On this page
Two sponsors can show the same number of programs on record and have almost nothing else in common. One may have sold most of its historical trusts and published a result for each. The other may be sitting on a decade of still-held exposure with no completed sale at all. Anyone trying to compare DST sponsor track records hits that problem immediately: the headline counts look comparable when the documents behind them aren't. What follows is a framework for reading the record card - what to separate, what a Sponsor Grade covers, and how sponsor-reported figures have to be handled.
Why sponsor-published records resist comparison
Most DST marketing material presents a curated shelf, not a full record. A sponsor's own site shows the offerings it wants shown, in the order it wants them shown. Comparing two sponsors from their own pages compares two editorial choices, not two track records.
The Top1031 directory is assembled from SEC filings and Form D data instead. Electronic filing of Form D on EDGAR became mandatory on March 16, 2009, which is why the machine-readable record of Regulation D offerings thickens considerably from that point forward. Worth keeping straight as you read: DST interests are securities typically offered under Rule 506(b) or 506(c), which are exemptions from registration - a Reg D offering is never a registered one. Access to the filing record is one thing; using it consistently is another.
What you'll need
- The names of the two sponsors being compared
- Each sponsor's record card, with its as-of date
- How many of each sponsor's trusts were sold, how many of those sales the sponsor published a result for, and how many trusts are still in their holding period
- Each sponsor's Grade and its reason sentence, read alongside the grading methodology
- Any sponsor-reported return figures, each labeled and cited to its source
- A dated page or spreadsheet to log both sides
How to compare DST sponsor track records, step by step
1. Pull each sponsor's record card
Start with the actual counts from the card rather than a number from memory or a marketing page, and write the as-of date next to them. Records move with each filing cycle. A comparison run in January and the same comparison run in September can differ meaningfully if either sponsor sold a trust, published a result, or launched new offerings in between.
Common mistake: treating a homepage list of "active offerings" as the full track record. Active offerings are a subset; the record includes every program in the sponsor's SEC filings, not only what is currently raising.
2. Separate active offerings from historical trusts
An active offering is still raising capital. A historical trust has closed its raise and moved into its operating or disposition period, or has already been sold. Those are different states. A sponsor with 40 historical trusts and 2 active offerings looks nothing like one with 10 historical trusts and 8 active offerings, even when the totals land close together.
Expected outcome: two clearly separated lists per sponsor, each with its own count and date.
3. Ask how many historical trusts were sold, and how many the sponsor reported
Sold means the trust disposed of the asset, producing an end point. A historical trust that hasn't been sold is still exposure under observation: the record can describe what the trust holds and how it is structured, but not how it ended. The card then draws a narrower line: sold with a result the sponsor itself published, in its own brochure, offering documents or press release. Only that line counts toward the letter.
This is where similar-looking totals diverge most. Twenty-five historical trusts with twenty sold and reported, and twenty-five with four sold and none reported, carry very different documentary weight behind the same headline number.
Common mistake: reading a historical trust count as a completed-outcomes count. It isn't one.
4. Compare structure, not just totals
Sponsors also differ in the kind of trusts they run. Some lean toward debt-free, all-cash structures; others place mortgage debt on most offerings. Top1031 tags capital structure as a category - all cash, leveraged, zero coupon, or unknown - rather than as a numeric leverage ratio or LTV, so the category tells you which bucket an offering sits in and the filing itself carries the actual debt terms, maturity, and lender.
That distinction matters twice over. An all-cash program and a leveraged program carry different risk profiles by construction, independent of anything either sponsor discloses about performance. Structure also interacts with the exchange itself, because an exchanger who carried mortgage debt on the relinquished property generally has to replace that debt or contribute cash to avoid boot. The mechanics of debt replacement and boot are covered on Learn.
5. Read the Sponsor Grade for what it covers
A Sponsor Grade sits at the sponsor level (A, B, C, D, F, or NR). It is a letter derived from two counts on public documents: programs that lost investor capital, on court, county or sponsor-published records, and programs sold with a sponsor-published result. It covers the sponsor's record - not any individual trust or current offering inside that record, and not a judgment about whether an offering fits a particular exchange. A Sponsor Grade describes a track record. It does not describe a trust. Reading a letter as a stamp on a sponsor's newest offering skips that distinction entirely.
