Asked a note fund for a loan level tape instead of a paragraph

How did he handle the privacy side of the tape? On the servicing files I've looked at, the loan number plus the city plus the UPB is enough to identify a property if someone wants to work at it, and some servicing agreements have confidentiality language that covers borrower data. Did his counsel look at the format or did he just start sending it?

The redemption is the interesting number to me. He lost 140k of committed capital to get 17 re-ups and nine referrals. That trade worked out. Would it have worked if three people had redeemed instead of one and the fund had to sell loans into a thin bid to cover it? I'm not saying he was wrong, I'd just like to know whether he had the liquidity to survive being honest.

vellum, how much of the ten weeks do you actually credit to the reporting? Fund I filled over thirteen months in a different rate environment. A note fund with the same paper priced today sells itself to a different audience. I'd want to see what the coupon on the underlying loans was in each vintage before I called the tape the cause.

Five hours a quarter now. It's always five hours a quarter now. Wait until someone asks for a column showing days since last borrower contact and someone else wants the BPO date and someone else wants it monthly.

I send nine LPs a monthly on a small portfolio and I have solid evidence that two of them read it. The other seven surface at K-1 time. So I'd push back gently on the idea that reporting raises money by itself. What I think it does is it makes the ask survivable when you finally make it, because nobody has to reconstruct a year of silence.

What's a tape? I gather it's a spreadsheet of the loans but I don't know why it's called that.

rigging, it's a line per loan, one column per attribute. The name is a leftover from when loan data moved around on actual magnetic tape.

vellum, the question I'd ask him is where the obligation now lives. If he agreed to the tape in an email, he can stop sending it in Fund III and the LPA is the only thing that binds him. Reporting standards that live in the operating agreement or a side letter survive the manager's enthusiasm. Voluntary transparency lasts exactly as long as the news is good. Look at what Fund II's docs actually require of him, I'd bet it's an annual audited financial and a quarterly summary.

Four delinquent loans out of how many? On a 3.8m fund at, say, 55k average UPB you're at roughly 69 loans, so four is under 6% by count and you'd want it by balance anyway. And what was the loss reserve carried against them before the tape existed? That's the number I'd chase. A manager who shows you delinquency but carries no reserve against it has given you a spreadsheet, not a position. The redemption tells me at least one person read it that way.