My first ever lien allocation is redeeming out at the same time the fund is going to a second raise and I don't know what to do with the proceeds

The 22-month track record carries real weight on one narrow question: did they actually collect? A lien fund can post clean quarterly distributions without any of the underlying liens having gone to deed, because Florida's redemption window gives the fund cash before the hard work of foreclosure ever starts. If the portfolio redeemed cleanly at 9.1% net without meaningful deed acquisitions, that tells you the bid discipline worked on price but tells you almost nothing about how they handle a lien that does not pay. The environment from early 2023 through late 2024 was one where property owners had both equity and motivation to redeem, so a clean redemption rate during that window is a low-stress test. What I would want before rolling back in is the percentage of liens by count and by dollar that went past the two-year mark, and the loss or write-down history on any that did. If they cannot give you that by county and vintage, the 10.2% projection is a number built on the easy part of the cycle.

The gap between 9.1% actual and 10.2% projected matters less than what explains it. If they attribute the difference to tighter bid caps or better county selection, ask them to show the bid-to-win ratio by county across the last raise, because a fund that improved returns by bidding more aggressively is not improving in the direction you want. The same-envelope timing on the redemption notice and the new documents is not automatically a red flag, but it does mean you should read the new fund agreement against the old one line by line, specifically on the GP's discretion over redemption timing, any changes to the hurdle or preferred return, and whether the target raise size changes concentration risk in the counties they're using. What did the old fund docs say about how the GP could extend the redemption period if conditions changed, and

The assumption doing the most work in your decision is that the 22-month track record is evidence of operational quality. It may be, but it is also consistent with a fund that simply rode a favorable redemption environment in Florida counties where delinquency pressure created ready supply and healthy redemption rates. You cannot tell from the outside which one it was.

The 10.2% projected figure is the number I would press hardest on. A 110-basis-point lift over realized performance needs a source, and there are really only two: better bid discipline, or a more aggressive assumption about redemption timing and reinvestment pace. If it is the former, you would expect to see it in the fund's bid-by-bid data, which you can request. If it is the latter, the projection is structurally optimistic and the number becomes less meaningful as a comparison to your actual 9.1%.

The risk you have not named is jurisdiction concentration. Same Florida counties, same GP, same strategy, into a larger raise. That is not diversification, it is a larger position in the same operational bet. Scaling capital into identical geography amplifies the impact of any county-level policy change, competitive bidding shift, or servicer bottleneck, and you would have no other lien exposure to offset it.

The Dallas deal introduces a different risk profile, which makes it genuinely hard to compare. That is not a reason to avoid the comparison, it is a reason to be explicit about what you are actually trying to accomplish with the proceeds: yield stability, diversification, or just continuity while you watch the other position develop.

Before you make any decision about the second raise, I would ask the GP for bid-level performance data from the first fund, and I would ask specifically what drove the 110-basis-point improvement in the projection.

What did the quarterly distributions look like across the 22 months, steady or lumpy?

The projected jump from 9.1% to 10.2% net is the number worth pulling apart before anything else, because in a lien fund that spread almost always comes from one of two places: tighter county selection that concentrates redemption risk, or higher face-value bids that compress the statutory penalty margin. Neither is bad by itself, but both reduce the buffer that made the first fund's return feel clean.

The same-envelope timing is worth naming plainly. Rolling redemption proceeds directly into a second raise is a capital retention mechanic, not a coincidence, and a GP who is good at this knows the 30-day decision window is the most effective sales tool they have.

What does the new fund's fee schedule show on the management fee and the deferred performance allocation, compared to the first one?