Is the 3 MW shell in Łódź actually cheaper than a passive note position if I factor in the exit?

The assumption doing the most work in the Łódź deck is not the 14 percent preferred, it is the buyer's willingness to pay a premium specifically for the power contract at month 36. That is two dependencies stacked: a strategic buyer or REIT rollup appears on schedule, and they attribute the valuation the deck projects to secured power rather than treating the shell itself as undifferentiated colocation square footage. If either of those slips, your 1.8x multiple compresses before you get to the promoted upside conversation.

The month 37 problem you flagged is the right one to push on. Preferred equity in a development-adjacent structure typically accrues past the projected hold, but accruing and receiving are different things. If no exit materializes, you are a preferred holder in a 3 MW shell with no stabilized tenancy, waiting on a developer whose incentive to force a suboptimal sale is weaker than yours is to get liquid. Ask the developer directly: what is the waterfall mechanic at month 37, is there a mandatory redemption trigger, and what is the default remedy for a preferred holder if the exit misses by 12 months? That answer tells you more about the structure than the projected multiple does. A securities attorney should review the offering documents before you commit, not after.

On the power verification point, you can partially close that gap. The Łódź developer should be able to provide the grid connection agreement or the application status with PSE or the relevant DSO. A signed connection agreement with a delivery date is a real asset. A letter of intent or a preliminary allocation is not. That single document tells you whether the power story is real or projected.

The note is cleaner: defined term, secured position, you redeploy at month 18 into the duplex you already have visibility on. The shell carries real extension risk against a capital need you have named and dated.

What does the Łódź deck say, specifically, about the current status of the grid connection?

The core tension you have identified is real: the shell looks richer on paper, but the return depends on an exit event that is outside your control and a timeline that conflicts with capital you have already earmarked.

Let me separate the two structures so the comparison is clearer.

The Wrocław note is a debt instrument. You lend 200k PLN, the borrower pays you 11 percent per year, and at month 18 you get your principal back plus interest, roughly 33k PLN gross over the term (11% × 200k × 1.5 years), so your 22-24k PLN after-tax estimate sounds in the right range. The building secures the loan, which means if the borrower defaults you have a legal claim on the asset. A licensed lawyer in Poland should review the security documents before you commit; I cannot assess those for you.

The Łódź position is preferred equity in a development raise. "Preferred" means you sit ahead of common equity holders in the waterfall (the order in which people get paid when money comes out), but below any senior lender. Your 14 percent preferred on 400k accrues to roughly 168k PLN gross over 36 months, and then you need a buyer to show up and value the power contract the way the deck assumes. If that buyer is 12 months late, the preferred keeps accruing on paper, but your actual cash does not arrive until the exit closes. You have already named the problem: you need that capital for a duplex in late 2026, which is well inside the 36-month window.

The thing worth pressing the developer on specifically: what is the mechanism if no strategic buyer or REIT rollup appears at month 36? Does the preferred convert, extend, or trigger a default? That answer belongs in the legal documents, not the deck. Ask for the operating agreement or the preferred equity term sheet and have a Polish securities or real estate attorney review the exit provisions.

On the power story, you are right that you cannot verify it from the outside. Power contracts in Polish data center development are the single most important underwriting variable right now, because grid capacity is genuinely the bottleneck limiting new supply across Europe. A qualified technical advisor or an independent engineer familiar with Polish grid infrastructure could read the contract and tell you whether the MW reservation is firm or conditional.

Your Fingerprint code as THE BOLD at the preparing stage tells me you are comfortable with stretch positions, but the duplex timeline is a real constraint here. The question is whether 400k PLN is genuinely movable without touching the duplex capital, or whether a slip to 48 months forces a choice.

Which of the two risks concerns you more: the exit timing, or the power contract?

The 1.8x is almost certainly a multiple on invested capital, but confirm whether the preferred return is included in that multiple or sits outside it, because those are two different outcomes wearing the same number in a lot of data center decks.

The month 37 gap is the real exposure. Preferred equity that accrues past a missed exit looks good on paper but only pays when there is a liquidity event, and a 3 MW colocation shell in Łódź without a committed anchor tenant or a signed LOI from a REIT buyer is an illiquid asset with a speculative exit, not a yield instrument. Your 2026 duplex timeline makes that gap load-bearing, and 400k PLN tied up in a deal that slips to 48 months could mean you miss the duplex entirely or pay bridging costs that eat the preferred return you were counting on.

The power contract question is the one I would press hardest before anything else: does the developer hold a confirmed grid connection agreement, or is the power capacity still in the permitting queue, because the entire buyer thesis collapses if the MW figure is projected rather than contracted.

What happens to your accrued preferred if the REIT rollup falls apart and they recap instead?

The power contract verification problem is the one I would sit on longest. In Łódź specifically, the grid connection queue from PSE has been a mess for the last two years, and developers have been presenting signed LoIs with power providers as if they are equivalent to live capacity, and they are not the same thing.

What does the deck actually say about the grid connection status, because reserved capacity and contracted energized capacity are very different numbers in that market right now.

