Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/largest-dst-sponsors-2026-how-reporting-dates-can-change-the-leaderboard
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-18T07:20:36.616Z
Updated: 2026-10-18T07:20:36.616Z

# Largest DST Sponsors (2026): How Reporting Dates Can Change the Leaderboard

## What Is This Article About?

This article explains how reporting dates affect comparisons of the largest Delaware statutory trust (DST) sponsors. It reviews selected public size figures available in October 2026, preserving their actual dates and business scopes. Original examples show how an apparent leader can change when records use the same cutoff, period, or corrected version. The public sample does not support a complete current ranking, so the article makes that gap clear instead of filling it with estimates.

## Table of Contents

- [Why a Current Search Can Return an Old Number](#why-a-current-search-can-return-an-old-number)
- [Compare the Dates in Selected Public Sponsor Figures](#compare-the-dates-in-selected-public-sponsor-figures)
- [Keep Four Dates in the Research Record](#keep-four-dates-in-the-research-record)
- [Rebuild an Apparent Leaderboard at a Common Cutoff](#rebuild-an-apparent-leaderboard-at-a-common-cutoff)
- [Match Fundraising Periods Before Comparing Totals](#match-fundraising-periods-before-comparing-totals)
- [Reconcile Changes in Assets Under Management](#reconcile-changes-in-assets-under-management)
- [Handle Plus Signs, Ranges, and Rounded Figures](#handle-plus-signs-ranges-and-rounded-figures)
- [Separate Restatements From Real Growth](#separate-restatements-from-real-growth)
- [Use Filing Dates Without Assuming a Live Data Feed](#use-filing-dates-without-assuming-a-live-data-feed)
- [Show Missing and Stale Sponsor Records Honestly](#show-missing-and-stale-sponsor-records-honestly)
- [Publish a Comparison That Can Be Rechecked](#publish-a-comparison-that-can-be-rechecked)
- [FAQ](#faq)

## Why a Current Search Can Return an Old Number

A webpage can be available today while its figures describe last year. A new press release can discuss several periods. A current page can also contain an older paragraph beside a newer-looking statistics panel without separate dates. The date you find a number is therefore not enough to place it in a ranking.

Start with the question the table should answer. Do you want assets managed on one date, equity raised during one period, or programs completed since inception? These are different comparisons. A table that mixes them may look precise while its order has little meaning.

Then define current. For a common-date asset comparison, current might mean a confirmed September 30 balance for every included firm. For an annual fundraising study, it might mean the latest completed calendar year. Neither means taking each company's newest visible number regardless of what it measures.

A leader can change for several reasons. A firm may add assets. Another may sell properties. The data provider may include a new affiliate, correct an earlier figure, or receive a late report. Each can alter the table, but they tell different stories. Calling every change growth or decline hides those differences.

Do not assume that a recent website update refreshed every statistic. A page may change its contact information, layout, or news link while retaining the same measured balance. A copyright year also does not date a financial figure. Seek an explicit source date tied to the particular amount.

This article is about reading and comparing records. It is not a finding that an older report is wrong or that a slower publisher has a weaker business. A record can be accurate for its stated date and still be unsuitable for a different-date comparison.

## Compare the Dates in Selected Public Sponsor Figures

The following is a bounded public-record sample, not a size ranking. The rows retain the source's figure and qualification. They also distinguish a platform-level asset measure from a confirmed DST-only balance. No underlying private asset schedule was obtained to standardize the companies.

| Selected public record | Published asset figure | Stated measurement date | Important limit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ExchangeRight March 3, 2026 release | More than $7.1 billion | January 31, 2026 | Platform and affiliates; qualified amount |
| ExchangeRight current homepage | $7.8+ billion | September 30, 2026 | Different snapshot; qualified amount |
| Capital Square current About statistics panel | $7 billion+ | Not separately stated | Broader business; undated panel |
| Inland current homepage | $16 billion | December 31, 2025 | Across Inland entities; not established as DST-only |

