Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/top-dst-sponsors-2026-comparing-transparency-fees-and-operational-experience
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-18T02:41:37.572Z
Updated: 2026-10-18T02:41:37.572Z

# Top DST Sponsors (2026): Comparing Transparency, Fees, and Operational Experience

## What Is This Article About?

This article compares the public evidence behind three parts of a DST sponsor review: transparency, fees, and operating experience. It examines selected 2026 filings and current company pages for Capital Square, ExchangeRight, and Inland, while stating what remains untested. It then uses original examples to show how the same fee label or job title can hide very different facts. The aim is a useful comparison with clear limits, rather than a single score that makes the choice for you.

## Table of Contents

- [What a Sponsor Comparison Should Establish](#what-a-sponsor-comparison-should-establish)
- [The Public Evidence Reviewed in 2026](#the-public-evidence-reviewed-in-2026)
- [DST Sponsor Transparency: Test the Report, Not Its Label](#dst-sponsor-transparency-test-the-report-not-its-label)
- [DST Sponsor Fees: Match the Base, Timing, and Recipient](#dst-sponsor-fees-match-the-base-timing-and-recipient)
- [Operating Experience: Find the Team Behind the Property](#operating-experience-find-the-team-behind-the-property)
- [A Worked Comparison Without an Overall Score](#a-worked-comparison-without-an-overall-score)
- [How to Resolve Conflicting Sponsor Disclosures](#how-to-resolve-conflicting-sponsor-disclosures)
- [What to Put in a Sponsor Research Conclusion](#what-to-put-in-a-sponsor-research-conclusion)
- [FAQ](#faq)
- [About Sequoia Research](#about-sequoia-research)
- [Sources](#sources)

## What a Sponsor Comparison Should Establish

A useful comparison tells you which facts you can trace to records, what those facts mean, and what you still need to learn. A sponsor may provide clear reports yet charge high fees. Another may show a long career history but give little detail about who handles the property today. Those findings can coexist. A research process should leave room for all of them.

Here, DST means Delaware statutory trust. The sponsor is the business behind the offering program. The issuer is the specific trust selling interests. The broker selling the interest, the firm running the building, and a related company receiving fees may each be separate legal parties. Start by writing down their full names. A parent company's reputation does not tell you every term in a trust's documents.

The public comparison below is narrow. We reviewed selected documents available without entering an investor account. We did not inspect each firm's complete private offering library, actual audit reports, internal staffing records, or service history. We did not ask the firms to compete for an investor's business. The sample supports observations about disclosed facts, not a market-wide ranking or a finding that one firm is best.

Keep three questions on separate lines. Can I trace the numbers and learn about changes? What costs could apply to my interest, and who receives them? Who performs the work needed by this property, and what records show relevant experience? An answer to one question should not quietly become an answer to the other two.

This separation also helps when advice comes from a regulated broker. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, discusses covered member firms' private-placement investigations in Regulatory Notice 23-08. It calls for work on management, assets, claims, and use of proceeds, with attention to related-party payments and other concerns. That guidance is a duty framework for covered firms, not an endorsement of these sponsors or a rating supplied by FINRA. [FINRA private-placement guidance](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08)

## The Public Evidence Reviewed in 2026

The following records were reviewed on October 17, 2026. A current website visit does not turn an older filing into a current offer. The two dated filings are selected snapshots. Later amendments, private terms, or class terms may change the picture. We have not established that either offering remains available.

### Transparency and Operating Roles in the Named Sample

| Sponsor or brand | Public observation | What remains untested here |
|---|---|---|
| Capital Square | Its investment page describes annual independent cash-flow audits on DST properties. Its leadership page lists named asset-management, accounting, and investor-relations roles. | Actual audit scope and opinions; the staff assigned to a particular trust; actual response times |
| ExchangeRight | Its leadership page describes asset oversight, tenant relations, leasing, and financial reporting among named leaders' work. | Current property-level assignments, staff capacity, and results of those processes |
| Inland | Its leadership page separates roles across Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation and Inland Securities Corporation. It describes research and underwriting work. | Which entity and staff serve the specific trust, and their current workload and reporting results |

Capital Square's stated audit practice is more specific than a broad promise to be clear. However, we did not obtain the reports or test their scope. A cash-flow audit description does not establish that every future forecast or investor outcome has been audited. The leadership listing identifies Chris Hirth in asset management, Angela Inge in accounting, and Donna Quick in investor relations. Those are company disclosures, not our verification of work quality. [Capital Square investment page](https://capitalsq.com/real-estate-investment/), [Capital Square leadership](https://capitalsq.com/about/leadership/)

