add $4 million. Total funding needs are $40 million, supplied by $18 million of debt and $22 million of investor equity. Assume each interest shares the whole loan in line with its equity share. No other funding exists in this case.

| Original Juniper measure | Calculation | Result |
| --- | --- | ---: |
| Investor offering basis | $18 million / $40 million | 45% |
| Property purchase-price basis | $18 million / $36 million | 50% |
| Assumed appraisal basis | $18 million / $45 million | 40% |

The loan is the same in all three rows. The percentages differ because the amounts beneath the line differ. None of those figures, on its own, says that the trust borrowed less money than another trust using a different definition.

The assumed appraisal does not fund Juniper. It does not pay a bill or add cash to the reserve. Keep the value estimate and cash held by the trust in separate fields. Otherwise, an increase in appraised value can appear to improve cash resources when no money changed hands.

### A Lower Ratio Can Come From More Investor Cost

Suppose Juniper's costs increase by $2 million, entirely funded by added equity. The debt remains $18 million, equity rises to $24 million, and total offering value becomes $42 million. The investor-basis ratio falls to about 42.86%. No debt was repaid.

The ratio is lower under this formula. That does not show the whole plan has improved. More equity is now required for the same assumed property and debt. Ask what the new cost buys and whether projected cash or resale value changes with it.

A useful review preserves both versions. It shows the old debt, old equity, new debt, and new equity. The reader can then see whether a change came from repayment, a new valuation, a cost revision, or a different allocation. Do not use the word reduced without identifying what actually fell.

## Check the Debt Behind an Investor's Subscription

An investor usually enters the comparison with an equity amount. To find that amount's share of debt, you need the trust's rules. A loan percentage is not enough. You need to know its basis and how each interest shares the loan.

Under Juniper's original rules, a $220,000 equity stake is 1% of the $22 million equity raise. The matching debt amount is $180,000, or 1% of $18 million. The combined investor offering value is $400,000. Dividing $180,000 by $400,000 returns the original 45% ratio.

### Do Not Apply LTV Directly to the Equity Check

Multiplying the $220,000 check by 45% gives $99,000. That is not the allocated debt in this example. The percentage applies to the combined value, not to equity alone.

For this simple model, debt per dollar of equity is debt divided by equity. It is also LTV divided by one minus LTV, when the same definition and allocation apply. At 45%, that is 45 divided by 55, or about $0.8182 of debt per equity dollar. This is a math rule. It does not prove anyone's tax result.

Keep the subscription amount, the allocated debt, and the combined amount in distinct columns. Have the tax adviser review their use in the actual exchange. Do not turn the presence of debt into a blanket conclusion that an exchange meets every requirement.

### Preserve a Change in Allocation

Now assume a separate Juniper revision replaces $2 million of equity with $2 million of debt. Total offering value stays at $40 million. Debt becomes $20 million, equity becomes $20 million, and the investor-basis ratio rises to 50%.

A $100,000 equity amount previously corresponded to about $81,818 of debt. Under the revised proportional model, it corresponds to $100,000. The equity check has not changed, but the financing exposure has. A worksheet that updates only the headline ratio would miss the investor-level change.

Rounding can help explain a result. Keep the exact figures in the working record. Do not round the debt share before you test a strict dollar limit. Use the governing figures for the real file. Have your team check them, especially when a small amount could change the funding plan.

## Separate Loan Size From the Cost of Carrying It

Two loans of the same size can require very different cash payments. The rate, payment schedule, fees, reserves, and maturity all matter. A loan that charges interest only for a time leaves principal to be addressed later. A loan with scheduled principal payments uses more current cash but can reduce the balance over time.

Compare both annual payments and the balance due at the end of the period. Looking at one while omitting the other can make one loan appear easier than it is. Also keep the quoted interest rate separate from the complete cost of borrowing, which may include other charges.