ExchangeRight's March release discusses 2025 activity but dates its platform asset description January 31, 2026. The publication date is March 3. Thus the headline's year, the release date, and the asset measurement date are three distinct references. The selected figure is more than $7.1 billion, not an exact balance of that amount. [ExchangeRight March 2026 release](https://www.exchangeright.com/news/all-exchangeright-offerings-meet-or-exceed-projections-2025/)

The current ExchangeRight homepage reports $7.8+ billion of assets under management and dates its statistics September 30, 2026. That supplies a later asset snapshot, but the plus sign still matters. It does not turn the earlier qualified figure into an exact starting balance for a precise growth calculation. [ExchangeRight homepage](https://www.exchangeright.com/)

Capital Square's About page shows $7 billion+ in its statistics panel, while its narrative refers to growth beyond $6 billion. It describes a business broader than DSTs. Neither passage supplies a separate measurement date that would let this review build a dated growth series from the two amounts. We have not assumed when either threshold was reached. [Capital Square About page](https://capitalsq.com/about/)

Inland's homepage reports $16 billion of assets under management. Its footnote dates the figures December 31, 2025 and describes the scope across Inland entities; the other figures are cumulative, with assets under management expressly excepted. This is a dated asset measure, but it is not a matched September 2026 DST-only balance. [Inland homepage](https://inland-investments.com/)

The displayed amounts can be transcribed correctly without being comparable. Sorting them numerically would not solve the missing dates, unequal scope, or qualified amounts. A responsible table preserves these limits before it discusses market position. It should not claim that this small public sample proves who is currently first, second, or third.

## Keep Four Dates in the Research Record

The measurement date says when a balance applies or when a reporting period ends. The publication date says when a source was issued. The retrieval date says when you read it. A correction or version date tells you which release of the source you have. Keep all four when available.

For a figure covering a period, also record its starting date. Equity raised during January through June is a flow over six months. Assets held on June 30 are a balance at one point. Both may have June 30 beside them, but they do not become the same kind of number.

### Calculate Lag With the Right Pair of Dates

Consider a fictional balance measured June 30, 2026 and published August 20. The publication lag is 51 calendar days. If a researcher reads it October 18, the measurement is 110 days old, while the published document is 59 days old. Each age uses a different starting point.

Now consider a second fictional record measured September 30 and published October 15. At the same October 18 research cutoff, the measurement is 18 days old and the document is three days old. The two records were found together, but their asset measurements are 92 days apart.

These lags do not establish a reporting violation. You would need a specific obligation and its actual terms to assess timeliness. Here they describe the evidence available for a comparison. A data table should show them without turning them into a quality grade.

### Mark Unknown Dates Rather Than Supplying Them

If a page has no measurement date, enter unknown. Do not copy the retrieval date into that field just to satisfy a spreadsheet. Also avoid treating the earliest date in a page's footer as the date of every statement. The label should follow the specific source evidence.

A useful note might say that the page was read October 18, but no date tied to the asset amount was located in the inspected text. That describes the search result. It does not prove the company lacks a dated private record. The next request is for the figure's effective date and definition.

## Rebuild an Apparent Leaderboard at a Common Cutoff

To test a change in rank, hold the measure, business scope, and date constant. If one of those changes, disclose it before assigning an economic meaning to the new order. A common cutoff makes the comparison easier to interpret, but it does not fix different definitions on its own.

Use fictional sponsors Alder and Birch. Assume their asset figures use the same defined method and business scope. The numbers below are invented solely to show what mismatched dates can do. They are not estimates for the named companies in the public sample.

| Fictional sponsor | June 30 asset balance | September 30 asset balance |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| Alder | $1.20 billion | $1.50 billion |
| Birch | $1.30 billion | $1.60 billion |

A table using Alder's September balance and Birch's June balance would place Alder ahead by $200 million. At June 30, Birch is actually ahead by $100 million. At September 30, Birch is again ahead by $100 million. The mixed-date table creates a lead that appears at neither common date in this model.

