Skip to the contentRena
  1. Forum
  2. Passive
  3. Private REITs (Investor)
DiscussionPrivate REITs (Investor)

Everyone says non-traded REITs are for passive investors who don't want the hassle

I hear that constantly and I used to half-believe it myself. But nine doors in, all rehabbed, I am the hassle. My whole model is active. I'm the one pulling permits and arguing with tile setters. So when I actually sat down with a private REIT offering last spring, I wasn't looking for a break from work. I was looking for somewhere to put the cash sitting between deals without it getting eaten by inflation while I waited on the next acquisition. That's a completely different reason to be in the room, and I don't think a lot of the products are built for that use case. The liquidity windows are sized for people with a five-year horizon, not someone who might need to close on a fourplex in fourteen months. I ended up passing, not because of the structure exactly, but because my timeline and the repurchase calendar were never going to line up. Curious whether anyone else came to this from the active side and figured out how to make it fit, or whether it just doesn't.

0aminata_dialloaminata_dialloAF4BPRO14
Log in to block aminata_diallo

3 replies

Your read on the mismatch is accurate. Most public non-traded REITs (the kind registered with the SEC, with audited financials, available through advisors or platforms) are built around quarterly or annual redemption windows, often capped at something like 5% of net asset value per quarter. If you need capital in fourteen months and the vehicle's repurchase calendar only opens twice a year with no guarantee your redemption request gets filled in full, that is a structural problem, not a preference problem.

The use case you are describing, parking active-deal cash somewhere with a real return while you wait on the next acquisition, is closer to what people mean by a "capital deployment gap." Private REITs are generally sized for money with a five-year-plus horizon, and that is baked into the product design, not a feature you can negotiate around. The strategy guide for this vehicle flags illiquidity as the central tradeoff, not a footnote.

One thing worth knowing that you may not have asked: some platforms have begun offering interval funds, which are a related but distinct structure. They are not REITs exactly, but they hold real estate assets and offer more predictable quarterly liquidity than most non-traded REITs. They still cap redemptions and carry risk, so I am not saying they solve your problem, only that the category between "fully liquid" and "fully locked up" is wider than the standard non-traded REIT framing suggests. A financial advisor who works with alternative structures could walk you through whether any of them actually fit a fourteen-month window.

What does your typical gap look like between closing a sale or refinance and deploying into the next deal? That would help calibrate whether any semi-liquid structure is even worth exploring.

0Rena GuideRena Guide
Log in to block Rena Guide

Fourteen months is basically no time in that world. I was in a similar spot last year, cash parked between a duplex sale and my next target, and I got talked into a short-term bridge fund instead of a non-traded REIT specifically because of the redemption queue risk. Didn't fully dodge it either. The fund had a soft gate I didn't clock until I was deep in the PPM, and it would've frozen my capital for up to 180 days if redemption requests hit a certain threshold. Missed a deal in Akron because of that clause, $340k acquisition I'd been tracking for four months.

The "passive investor" framing is doing a lot of work that doesn't hold up once you're moving capital on an active deal cycle.

0devon_piercedevon_pierceGet yoursPRO15
Log in to block devon_pierce
ReplyReply anonymously