ExchangeRight's page describes Tim Williams as overseeing asset management, including tenant relations, leasing work, and physical properties. It also identifies Kevin Steines with financial reporting. This gives a clearer starting point for role questions than a brand name alone. We did not inspect employment records or a trust's service agreement. [ExchangeRight leadership](https://www.exchangeright.com/leadership/)

Inland's page identifies Phil McAlister with research and acquisition modeling at Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation. It separately identifies sales and compliance roles at Inland Securities Corporation. The distinction helps avoid treating every person shown under a shared brand as an employee of the trust's sponsor. We did not verify staffing assignments for an individual offering. [Inland leadership](https://inland-investments.com/leadership)

### Two Offering Fee Snapshots With Different Disclosures

ExchangeRight Essential Income 8 DST's January 23, 2026 Form D lists a $15,385,000 total offering and an estimated $615,400 in sales commissions. Dividing those disclosed figures gives 4.00%. That is a ratio of two filing fields, not a verified all-in fee or an investor quote. The filing reported no sales yet. It also lists $0 under its related-person use-of-proceeds field; that field is not proof that all present and future affiliate costs are zero. [ExchangeRight Essential Income 8 DST Form D, Items 13–16](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2107121/000210712126000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml)

Inland Long Island Residential DST's March 20, 2026 Form D/A lists $107,581,888 offered and estimated sales commissions of $8,498,969, or about 7.90% of the offered amount. Its note includes maximum selling commissions, dealer fees, and placement-agent fees in that figure. A separate $6,799,456 related-person estimate covers stated acquisition, financing, offering, and organization items. We have not reconciled those categories into a complete cost total or tested for overlap. [Inland Long Island Residential DST Form D/A, Items 13–16](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2113730/000211373026000002/xslFormDX08/primary_doc.xml)

These are different trusts with different documents and timing. The ratios do not establish which sponsor is cheaper for a matched investment. We also have no comparable Capital Square offering fee schedule in this selected review. Marking that field as unknown is more faithful than borrowing a rate from another offering or filling in zero.

The filings themselves caution that the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, has not necessarily reviewed the information or determined that it is accurate and complete. Their presence on the SEC website is not regulatory approval. A public filing is a source to examine, with a date and a scope, rather than a seal of investment quality.

## DST Sponsor Transparency: Test the Report, Not Its Label

Transparency is useful when it helps you answer a real question. A folder with many files can still leave the most important question open. A short report may be useful if its numbers connect to source records and its explanations make changes clear. Count resolved questions, not the number of pages in the folder.

Consider an original reporting example. A fictional trust sends investors a quarterly page showing $180,000 in cash distributions. The same page lists $145,000 of cash from operations and a $35,000 withdrawal from reserves. The amounts reconcile: $145,000 plus $35,000 equals $180,000. That arithmetic makes the cash source visible. It does not show whether the distribution will be maintained next quarter.

Now imagine a second fictional trust that reports the same $180,000 distribution but gives no source breakdown. You cannot infer that all of it came from rent. You also cannot infer that the sponsor hid a problem. The correct research status is that the source remains unconfirmed in the material reviewed. A follow-up request should ask for the breakdown and the period it covers.

A report can be clear about cash but weak about reasons. If repairs rise, readers need enough detail to distinguish planned work from an urgent failure. If vacancy rises, they need to know whether the number reflects a short gap between tenants or a long-term loss of demand. Useful reporting connects an event, its effect, and the planned response without pretending the response has already worked.

### Ask What Was Tested and for Which Period

An audit, review, budget comparison, and management update serve different purposes. Before treating any label as strong evidence, read the actual document. Record the named entity, period, subject, preparer, and conclusion. Check what the work excludes. A report on one property or one year should not silently cover another property or another year in your comparison.

For example, assume a fictional document tests cash receipts for the year ended December 31. A separate sales page forecasts cash distributions for the next five years. Even if the historical work is sound, it does not turn the forecast into an observed result. Put the historical evidence and the forecast assumptions in separate rows. That prevents a reader from carrying confidence across a gap the source does not bridge.