This does not mean every mixed-date table has the wrong order. It means the order has not been established for a common date. If Birch's September figure were unknown, the correct response would be to leave that comparison unresolved. Carrying June's number forward would be an assumption, not an observed September balance.

### Do Not Invent Interim Growth to Fill a Blank

Suppose Alder's two known balances rise by $300 million over the quarter. Dividing by three gives $100 million per month. That arithmetic does not prove the growth happened evenly. A single late-September acquisition could account for much of the change.

A straight line between the endpoints can be useful in a clearly labeled scenario. It cannot become a reported July or August amount. Keep modeled values in a different field from observed values, and state why the model was used. A ranking based partly on interpolation needs that limitation beside its result.

A firm with an unknown current balance should not be assigned zero or dropped without notice. Either choice can make the remaining firms look larger in relative terms. Show which firms are included, which lack comparable evidence, and what data would permit their return to the table.

## Match Fundraising Periods Before Comparing Totals

An asset balance and fundraising total answer different questions. Even fundraising totals need the same period and event definition. Requested, accepted, funded, and closed amounts may not be equal. Identify which state the source counts and whether cancellations or returned amounts are removed.

Do not compare a six-month total with a nine-month total as if both covered the same opportunity to raise capital. A larger cumulative figure may simply include more months. The comparison needs either a shared period or a clear statement that the totals cover different intervals.

### Annualizing Can Reverse the Wrong Conclusion

In an original fictional example, Alder reports $200 million raised in the first six months. Birch reports $240 million in the first nine months. A simple annualized pace would be $400 million for Alder and $320 million for Birch. Those are projections from partial periods, not annual results.

Now give the example a complete year. Alder raises only another $40 million in the second half, ending at $240 million. Birch raises another $160 million in the fourth quarter, ending at $400 million. The actual fictional year-end order is opposite the earlier projected order.

The purpose is not to predict seasonal fundraising patterns. It is to show that a constant monthly pace is an assumption. Do not turn an annualized estimate into a completed-year fact. If a publisher uses the estimate, preserve its method and label it so readers can judge the comparison.

### Align the Transaction Event as Well as the Calendar

Consider a fictional $50 million subscription recorded as accepted on September 29 but funded October 2. In an accepted-subscription measure, it belongs in September under the stated convention. In a funded-equity measure, it belongs in October. The same transaction can sit on different sides of the quarter boundary without either record being erroneous.

Choose the event appropriate to the study and apply it to every firm. Do not count one sponsor's accepted amounts against another's funded amounts. Also trace later cancellations. If $5 million of a period's accepted $50 million is canceled, a net accepted measure may show $45 million, depending on its defined treatment and cutoff.

The source's convention controls what its number means. A researcher can calculate a separate measure only with enough supporting data. Changing the label from accepted to funded without that bridge creates a different claim that the original record does not support.

## Reconcile Changes in Assets Under Management

A change in assets under management can arise from additions, sales, valuation changes, or a changed reporting scope. Ask for a bridge from the earlier balance to the later one. A percentage change alone cannot tell you which of these events drove it.

Consider a fictional asset balance of $1.2 billion at the beginning of a period. Add $200 million of acquired assets, subtract $150 million of assets sold, subtract $40 million of valuation changes, and add $90 million newly included through a scope change. The ending balance is $1.3 billion.

The reported increase is $100 million, or 8.33% of the starting balance. But $90 million of that increase comes from the scope change. Under the simplified model, the old-scope ending amount is $1.21 billion, only $10 million or 0.83% above the start. Neither percentage is an investment return.

### Keep the Same Population When Testing Growth

If a sponsor adds an affiliate to the reporting group, the combined asset balance can rise even when no new property was purchased during the measured interval. That may be a legitimate change in the report. It still needs to be separated from growth within the earlier group.