### Build a Payment Comparison With Explicit Assumptions

In a new fictional case, an $18 million loan has a 5% annual rate and interest-only payments. Annual interest is $900,000. The property's assumed annual net operating income is $1,350,000. Net operating income means property income after the operating expenses included in the model, before the loan payments used here.

The simple debt-service coverage ratio is $1,350,000 divided by $900,000, or 1.50 times. After interest, $450,000 remains before capital work, other costs, reserves, and distributions. This is not a lender's formal covenant test; real loan definitions can differ.

If the same loan instead bears a 7.5% rate, annual interest is $1,350,000. Coverage is 1.00 times and nothing remains after interest under these assumptions. The loan amount and the headline debt ratio are unchanged. The cash burden is very different.

### Add Principal Payments Without Counting Them Twice

Return to the 5% case. Assume the year requires $300,000 of principal payments in addition to $900,000 of interest. Total debt service is $1,200,000, leaving $150,000 from the modeled income. Coverage is 1.125 times.

Those principal payments reduce the loan balance to $17,700,000 if there are no other changes. Do not call the full $1,200,000 an interest expense. Equally, do not ignore the $300,000 because it reduces debt; it still uses cash during the year.

For a real comparison, request the payment schedule rather than reconstructing it from a rate alone. Note any change from interest-only payments to principal repayment. Keep the start date and calculation period alongside the amount. A twelve-month estimate and a partial-year payment cannot be compared fairly without adjustment.

### Match Cash Receipt Dates to Loan Payment Dates

Annual coverage can hide a short cash period. In a separate invented example, a trust owes $75,000 at the end of each month. It receives $225,000 at the end of each quarter, just before the third payment is due. Over three months, inflow and payments match. That does not mean the first two months fund themselves.

With no opening cash, the first payment is short by $75,000. The second adds another $75,000 to the gap. A permitted $150,000 opening cash balance would fund those two payments. The quarter-end receipt then supplies the third payment and restores the balance to $150,000. Assume no other cash movement for this example.

If the receipt arrives after the third payment is due, the peak cash need rises to $225,000. The same quarterly totals now require $75,000 more at the tightest point. Neither case measures a real trust. It shows why a payment schedule and a cash-receipt schedule must be read together.

Ask which cash can actually be used for this purpose. A lender-held reserve may have a restricted use. A balance shown in a report is not proof of free access on the needed date. Check the terms before treating that cash as the bridge between payments.

## Compare Debt Maturity With the Business Plan

A loan's final due date and a sponsor's target sale date are different facts. One comes from the loan terms; the other may be an estimate in the business plan. A plan to sell before the loan matures does not guarantee that a buyer will appear on schedule.

Record extension conditions as conditions, not extra years already available. A lender may require tests, fees, notice, or approval. Whether the trust has authority to take a proposed action also requires review. This article does not assume that every DST can refinance, raise more money, or amend its borrowing terms.

### Count the Gap Between Two Dates

Assume an invented offering targets a sale on June 30, 2033. Its loan matures on March 31, 2034. The calendar gap is about nine months. That gap provides time on paper, but it is not a nine-month guarantee of cash, lender approval, or a successful sale.

If the sale slips to December 31, 2033, the remaining calendar gap is three months. At that point, a year-old statement that the planned exit comfortably precedes maturity needs to be revised. Keep the unchanged contractual date and the changed business assumption visible.

Ask what the plan requires before a sale can close. Repairs, tenant decisions, title work, buyer financing, and lender release terms may be linked. The loan deadline stays in place even if one of those tasks takes longer than expected.

### Separate the Amount Due From an Assumed New Loan

Suppose $17.7 million is due, while a hypothetical new financing source might supply $15 million. That leaves a $2.7 million gap before transaction costs. Adding an assumed $300,000 of costs raises the cash need to $3 million.

