Hello @Steve Morris, while this is not my thread (it's @Michael Beur) I saw you replied after mine. If you don't mind, could you clarify some of your points a bit further?
1. It seems like there are 2 type of DSTs solicitors - the first ones are as you mentioned, various type of brokers / financial advisers, that may have 1 or 2 deals; and then you have companies like Kay Properties, that seems like that's all they do, and have a large roster of them. They may be more known here in CA. Have you heard of them?
2. I'm using Kay as an example. Had a few chats with them and I don't think you can overly rely on their internal staff. Obviously they want you to subscribe. You have to assess the actual deal and risks yourself and check the sponsor and operators, as you indicated
3. I was totally under the understanding that you buy into the underlying property. The way you wrote it, it may be interpreted as either that you're buying (1) the strength of the lease; or that (2) you're not buying the property, but buying into a master lease. Be great if you could clarify
4. No question here - ;) that goes for pretty much nearly anyone you give your money to
5. 100% agreed. Granted, not sure how many people here have that $1M sitting and collecting dust, but the same logic would apply even on a $100k amount.
6. I did read about this. It's similar to PPMs as far as I know. Once you're subscribed, you can only sell to already existing members. It's completely logical too. But again, investing in a large real estate complex is not a very liquid investment (if you meet someone who thinks otherwise, please tell them I have a bridge to sell). Anyone invested in DSTs is an accredited and at least in theory should have money they do not need. The way I see it it's about building an income stream, with some appreciation potential as well down the line, but with a little bit more of an exclusive ownership and participation than a REIT, and of course much more targeted and a lot more ad hoc. Happy to hear your thoughts.