Use a fictional program count as a second illustration. A group starts with 19 active programs, adds three, and removes two after their defined exit events. It ends with 20. A statement that three programs were added is correct, but the net count grew by one. A count of all programs ever launched would require a different bridge.

Ask whether a completed DST moved into another vehicle that remains in the reporting group. If so, a program count might fall while the underlying asset stays in group assets. Do not count the same property as both a disposed asset and a continuing asset without explaining the reporting rules and movement.

### Avoid Turning Shrinkage Into a Performance Verdict

A lower asset balance can reflect asset sales and money returned to investors. It can also reflect valuation losses or a changed scope. The size change alone does not distinguish these paths. Request the transactions and valuation basis before describing the change as good or bad.

In a fictional comparison, two platforms each decline from $1 billion to $900 million. One reports a $100 million asset sale with no other modeled changes. The other reports a $100 million valuation decline with no sale. The percentage size change is negative 10% in both cases, but the underlying events differ.

The sale example does not establish the investors' gain either. You still need sale proceeds, debt, costs, original capital, and prior cash flows. A balance-sheet movement is not a substitute for the return record. Keep that distinction even when a ranking article rewards growth.

## Handle Plus Signs, Ranges, and Rounded Figures

A plus sign or the words more than preserve uncertainty. They should remain in the table and in any downstream calculation. A qualified figure is not an exact amount just because a charting tool accepts only numbers. Keep the original display text alongside any numerical field.

Two lower bounds do not necessarily establish which actual amount is larger. An unspecified amount above $5 billion might be above an unspecified amount above $6 billion. The displayed threshold is higher in the second statement. The actual balances cannot be ordered from those statements alone.

### Show Why Exact Growth Is Undetermined

Use fictional thresholds of more than $2 billion at the first date and more than $2.4 billion at the second. An analyst might calculate 20% from the displayed numbers. But the exact balances have not been supplied, so 20% is not an established growth rate.

One possible invented pair is $2.1 billion followed by $2.5 billion, a gain of about 19.05%. Another is $3 billion followed by $2.5 billion, a decline of about 16.67%. Both pairs meet the stated lower bounds. The examples demonstrate missing information; they are not estimates of a real sponsor's balances.

The difference between the two displayed thresholds is $400 million. You may describe it as a change in the published threshold, with that limitation clear. Do not call it a $400 million increase in actual managed assets unless another source supports that claim.

### Keep Overlapping Ranges Unresolved

Suppose one fictional measurement is known only to lie between $5.9 billion and $6.1 billion. Another lies between $6.05 billion and $6.15 billion. The ranges overlap. Either could be larger, depending on the actual values. Ranking their midpoints would add an unstated assumption.

By contrast, a confirmed range of $6.2 billion to $6.3 billion is wholly above $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion. The ordering is established within those assumed bounds and matched scopes. That does not establish a precise gap. The smallest possible gap is $100 million, and the largest is $400 million.

Rounded figures need similar care. A display rounded to one decimal place does not generally support calculations to six decimal places. Keep the source's precision and explain any rounding convention you use. More digits can make an answer look stronger without adding evidence.

## Separate Restatements From Real Growth

A correction can change the order of a table without changing anything during the reported period. Preserve the old and corrected versions so the reason is visible. The current research finding should use the supported version appropriate to the question, not whichever number produces the preferred rank.

In a fictional case, Alder publishes a June 30 balance of $1.30 billion on August 15. On September 5 it corrects that same June 30 balance to $1.24 billion. Birch's June 30 balance is $1.27 billion. The original table places Alder first; the corrected table places Birch first.

Alder's correction is $60 million downward, or about 4.62% of the originally reported amount. That is a revision to the June figure, not proof of a $60 million loss between August 15 and September 5. The date of the correction and the period being corrected serve different purposes.

### Choose the Historical Question You Mean

A study of what a reader could have seen on August 20 may retain the original report, clearly labeled as later corrected. A study of the best available June 30 balance should use the supported correction. These are different historical questions. Do not mix their answers in one unlabeled series.