That calculation identifies a question; it does not establish an available solution. Confirm who could supply the money, whether the governing terms permit the plan, and what approvals would be needed. A sponsor's broad asset base is not proof that it must fund the gap.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) discusses reasonable investigations by member firms in its May 2023 Notice 23-08. It addresses independent analysis and follow-up when concerns remain. That guidance supports asking for the basis of a financing explanation; it does not certify a loan or a sponsor's review. [FINRA Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08)

## Keep All-Cash Offerings in the Right Comparison

Zero stated mortgage debt answers an important financing question. It does not answer every question about the property, tenant, cash budget, or exit. A property can face costs and loss of income without a mortgage. It can also be hard to sell when its owners want to leave.

Treat an all-cash structure as its own stated feature. Do not fill a nonexistent mortgage rate with zero and compare that entry to a loan charging 5%. One program has no loan of the type being measured; the other has a priced loan. The first rate field should say not applicable, with the basis for that label recorded.

### Do Not Confuse a Zero With an Unknown

A blank financing field means that the reviewed record did not settle the question. Zero means the source affirmatively supports no debt within the stated scope. These entries lead to different requests.

For an unknown, ask for the financing schedule and its current date. For a documented zero, confirm the scope: property mortgage, trust borrowing, or some other defined category. Avoid extending a statement about one level to every affiliate, service contract, or future transaction.

The public sample illustrates this distinction without filling its gap. An absent number is not evidence of favorable financing. Nor does it prove that the sponsor withheld a material fact from investors. This review did not inspect the private packet or establish what authorized investors receive.

### Compare Cash Needs Even When Debt Service Is Absent

Consider a fictional property with $800,000 of annual net operating income and no mortgage. It needs $500,000 for planned work and $100,000 for other assumed costs. Only $200,000 remains before distributions or other uses. Calling the property debt-free does not make the first $800,000 fully available to investors.

If a separate emergency repair costs $250,000 in that year, the modeled remaining amount becomes a $50,000 shortfall. A reserve, insurance recovery, or other source would need its own facts and permissions. No solution is assumed here.

This is why debt and operating plans belong on the same page. Lower borrowing can remove one cash claim while other claims remain. You can recognize the benefit of avoiding a mortgage without turning that feature into a total-risk verdict.

## Test Value Changes Without Claiming a Forecast

A controlled example can show how debt changes the amount left for owners. Hold the property value and all other assumptions fixed, then change only the debt. This explains the mechanism. It does not make unlike real properties comparable or predict how any one of them will perform.

Use a fictional property initially worth $40 million. Compare three possible funding structures with debt of zero, $16 million, or $24 million. Assume the value later falls to $36 million, while debt stays fixed. Exclude costs, fees, taxes, earlier distributions, and other claims solely for this exercise.

| Original financing case | Starting property equity | Later property equity | Decline in that equity |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| No debt | $40 million | $36 million | 10.00% |
| $16 million debt | $24 million | $20 million | 16.67% |
| $24 million debt | $16 million | $12 million | 25.00% |

The property lost $4 million in each case. That loss is a larger share of the smaller starting equity when debt is higher. These are property residuals, not investor total returns. The example does not include the full offering cost or the actual rights attached to an interest.

### Add Sale Costs to the Same Cash Bridge

Assume the sale costs $1 million. In the $16 million debt case, $36 million less $1 million of costs and $16 million of debt leaves $19 million. The decline from the original $24 million residual is now about 20.83%.

Do not subtract the loan twice because two reports list it. A property payoff and the trust's share of the same payoff may describe one economic obligation. Trace the relationship before adding amounts. The same care applies to costs already netted from a sale figure.

A favorable case can also show amplified equity gains. That does not cancel the adverse case or establish an expected return. Both depend on price, timing, expenses, and the rights of the parties. Keep the scenario label beside the result so a table is not mistaken for an outlook.

## Avoid a Misleading Sponsor Leverage Average

A sponsor average needs a defined population and a weighting method. A simple mean gives each included offering the same weight. A ratio of total debt to total offering value gives larger programs more weight. Both can be right while answering different questions.

Use three invented offerings with total offering values of $10 million, $30 million, and $60 million. Their investor-basis leverage figures are 0%, 40%, and 60%. Their debt amounts are therefore zero, $12 million, and $36 million.