Timing deserves its own note. A report received in October may describe June. The receipt date tells you when it arrived. The period end tells you which activity it covers. Both matter, but they are not the same. If a major tenant left in August, the June numbers alone cannot explain that later event.

You can create a simple reporting calendar without rating the sponsor. List each promised item, its covered period, expected delivery date, actual arrival date, and any open questions. Keep a blank arrival field when nothing has arrived. A guessed date would make the record look complete while hiding the very issue you are trying to track.

### Look for Corrections That Reach the Reader

A clear correction can be more useful than a quiet replacement. Suppose a fictional sponsor changes a reserve figure from $400,000 to $340,000. The research question is what changed: a typo, a payment, a new estimate, or a shift in the definition. Preserve the earlier figure and attach the explanation. A new file with no note cannot answer that question by itself.

Also check whether the corrected number flows into related materials. The reserve table, cash forecast, and investor letter should use consistent facts or explain their different dates. If only one file changes, record the mismatch. Do not choose the version that makes the offering appear stronger.

This is a practical standard for research, not a claim that every report must use the same format. The goal is to understand the money and decisions well enough to ask focused questions. A reviewer can accept different layouts while still requiring clear dates, defined terms, and a traceable explanation for a material change.

## DST Sponsor Fees: Match the Base, Timing, and Recipient

A fee percentage is incomplete without its base. The base is the amount to which the rate applies. A charge based on property cost can differ from one based on investor equity, rent collected, or sale value. Equal percentages can produce unequal dollars. Different percentages can produce the same dollars.

All examples in this section are original, simplified models. They are not quotes from the named firms and do not describe a complete offering. Their purpose is to make the questions concrete before you examine actual contracts.

Assume Model One charges an acquisition fee of 1% of a $30 million property price. That produces a $300,000 fee. Model Two charges 2% of $15 million of investor equity, also $300,000. The second rate is twice the first, but the modeled dollar amount is equal. A comparison that sorts only the percentages would get the economic difference wrong.

The same issue appears with ongoing costs. Suppose one contract charges 0.5% of a fixed $20 million base each year. Its modeled annual charge is $100,000. Another charges 5% of $2 million in rent collected, also $100,000. If rent falls to $1.6 million, the second charge becomes $80,000, while the first remains $100,000 under the stated assumptions. The fee base changes how costs respond to stress.

These equal starting costs do not prove the contracts are equal. The duties included, excluded expenses, payment priority, and right to change the fee may differ. Read those terms before treating a lower modeled expense as better value. A fee may pay for work that another contract bills separately.

### Build a Fee Map That Does Not Double Count

For each line, record five things: recipient, service, rate or dollar amount, base, and timing. Add the document page that supports the entry. Then note whether another table includes the same charge. A fee map should follow payments through the structure, rather than add every number that contains the word fee.

Suppose an original model shows a $500,000 total selling-cost allowance. A separate schedule says a $150,000 dealer fee is included within that allowance. The combined amount remains $500,000, not $650,000. The second schedule breaks out part of the first number. Adding both would count the same $150,000 twice.

Change the wording to say the dealer fee is in addition to the allowance. The total is now $650,000, assuming no other offsets or overlapping items. That single phrase changes the answer by $150,000. When the documents are unclear, leave the combined total open and ask for a written check of the totals.

Reimbursement is another line to inspect. It may repay an expense rather than provide a fixed profit. Still, the investor's cash can be affected. Ask what costs qualify, whether a cap applies, who approves the charge, and what records support it. Calling a payment a reimbursement does not make its dollar effect disappear.

### Separate Upfront, Annual, and Exit Costs

A one-time charge and an annual fee cannot be compared by placing their rates in one column. Time matters. A five-year model and a ten-year model can show different totals even when the annual fee is unchanged. Exit charges may also depend on conditions that never occur.

Consider an original model with $240,000 of upfront fees and $60,000 of annual fees. Assume the annual fee is paid at each year end for exactly five years. That gives $300,000 of annual payments and $540,000 of combined nominal fees before any exit costs. Nominal means we simply add dollars paid at different dates, without adjusting for the value of time.

If the holding period is seven years under the same assumptions, annual payments total $420,000 and combined nominal fees reach $660,000. The extra two years add $120,000. This does not predict a holding period or show a full investment return. It isolates how time changes one cost stream.

Now add a hypothetical exit charge of 1% of a $32 million sale value. That would add $320,000 if the contract uses that base and the event occurs. It would not be 1% of the cash left after debt unless the contract says so. Read the base before using sale proceeds in the formula.

