Punitive dilution versus a member loan when a JV partner misses a capital call

Question

Capital call provisions are where two competing philosophies in JV structuring show up most clearly. One approach dilutes the non-funding partner hard. Typical language credits the funding partner at 1.5x or 2x the amount advanced, so a $50k shortfall funded by the capital partner takes $75k to $100k off the operating partner's equity. The reasoning is that the operator's promote compensates for performance, a blown budget is underperformance, and the promote has to be able to shrink for it to mean anything. It also pressures the operator to keep real reserves rather than run the deal thin and lean on the capital partner's checkbook. A second approach uses a member loan at a high rate, senior to both prefs, instead of dilution. The argument is that on a value add deal the operator's labor is the real asset, and an operator whose equity gets cut in half early tends to disengage for the rest of the hold, stop fighting for marginal rent gains, and start focusing on the next deal. A loan gets the capital partner paid first with interest while keeping alignment intact, with dilution held in reserve for a second failure rather than the first. A third, less common structure keeps both tools and lets the funding partner elect at the time of the shortfall, which sounds appealing until the decision itself becomes something the operator experiences as a punishment no matter which way it goes. The weakness of the dilution-only approach is that it moves paper rather than producing cash, since the capital has already been funded either way. The weakness of the loan-only approach is that a 12 to 15 percent member loan on a deal already over budget can absorb the entire equity return, leaving an operator technically unimpaired but with no promote worth chasing, which is its own form of misalignment. There is no settled answer here, and the right tool likely depends on how far along the deal is and how much runway remains.

tonyv88 · Answer

Property managers see the downstream version of this. When an operator's equity gets cut, the first thing that changes is how fast they approve turn costs. They start letting units sit rather than spending $2,200 to get them rent ready, because their share of the upside just got smaller and their cash is short. That behavior costs more than the dilution gained. Camp two.

joe_delgado5 · Answer

I've been the diluted operator. 1.75x on a $34k shortfall, so $59.5k off my position on a deal where I had $110k in. What actually happened is I stopped taking calls about anything that wasn't urgent and I put my best subs on my own deals. Not proud of it, that's just what happened. The capital partner got a bigger slice of a worse outcome.

aaron_fitz10 · Answer

Flint, that is the most honest thing in this thread. But does it not also argue that the dilution worked as intended and the failure came earlier? A budget blown by $34k means something was wrong before the clause ever fired.

dmitri_248 · Answer

The drafting detail that decides most of this is what the dilution formula measures. Some agreements dilute percentage interests, which changes cash flow splits immediately. Others credit capital accounts, which only shows up in the waterfall on the way out and leaves the operator's day to day distributions intact. Those are wildly different in behavior and they get called the same thing in conversation. Also check whether the promote survives dilution at all. There are drafts in circulation where dilution reduced the operator's capital interest and left his promote tier untouched, so the clause fired and nothing that motivated him actually changed.

wendy_park48 · Answer

Warrant is on the thing that matters. Here is the one that gets skipped. Most capital call sections don't define what a permitted capital call is. If the operator can call capital for anything, an operator short of cash learns to call capital, and the punitive clause becomes a tool he uses against himself on purpose to avoid a harder conversation. The section should carry a defined list of purposes and a cap on aggregate calls without unanimous consent. It also needs a notice period long enough that a partner with illiquid net worth can actually respond. Fourteen days is not a real cure period for someone whose money is in other deals.

dpatel_re · Answer

Both camps assume the shortfall is small relative to the stack. Run it at scale. On a $265k equity deal with a $23k call, dilution is noise and the member loan is cheap. On a $2.4m equity deal with a $400k call, a 15% member loan is $60k a year ahead of both prefs and it will eat the deal's equity return in a hold that goes long. At that size dilution is the right tool, because the ownership needs to reflect who actually funded the building. So the answer is a threshold. Loans below some percentage of committed equity, dilution above it, written into the document so nobody is electing anything in the moment.

hannah_west29 · Answer

Sextant's threshold is the only version of camp three that does not put the capital partner in the room holding the gun. If the document decides, the operator cannot read it as a choice to punish him. One correction to the original post. Dilution does produce something, it just is not cash. It changes what each side owns at exit, and on a deal where the exit is the whole return, that is real money. Flint's outcome is real and it turns on the operator's response, which is a different objection from the one sable wrote.

Punitive dilution versus a member loan when a JV partner misses a capital call

7 replies