When the reason for a revision is unknown, record that gap. It could involve an error, a definition change, or another factor. Do not invent a cause from the direction of the revision. Ask for the explanation and any effect on earlier comparisons.

A version log should name the source replaced, the affected amount, the effective date, and the reason given. It should also show which charts or summaries need updating. Correcting a spreadsheet cell while leaving an old ranking paragraph in place creates an internal inconsistency.

## Use Filing Dates Without Assuming a Live Data Feed

Public filings can help identify sources and dated offering facts. A filing date is still the date of a particular record, not a promise that every fact has been updated after each later transaction. Read the form's field, purpose, and amendment rules before building a running total from it.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff's Form D FAQ says amendments may be filed at any time and identifies required updates with exceptions. Changes solely to amounts sold or remaining do not themselves require an amendment. When an amendment is filed, it must provide current information as of that filing. This is why an older amount sold should not be treated as a live fundraising feed. [SEC Form D FAQ, question 6](https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-corporation-finance/frequently-asked-questions-answers-form-d)

### Do Not Sum Versions of the Same Offering

In an original fictional record, an offering reports $12 million sold in an initial filing and $18 million sold in a later amendment. If both fields describe cumulative sales for the same offering, adding them produces a false $30 million total. The later reported cumulative amount is $18 million; the change between the two recorded amounts is $6 million.

That $6 million change is not necessarily the exact cash raised during an unrelated calendar quarter. The records may span different dates, and the sales measure may not match cash funding. Establish the period and definition before using the difference in a quarterly leaderboard.

Also distinguish a new offering from a renamed or amended one. Use the legal issuer and filing identity, along with the actual documents, to resolve the relationship. Similar names can refer to separate offerings, while changed names can refer to the same one. Do not deduplicate solely by a short marketing label.

A file built from public records should retain both the value and the evidence limit. The presence of a filing supplies a research record. It does not prove that the dataset includes every sale, every current sponsor, or every relevant investment structure.

## Show Missing and Stale Sponsor Records Honestly

Choose a freshness policy that fits the research question and disclose it. A September 30 snapshot study needs that date's comparable information. A broader public-record directory may retain older figures with visible ages. These products serve different purposes and should not carry the same headline.

In a fictional study of eight selected sponsors, five supply figures that meet the stated common-date rule. Three lack comparable records. The study covers five of eight selected firms, or 62.5% by count. That percentage is not coverage of all industry assets or proof that the five are the largest.

If you remove the three unmatched firms from the visible table, keep them in an exclusions note. State whether the problem is an unknown date, a different measure, or a missing source. A missing record cannot tell you that the firm's current asset balance is small.

### Use the Same Cutoff for Every Row

Suppose the researcher freezes evidence on October 18. A source published October 20 should not be slipped into one row while the others remain based on the earlier cutoff. Either preserve the frozen study or issue a new version with the later evidence date and explain what changed.

The newly published source might describe September 30. That makes it relevant to the same measurement date, but it was not available at the earlier research cutoff. Keeping both dates lets a reader distinguish a later-informed revision from a claim about what was known before publication.

A recent source can still fail the comparison rule. An October announcement might repeat a December balance. Conversely, an older document might contain exactly the year-end figure needed for a historical study. The word latest should never replace a check of the actual period.

### Separate Research Age From a Warning About the Firm

An old figure is a limitation of the current comparison. It is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing or weak operations. The source may be accurate and the firm may share newer information privately. Record what you inspected and what you could not establish.

The next request should be precise: the same asset definition, the same entity group, and the same measurement date used for other rows. A general request for current information may return another brochure with the same undated number. Clear terms make the response easier to use.

## Publish a Comparison That Can Be Rechecked

Before publishing, make every row traceable to a source and its stated date. Keep original units, qualifiers, business scope, and versions visible. If you transform millions into billions, record the conversion. If you remove an affiliate or separate a subset, retain the supporting bridge.

