Asking for a first close's actual numbers before joining the second close is worth doing every time

The simplest version of this never occurred to me, which is that a fund with assets already has a report card and a fund without one doesn't. Going to steal that.

Question though. If Fund A had come back with numbers from a prior fund instead of this one, would you have counted it the same?

The expense ratio at 38% against 34% projected is the number worth understanding better. Insurance renewals are not a one time surprise, they reset every year, so the real question is whether 38% is the new normal or one bad year. @aaron_fitz10 did they tell you what they are budgeting for next year?

This is the right instinct. People at the analyzing stage convince themselves they have to be able to underwrite a facility before they can evaluate a fund. Asking for actual against projected on a closed vintage is something anyone can do this week, and it says more about the sponsor than a spreadsheet would.

Actual against projected is one of the more informative documents you can request, and the way it's presented matters as much as the numbers.

A few things to ask for alongside it. First, the comparison at the asset level, not blended. A blended report can hide one asset badly missing while another outperforms, which is what happened in the figures you were shown. Second, the same-store series if any asset has been owned more than twelve months, meaning revenue and NOI for a consistent set of properties across comparable periods. That strips out the effect of buying more facilities. Third, the discount and concession rate, because occupancy can be bought. An occupancy figure holding up while street rates and existing-customer rates fall is a different story than occupancy holding at flat rates.

On the expense ratio question in this thread, insurance is a recurring line that resets at each renewal, so a single-year jump can persist. Ask what the current-year budget assumes for insurance per square foot and what last year came in at. Also ask about property tax reassessment, since a purchase often triggers a new assessment and the timing of that varies by state and county, which means the first full year of taxes can look nothing like the trailing figures from the seller.

On minimums, sponsors do sometimes accept smaller amounts, particularly at a later close. Whether they can and on what terms depends on the offering's structure and the applicable securities exemption, so the sponsor and their counsel are the ones to answer that, and anything you agree should be in the subscription documents rather than an email.

The thing you did that deserves underlining is asking without apologizing for asking. Sponsors deal with people who want reassurance all day. Somebody who wants a spreadsheet is a relief.

The other half of what happened here is worth naming. That sheet taught you more about the operator than about the assets. Whoever sent it with the paragraph explaining the miss, unprompted, is telling you how the bad quarters are going to get communicated later. That is most of what you're buying at $30k.