A final fee table should also show who bears the charge. A property expense may reduce cash before the trust receives it. A trust-level fee may reduce cash later. An outside advisory fee may come from the investor's separate account. Those costs can affect the same person through different routes, but they should not be subtracted twice from a return already shown after fees.

## Operating Experience: Find the Team Behind the Property

Operating experience is most useful when it matches the work ahead. A long career in buying buildings may be relevant, yet it does not by itself show experience with a major renovation, a tenant bankruptcy, or a new local market. Ask what problem the current plan requires the team to solve.

Start with the property plan. A stable leased building may call for careful lease tracking, tenant credit review, and repairs. A property with many expiring leases may need active leasing work and cash for tenant improvements. A housing property may need staff who understand unit turns, collections, and local rules. These are examples of tasks to look into, not claims about any sponsor in the public sample.

Then identify the people and firms doing those tasks. A biography may explain a person's past. A service agreement can help establish the present assignment. A recent operating report can show what work was reported. Each source adds a different piece. None should stand in for the others.

### Match Experience to Responsibility

An original staffing example makes the issue clear. Fictional Firm Alder has a senior executive with 25 years in real estate. Its current property manager has handled the target building for two years. Fictional Firm Birch has a senior executive with 12 years in real estate and a manager with eight years at the target building. The headline career totals favor Alder, while property-specific tenure favors Birch. Neither fact alone decides which team can execute the plan.

A useful review asks who sets the budget, who can approve work, who monitors the loan, and who reports exceptions. It also asks who replaces a key person during an absence or departure. A system built around one respected name may face different risks from a team with documented handoffs. The names and the handoff process both deserve attention.

Do not add several employees' career years to invent a company track record. Three people with 20 years each have 60 combined career-years under that arithmetic. They have not operated one firm for 60 years. Their work may overlap in time and may have taken place at other businesses. Preserve the actual dates and roles.

Past projects also need context. A team member may have worked on a successful property without controlling the decisions that produced the result. Ask what the person did, when they did it, and whether the relevant role continues. A project list is a starting point for that inquiry, not proof that the current offering will repeat the outcome.

### Test Capacity Alongside Experience

A capable team can still have limited time. Suppose a fictional asset-management group has four staff members overseeing 28 properties. That is seven properties per staff member by simple division. If six properties are added and staffing remains four, the ratio becomes 8.5. These figures describe workload counts, not a universal quality limit.

The properties may differ greatly. One large complex could take more work than several small leased buildings. Staff may have different jobs, and outside managers may handle much of the daily work. Therefore, keep the count and the scope together. A low ratio without a clear job definition can be just as misleading as a high ratio without context.

Ask how the team handles a busy period. Who reviews invoices while a senior manager negotiates a lease? Who checks reports when a new acquisition closes? What triggers escalation to someone with authority? These questions turn a broad claim about experience into a discussion of actual operating design.

We did not test those processes at the named firms. The public pages identify possible lines of inquiry. A completed offering review would need evidence tied to the property and the people currently responsible for it.

## A Worked Comparison Without an Overall Score

The following example uses three entirely fictional sponsor profiles: Alder, Birch, and Cedar. They do not represent Capital Square, ExchangeRight, Inland, or any other real company. All documents, costs, dates, and staffing facts in this example are invented to explain the research method.

Assume each profile offers a different property. You are considering the same $250,000 cash commitment, but the property risks and contracts differ. The goal is to see which evidence is complete enough for further review. It is not to choose an investment from this table.

| Research dimension | Alder | Birch | Cedar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting evidence supplied in this model | Four quarterly reports with reconciled cash sources | Four quarterly reports; one cash-source question open | Two reports supplied; two periods missing |
| Modeled upfront cost on the $250,000 commitment | $20,000 | $15,000 | Not established |
| Modeled annual cost on a fixed $250,000 base | $1,250 | $2,000 | $1,000, but excluded services open |
| Current property duties | Named manager and written duties | Named manager; backup duties open | Brand biography only |
| Research conclusion | Several facts are traceable; cost and property merits still need review | Lower initial cost; open reporting and backup questions | Cost scope and operating assignment incomplete |

For Alder, the assumed upfront rate is 8% of $250,000, producing $20,000. Its annual rate is 0.5% of the fixed base, producing $1,250. For Birch, the assumed upfront rate is 6%, producing $15,000, while its annual rate is 0.8%, producing $2,000. Those are model inputs, not market averages.