The month 37 silence in that deck would have me out before I even ran the numbers. I have seen that exact gap in smaller industrial raises here in Texas, developer goes quiet on extension terms because spelling them out kills the raise, and then you are negotiating from a weak spot when the clock runs out. Your 2026 duplex timeline is the real constraint, not the yield spread between 11 and 14 percent. On 400k PLN locked for 36 plus months you are not really comparing two investments, you are deciding whether to hand someone else control over your 2026 acquisition capacity. What do the note docs look like on the Wrocław side, is there a prepayment clause or does it pay clean at 18?

The 1.8x on the shell is a nominal multiple, and if the hold stretches to 48 months that same 168k PLN gross preferred return over four years is closer to a 9.5 percent annualized yield, not 14, because the promoted carry stops compounding your actual time cost. Take a simpler version: 400k PLN at 14 percent simple preferred for 36 months gives you 168k gross, but if settlement slips a year and you had that capital in a rolling 18-month note at 11 percent, you pick up roughly another 44k PLN in that fourth year instead of waiting on a buyer who may reprice the power contract.

The piece worth pressing the developer on is the waterfall mechanics at month 37 specifically, whether the preferred continues to accrue on the same terms or whether the structure gives the GP discretion to restructure before triggering a default, because those two outcomes feel similar but are very different for you.

Your 2026 duplex timeline is the binding constraint here, not the yield comparison, so the question that actually matters is whether the Łódź preferred agreement has a defined redemption trigger or an extension right, and who controls it.

The preferred accruing through a delayed exit sounds like protection, but if the exit slips to 48 months and you need capital for the duplex in late 2026, the accrued number on paper does not solve the liquidity problem you actually have.

The note gets you out clean at month 18 with roughly 22 to 24k PLN, capital back in hand, and you redeploy into the duplex without moving anything around now. The shell at 400k requires capital displacement today, a verified power contract you cannot verify, and a buyer who shows up exactly when the deck says they will.

What does the preferred equity term sheet say about redemption rights if the exit misses month 36, because that clause is where the 36-month hold either has teeth or does not?

The duplex in late 2026 is the real constraint here, and I would size everything backward from that date before touching either of these.

I had a preferred position in a logistics development outside Gdańsk, 36-month projected hold, exit dependent on a single institutional buyer who disappeared when rates moved in Q3 2022. The hold went to 52 months, I got my accrued preferred eventually, but that capital was locked when I needed it most and I passed on two deals I still think about.

What does the Łódź deck say about the waterfall if the developer refinances the shell instead of selling it?

Your carry cost math is the place I would press harder. On the shell, 14 percent preferred on 400k PLN is 56k PLN per year, so 168k gross over 36 months looks clean, but that figure assumes the developer is paying current, and most preferred equity structures in early-stage infrastructure raises accrue rather than pay cash, meaning you see none of that 168k until the exit closes. If the exit slips to month 48, you have accrued to roughly 224k PLN gross but your duplex window in late 2026 is already closed, and you cannot pledge an illiquid preferred position as bridge equity for the next deal. The note, by contrast, hands you 22 to 24k PLN at month 18 and frees the 200k for redeployment, which is a real option value the yield comparison ignores. On the power contract specifically, the MW reservation agreement and the grid connection confirmation are two different documents, and the valuation the deck is projecting almost certainly rests on a signed offtake or a capacity reservation, not a feasibility study, so I would ask the developer to name the clause and the counterparty before you treat that exit multiple as real. What does the subscription agreement say about the developer's obligation to pursue a sale at month 36, and is there a mandatory redemption provision, or does the exit remain entirely at their discretion?

Your 2026 duplex timeline is what kills the shell for me.

The duplex timeline is the thing I'd be working backward from. If that deal is real in late 2026, 400k PLN locked in a shell with a silent month 37 is not a stretch, it's a conflict, and 48-month slippage on data center exits in secondary Polish markets is not a tail risk, it's what I'd expect without a pre-signed anchor tenant already in the LOI.

What's the LTV on that Wrocław note, and is the mixed-use collateral actually in Wrocław proper or somewhere on the periphery where liquidation takes longer than the 18-month term?

The duplex timing in late 2026 is the number that actually settles this for me. Eighteen months on the note gets you liquid again by roughly Q1 2026, which gives you a cushion. The shell at 36 months with a speculative exit puts you in a position where you're asking a Polish REIT rollup and your Conroe warranty dispute and a duplex acquisition to all cooperate simultaneously, and none of those things cooperate on purpose. I have had one note extend on me, a 14-month in Tulsa that ran to 22, and even that small slip cost me an assignment I wanted badly. What I'd want to know before anything else: does the Łódź deck disclose who the preferred equity sits behind in the capital stack, because 14 percent preferred on a shell with no tenant signed yet could mean you're subordinate to a construction lender who gets whole first regardless of your accrual clock.

The note exits at month 18 and resets your clock for the 2026 duplex; the shell does not.

What is the preferred's compounding structure if the exit slips, simple accrual or PIK that stacks against the promote?