The simple mean is 33.33%. Combined debt is $48 million against $100 million in offering value, so the combined ratio is 48%. Neither calculation says how much debt an investor with a different allocation would carry. Neither describes a real sponsor in this article.

### Disclose What Was Left Out

If a researcher omits the all-cash offering, the simple mean rises to 50%. Combined debt stays $48 million, but the included offering value falls to $90 million. The combined ratio becomes 53.33%. The loans did not change; the sample changed.

Now imagine one program's debt figure is missing. Do not enter zero just to finish the sheet. Show the known subset and identify the omitted amount or program. If you cannot define the full value base, leave the whole-group ratio unknown.

The selection period matters too. New offerings, open offerings, active properties, and closed programs are different sets. A company's current menu may reflect a brief fundraising window. It is not automatically a history of its borrowing choices.

### An Investor's Mix Is Another Separate Calculation

Suppose an investor allocates $100,000 of equity to an all-cash program and $100,000 to a program with 50% investor-basis leverage. Under proportional allocation, the second position carries $100,000 of debt. Combined equity is $200,000 and combined offering value is $300,000. The investor's combined ratio is 33.33%, not the simple average of 0% and 50%.

Equal equity checks do not create equal total offering values when loan levels differ. Build the combined ratio from the allocated debt and equity amounts. Keep the legal and tax review separate from that math. A blended number can help. It can still hide a shared lender or loans due at the same time.

## Trace Debt Through the Correct Legal Entities

Debt owed by the sponsor, a trust, and a property owner may be three different loans. A lender to one affiliate does not automatically have a claim on every property carrying the same brand. A loan review must name the borrower, the assets pledged, and any support terms.

Start with the exact trust name. Then map any property-owning subsidiary, parent trust, master tenant, guarantor, and lender that matters to the question. A simple drawing can prevent a loan listed at two levels from being counted twice. Do not assume that a similar address or shared officer proves identical obligations.

### Preserve the Scope of Any Guarantee

Ask who receives the guarantee, what obligation it covers, and when it applies. A promise benefiting a lender is not automatically a promise to restore an investor's capital. A company with substantial assets may also have other claims against those assets. The size of the group does not settle the strength or scope of one promise.

If no guarantee was reviewed, write that. Do not use a sponsor's history, reputation, or marketing statement as a substitute for contract terms. The same rule applies to a claimed limit on recourse. The legal effect depends on the specific obligation and exceptions.

### Separate the Debt Map From the Cash Map

An original structure might show a $12 million property mortgage beneath a parent trust. The parent's report also describes its interest in that same $12 million obligation. Adding the two rows would create an incorrect $24 million total. Use a common obligation reference to show that these are two views of one loan.

If the parent separately owes $2 million under another arrangement, that may be an additional obligation. You still need to determine whose interests bear it and how it belongs in the chosen measure. A diagram identifies the question; it does not replace legal interpretation.

## Recheck the Comparison When Loan Terms Change

A loan record needs both its source date and the date you read it. The date you read a page does not mean the loan terms were set that day. Keep any later amendment with the earlier record rather than quietly replacing it.

Suppose an invented six-field comparison covers debt amount, allocation, rate, payment schedule, maturity, and prepayment cost. A new amendment changes maturity and prepayment cost only. The same evidence can still support four fields. Two need a new finding. That does not mean the whole offering is approved or rejected.

If a later record changes the debt amount, more than one result may reopen. The headline ratio, investor debt allocation, payment estimate, and exit cash model may all depend on it. Track those links explicitly. If you change the source row, also check each figure that depends on it.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's private-placement bulletin, updated September 21, 2026, warns about limited disclosure and difficulty reselling. A public summary cannot provide the same assurance as a complete review of the actual terms. Missing evidence should remain a named limitation, not a presumed favorable outcome. [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)

## Build a Useful Sponsor Financing Research Record

End with a short finding for each program. Name the loan fact, its source, each ratio's basis, and the open request. Avoid a conclusion that a whole sponsor is conservative or aggressive because one offering has a particular loan level.