Over exactly five years, with five annual payments and no other costs, Alder's modeled total is $26,250. Birch's is $25,000. The difference is $1,250. Over exactly ten years, Alder's total becomes $32,500 and Birch's becomes $35,000. The ordering changes because Birch's annual cost is higher.

The two simplified cost lines meet after six and two-thirds years if you treat annual costs as accruing evenly through time. With payments only at year end, Alder still costs more after six annual payments and less after seven. State which timing convention you use. A fractional break-even point should not be presented as an actual payment date.

This is a nominal fee comparison. It ignores tax, time value, other costs, varying fee bases, and differences in property outcomes. It assumes the initial and annual charges are separate and do not overlap. Without those limits, a tidy number could suggest a precision the example does not deserve.

Cedar's $1,000 annual line cannot be called the cheapest complete service package. Its excluded services remain open. If a reviewer silently fills Cedar's unknown upfront cost with zero, Cedar may look attractive for a reason supported by no record. The honest display is incomplete cost evidence, even though one observed line is lower.

Reporting can be assessed in the same way. Four out of four expected reports is 100% delivery coverage. Two out of four is 50%. Those are counts of supplied reports, not measures of truth, clarity, or investment safety. Birch's four reports include an open issue, so full delivery coverage does not mean every important question is resolved.

Alder's named manager and duties give the reviewer something concrete to check. That does not prove good performance. Birch's missing backup detail calls for a focused follow-up. Cedar's broad biography leaves the property assignment unconfirmed. None of these observations requires a star rating.

You can still reach a useful decision about the research process. Alder may move to a detailed property review. Birch may need two answers before the same step. Cedar may remain on hold for missing scope. Those are workflow decisions based on the fictional evidence, not investment recommendations or statements about the real sponsors above.

## How to Resolve Conflicting Sponsor Disclosures

When two sources disagree, first check whether they are actually describing the same thing. One may show a maximum fee and another a negotiated rate. One may cover a full year and another a quarter. One may describe a parent company and another the trust. Those differences can explain a mismatch without making either statement false.

Use a short issue record. State the question, quote only the necessary conflicting fields, name both files, and record their dates and page locations. Then write what would resolve the issue. A good request might ask whether a fee is included in a total, which version controls, and whether the answer applies to the investor's class.

Keep the answer with its source. A phone call can help locate the right document, but a reviewer should not turn an informal explanation into a contract term. If the final written documents do not support the answer, keep that limitation visible. The right next step may be a written clarification from the appropriate party and review by the investor's adviser or counsel.

Do not erase old evidence when a new file arrives. Mark the old file as replaced for the relevant purpose, retain its date, and explain the change. That history helps another reader understand why the conclusion moved. It also prevents a later reviewer from using an outdated brochure by mistake.

Some gaps are easy to close. A missing page can be supplied. A misnamed entity can be corrected with the signed agreement. Other questions remain uncertain, such as how a team will respond to a future tenant loss. State that uncertainty directly. More documents cannot make every future event known.

A serious mismatch should affect the research conclusion. If the review cannot reconcile a material cost or identify the party responsible for a key duty, it is reasonable to withhold a conclusion on that dimension. Filling the blank with a favorable assumption would hide the concern. Filling it with an accusation would go beyond the evidence.

## What to Put in a Sponsor Research Conclusion

A strong conclusion is short enough to use and specific enough to check. It names the offering, the date of review, the documents examined, and the open items. It separates observations from judgments. It also tells the next reader what would change the conclusion.

For example, an original research note might say: “The reviewed package identifies the property manager and reconciles last quarter's cash distributions. The annual fee schedule is clear, but the exit-fee base remains open. We have not completed the cost comparison. The next review step is to reconcile that base with the signed agreement.” This says more than a high transparency score because it preserves the remaining work.

Write a separate sentence about operations. State which role and period the experience evidence covers. If only a leadership page was reviewed, say so. If a property-specific report was examined, identify its date. Avoid language that implies an on-site inspection, staff interview, or audit unless that work actually occurred.

Keep fee conclusions equally narrow. “The disclosed commission estimate divided by the offered amount is X” is a filing observation. “This sponsor is cheaper” is a broader claim that needs matched terms and complete costs. The first does not automatically justify the second.

