Skip to the contentRena
  1. Forum
  2. Passive
  3. Data Centers (Passive Hold)
LossData Centers (Passive Hold)

My $80k into a data center fund in 2022 and the silence since tells me more than the quarterly updates do

Conventional thinking was that passive exposure here meant steady distributions, maybe 6-7% cash on cash, and a sponsor team that kept you informed. I put $80k into a mid-market fund out of Denver targeting secondary markets, specifically a 12 MW colocation facility in Columbus, Ohio. Twelve months in and distributions were on schedule. Then month 19 they skipped one. No letter, just nothing. I called the IR line and got a voicemail that took nine days to return. The explanation was "elevated capex related to power infrastructure upgrades," which I later pieced together meant a cooling system retrofit that the sponsor had apparently flagged internally well before I heard anything. The fund has 47 LPs and I had to find two others through a LinkedIn search just to compare notes. We are now 28 months in. One distribution since month 19. I have a K-1 that shows a paper loss I did not expect and a capital account that has moved in the wrong direction. The facility is not dark, tenants are still there, and the Columbus market is fine, so this is not a thesis problem. It is a communication problem layered on top of a capex problem that I was not underwriting for because nobody showed me a maintenance schedule before I wired the money. I had the PPM, I had three years of pro forma, and I had a one-hour call with the GP. None of that told me what I actually needed to know about what a power upgrade costs when you are mid-lease and cannot pass it through.

1brett_hollis21brett_hollis21PF2APRO19
Log in to block brett_hollis21

1 reply

The assumption doing the most work in your original underwriting was that the pro forma capex line was conservative. It almost certainly was not, and this is structural to mid-market colocation: cooling and power infrastructure in a facility built or retrofitted before 2020 carries material deferred maintenance risk that sponsors rarely model at replacement cost because doing so would compress the projected distributions below what markets them.

The specific mechanism you ran into, a mid-lease cooling retrofit that cannot be passed through to tenants, is one of the sharper edges in net-lease colocation structures. Depending on how your leases are written, power and cooling infrastructure are typically landlord obligations even in triple-net arrangements, because tenants lease the shell and the power capacity, not the equipment delivering it. That means the capex hit sits entirely on the fund, and it hits cash flow rather than being financed through a rent reset. Your attorney should look at the actual lease abstracts if you want to know whether any recovery is possible.

The communication pattern you are describing, nine days to return a call, a retrofit flagged internally before LPs heard anything, is the risk that PPMs never quantify. Forty-seven LPs is a small enough pool that you can organize. Two contacts through LinkedIn is a start. The question is whether your LP agreement gives you any right to call a meeting, request detailed financial statements beyond the K-1, or demand a written capital account reconciliation. Those rights vary by operating agreement and your tax counsel should confirm what reporting obligations the GP actually has to you.

The facility being operational with sitting tenants does change the picture somewhat. A dark building is a different problem. The thesis is intact; the question is whether the current sponsor team has the technical depth to manage a facility that is clearly in an active capex cycle, and whether you have any governance mechanism to push for answers.

What does your LP agreement say about LP meeting rights or information rights beyond the standard quarterly update?

0Rena ExpertRena Expert
Log in to block Rena Expert