For a real file, ask your team for the current loan and debt-share records. Confirm whether the public terms remain in effect. Then compare loan payments, due dates, property risks, and your needs. A number can be correct and still not be enough to decide.

Keep factual findings apart from choices. A higher ratio may fail one investor's test. A lower ratio may come with costs or other risks that matter more to someone else. Explain the tradeoff with the actual records. Do not invent one limit for everyone. A firm's size cannot fill a gap in the loan review.

## FAQ

### Which Large DST Sponsor Uses the Least Debt?

This review cannot make that ranking. It covers four public records with different levels of detail. To compare firms as a whole, define which loans to include, use the same debt basis, and choose how to weight them. Missing loans cannot be entered as zero.

### What Is Sequoia Research's Headline Investor LTV Formula?

It is investor-allocated debt divided by total investor offering value. In a simple case, the total is equity plus the debt assigned to the interest. Check the actual terms. Do not use purchase price or an appraisal in place of that total.

### Does an Open Website Label Mean I Can Invest Today?

No. It records a public listing status when the page was read. It does not prove room for your purchase, a hold, or acceptance of your request. Ask through the offering's approved process before relying on the listing.

### Is an All-Cash DST Free of Investment Risk?

No. A stated absence of mortgage debt addresses one financing feature. Costs, income changes, major work, value, and sale timing still matter. Check what the no-debt statement covers and read the governing terms.

### Why Can a Lower LTV Be Misleading?

The percentage may fall because the value base rises, even when debt stays the same. More equity for costs can lower the ratio without adding income. Check the amounts and what they mean before judging the change.

### Should I Average the Percentages of My Two DST Investments?

That may not match a ratio based on combined dollars. Add the debt assigned to both interests, then divide by their total offering value. Equal equity checks can have different debt shares. Keep a missing debt share unknown.

### What Should I Request When Public Loan Information Is Missing?

Ask for the current debt amount, payments, due date, debt share, and support terms. Keep the source date and exact trust name. Have your investment, tax, or legal team explain how those terms affect your plan.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library separates source statements, original calculations, and unresolved questions. It does not replace advice based on your financial circumstances or the complete offering documents.

## Sources

- [Capital Square public index](https://capitalsq.com/). Current page read October 18, 2026; selected open labels only.
- [Capital Square New Braunfels launch](https://capitalsq.com/2026/10/capital-square-launches-fourth-texas-active-living-dst-featuring-age-restricted-cottage-homes-near-san-antonio/). October 5, 2026.
- [Capital Square Colony launch](https://capitalsq.com/2026/08/capital-square-launches-42-95-million-dst-for-apartment-community-near-richmond-virginia/). August 3, 2026.
- [Capital Square Colony offering page](https://capitalsq.com/offerings/colony-at-centerpointe-apartments-dst/). Current page read October 18, 2026.
- [NexPoint current offerings](https://www.nexpoint.com/dsts-1031-exchange/). Current page read October 18, 2026; selected listing status only.
- [NexPoint Waterford terms](https://www.nexpoint.com/dsts-1031-exchanges/waterford-dst/). Current undated page read October 18, 2026.
- [NexPoint Lodging II terms](https://www.nexpoint.com/dst-1031-exchanges-lodging-ii-dst/). Current undated page read October 18, 2026.
- [FINRA Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08). May 9, 2023.
- [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.


## Related Reading and Tools

- [Top DST Sponsors (2026): Which Criteria Should Drive a Comparison](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/top-dst-sponsors-2026-which-criteria-should-drive-a-comparison)
- [Delaware Statutory Trust Sponsors: Who They Are and What They Do](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-sponsors-who-they-are-and-what-they-do)
- [How to Choose DST Sponsor: A Step-by-Step Research Checklist](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/how-to-choose-dst-sponsor-a-step-by-step-research-checklist)