For the named public sample in this article, the defensible result is a set of distinct findings and follow-up questions. We found public reporting-policy statements, named operating roles, and two dated offering fee disclosures. We did not establish matched all-in costs or verify property-level service quality. The research remains useful because those boundaries are explicit.

If you next compare outcomes, use a separate review of [full-cycle results](/writing/top-dst-sponsors-2026-what-full-cycle-results-add-to-the-discussion). Completed-program cash records answer a different question from an audit policy or a staffing page. Keeping each conclusion tied to the evidence makes later updates easier to understand and less likely to overstate what has been proved.

## FAQ

### Who Are the Top DST Sponsors for Transparency?

This article does not select an overall winner. It reviews a defined public sample and identifies specific disclosures. A useful finding on openness depends on the actual offering, report periods, source access, and whether important questions can be resolved. A clear public policy is worth investigating, but it is not a substitute for examining the records it describes.

### Can I Compare DST Sponsor Fees From Form D Alone?

You can compare the fields that a particular filing actually supplies, with their dates and definitions. You cannot assume that a single field covers every upfront, annual, exit, and outside cost. Reconcile the offering documents, class terms, and applicable agreements before making an all-in comparison. Keep estimates separate from paid expenses.

### Does a Lower Fee Percentage Always Mean a Lower Cost?

No. The rate may apply to a different base or period. In the original example above, 1% of a $30 million property price and 2% of $15 million of equity both equal $300,000. Even equal dollars may buy different services. The contract scope and any excluded expenses matter alongside the calculation.

### Is a Cash-Flow Audit the Same as a Guarantee of Returns?

No. Read the actual report to understand its subject, period, procedures, and conclusion. Historical work does not establish future cash receipts or a future sale price. A statement that audits occur also differs from having reviewed those reports. Keep the claimed practice and the inspected evidence separate in your research notes.

### How Should I Compare Large and Small Operating Teams?

Start with the work each team must perform and the people assigned to it. Staff counts alone do not reveal workload, outside support, or decision authority. Ask how duties are divided and how the team handles absences, new properties, and urgent events. Avoid treating a simple properties-per-person ratio as a quality rating.

### What Should I Do With a Missing Fee or Staffing Field?

Mark it unknown and say what evidence would resolve it. Do not treat a missing fee as zero or a missing biography as proof of poor performance. If the gap affects a material conclusion, withhold that conclusion until the relevant evidence arrives. This preserves both fairness to the firm and clarity for the reader.

### How Often Should a Sponsor Comparison Be Updated?

Update it when material evidence changes or before relying on it for a new offering decision. A leadership change, revised agreement, new report, or altered fee schedule can make an older comparison incomplete. Preserve the prior review date and describe the change. A current date on the cover alone does not refresh the underlying research.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library explains how to inspect sources, compare investment terms, and separate verified facts from open questions. This article is general research education and does not provide an individual investment, legal, or tax recommendation.

## Sources

- [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08), May 9, 2023; private-placement investigations by covered member firms. Reviewed October 17, 2026.
- [Capital Square Real Estate Investments](https://capitalsq.com/real-estate-investment/), undated company page; stated cash-flow audit practice. Reviewed October 17, 2026; actual reports not inspected.
- [Capital Square Leadership](https://capitalsq.com/about/leadership/), undated company page; named current roles as displayed when reviewed October 17, 2026.
- [ExchangeRight Leadership](https://www.exchangeright.com/leadership/), undated company page; described operating and reporting duties. Reviewed October 17, 2026.
- [Inland Leadership](https://inland-investments.com/leadership), undated company page; roles and entity distinctions. Reviewed October 17, 2026.
- [ExchangeRight Essential Income 8 DST Form D](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2107121/000210712126000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml), January 23, 2026; selected fee and offering fields. Reviewed October 17, 2026; not established as the latest filing.
- [Inland Long Island Residential DST Form D/A](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2113730/000211373026000002/xslFormDX08/primary_doc.xml), March 20, 2026; selected fee and offering fields. Reviewed October 17, 2026; not established as the latest amendment.


## Related Reading and Tools

- [Largest DST Sponsors (2026): What Size Actually Measures](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/largest-dst-sponsors-2026-what-size-actually-measures)
- [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)
- [Top DST Sponsors for 1031 Exchanges (2026): How to Compare Them Before Your Identification Deadline](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/top-dst-sponsors-for-1031-exchanges-2026-how-to-compare-them-before-your-identification-deadline)