In a fictional table, a figure entered as 950 million becomes 0.95 billion after division by 1,000. Entering 950 in a column labeled billions would inflate it by a factor of 1,000. Basic unit checks matter as much as complex ranking formulas. Verify the display against the source, not just against the spreadsheet formula.

### Distinguish a Change in Position From a Change in Size

Rank is relative to the other included firms. Suppose a fictional firm's balance stays at $900 million. It is third in a table with peers at $1.1 billion and $1 billion. If a newly added peer has $1.2 billion, the unchanged firm becomes fourth. It did not shrink.

Likewise, a firm can grow while moving down if others grow more or the sample changes. A table should explain changes in the included group before describing movement as lost market position. A consistent sample helps, but a consistent measure and date are still required.

The public sample in this article supports a narrower conclusion: the inspected pages contain different measurement dates, scopes, and qualifications. No matched current leaderboard was established. The research becomes more useful when that limit is visible than when an unsupported order is presented with confidence.

For a future update, keep the comparison rules fixed before collecting new numbers. Record whether a new result reflects new activity, a revised old balance, a changed definition, or newly available evidence. Readers can then understand why the table moved and what the movement actually means.

## FAQ

### Does the Date I Read a Sponsor Website Make Its Figures Current?

No. The retrieval date records your research activity. Find the date tied to the actual balance or reporting period. If none is stated in the material inspected, mark it unknown and request clarification rather than assigning today's date.

### Can I Rank the Newest Number Available for Each Sponsor?

You can make a directory of latest located records, provided every date and scope is visible. That is different from a common-date size ranking. Do not imply the amounts describe the same point in time when they do not.

### Do Two Increasing Plus-Sign Figures Prove an Exact Growth Rate?

No. The displayed thresholds can increase without revealing the precise change between the actual balances. Preserve the qualification. Ask for exact matched amounts before calculating an exact growth rate or concluding that one firm overtook another.

### Should I Annualize Partial-Year DST Fundraising?

Only as a clearly labeled model with an explicit pace assumption. It is not a completed annual total. Actual activity may vary across the year, and the periods and transaction states must still match before comparing sponsors.

### Does a Corrected Asset Figure Mean the Sponsor Lost That Amount?

Not necessarily. A correction to an earlier date changes the reported history. It does not by itself measure an economic change during the time between publication and correction. Read the stated reason and preserve both versions.

### Can I Add an Initial Form D Amount to Its Amendment?

Not when both amounts are cumulative sales for the same offering. That would count earlier reported sales twice. Establish the offering identity, the fields' meaning, and each record's date before using the information in a fundraising study.

### Did This Article Establish a Current Ranking of the Named Sponsors?

No. The selected public records were compared for their amounts, dates, qualifications, and scope. They were not standardized into a complete current DST-only dataset. All examples of reversed rankings or growth calculations outside those selected records are fictional teaching models.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This library explains how to assess source material, compare claims, and test financial examples. It does not provide a personalized investment, tax, or legal recommendation.

## Sources

- [ExchangeRight March 2026 release](https://www.exchangeright.com/news/all-exchangeright-offerings-meet-or-exceed-projections-2025/). Published March 3, 2026; selected asset description as of January 31, 2026.
- [ExchangeRight homepage](https://www.exchangeright.com/). Selected asset statistics as of September 30, 2026; inspected October 18, 2026.
- [Capital Square About page](https://capitalsq.com/about/). Undated current page inspected October 18, 2026; separate narrative and statistics-panel amounts without separate measurement dates.
- [Inland homepage](https://inland-investments.com/). Selected asset figure and scope as of December 31, 2025; inspected October 18, 2026.
- [SEC Form D FAQ](https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-corporation-finance/frequently-asked-questions-answers-form-d). January 22, 2026; last reviewed or updated July 9, 2026; selected question 6 amendment guidance.


## 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)