NR means the sponsor has fewer than three counted outcomes and fewer than three documented sales. NR is not a failing grade; it is a short finished record, and any loss found is still printed on the card.
6. Keep every sponsor-reported figure labeled
Sponsors disclose return, distribution, and disposition figures in their own offering materials and investor communications. Those figures appear on Top1031 as reported by the sponsor, cited to the source document. They are not derived, averaged, or annualized into a Top1031 statistic, and the Grade does not score how large they are.
Carry the label into your own notes. A distribution rate reported by one sponsor and a rate reported by another aren't interchangeable unless the reporting basis, holding period, leverage, and asset type line up too - and they frequently don't.
7. Write down the gaps
Every comparison has limits. One sponsor may show a longer record simply because it has been filing for a decade longer than the other. A shorter record is evidence of a shorter record and nothing more. Older programs with no public outcome found, sales with no reported result, and an NR are gaps in the documents, not findings about strength or weakness.
Log the gap next to the comparison. "Sponsor B has six fewer years on record" is an honest note; silence on the point isn't.
Troubleshooting
Two sponsors show the same total program count, but the comparison still feels off.
Split the total into active versus historical, then historical into sold versus still held, then sold into reported versus not reported. Identical totals rarely survive the split.
You're tempted to average two sponsors' reported figures into one number.
An average of two labeled figures is an unlabeled figure that neither sponsor reported. Each one keeps its own attribution and citation.
One sponsor is NR.
NR reflects fewer than three counted outcomes and fewer than three documented sales rather than a negative finding. Compare the lines that do exist on its card instead of letting the Grade stand in for missing documents.
One sponsor's historical trusts skew leveraged and the other's all cash.
Note the structural mix before comparing outcomes at all. A leveraged record and an all-cash record aren't measuring the same kind of exposure.
Where the record actually lives
- The Top1031 directory, for each sponsor's record card, the capital-structure category, the Sponsor Grade, its reason sentence and its as-of date
- The underlying Form D and the sponsor's own offering documents, read directly for debt terms, fees, and disposition history
- The grading methodology, so a Grade is read the way it was assigned
- A dated spreadsheet, so your own comparison carries an as-of date the way the source data does
The comparison that comes next
Once sold trusts are separated from trusts still in their holding period, the next structural question is usually how DST ownership differs from a tenancy-in-common arrangement. Two authorities do most of the work there: Revenue Ruling 2004-86, the safe harbor under which a Delaware statutory trust holding real property can be treated as a grantor trust whose beneficial interests are undivided interests in real estate for 1031 purposes - which is also the source of the sharp limits on trustee powers, including no renegotiating debt or leases, no reinvesting sale proceeds, and no new capital contributions - and Revenue Procedure 2002-22, the separate TIC fractional-interest safe harbor whose conditions include no more than 35 co-owners. Both are safe harbors rather than statutes, and they are not interchangeable.
FAQ
Is a Sponsor Grade the same as a rating of one DST offering?
No. It is assigned at the sponsor level from two counts across that sponsor's record: programs that lost investor capital and programs sold with a sponsor-published result. It is not a rating of a specific trust or current offering, and not a suitability judgment.
Can two sponsors' reported return figures be averaged for comparison?
No. Each figure is reproduced as reported by the sponsor and cited to its source. Blending them produces a number neither sponsor disclosed.
Where can a sponsor's track record be checked?
The Top1031 directory publishes every program from SEC filing and Form D data on the sponsor's record card, alongside the Sponsor Grade, its reason sentence and its as-of date; the filings and the sponsor's own publications remain the primary sources, and every count links to them.
The number most comparisons miss
It usually isn't a return figure. It's the distance between programs on record and the smaller subset the sponsor sold and published a result for. A sponsor's newest offering sits on top of everything that came before it, but only the sold and reported portion of that history has finished producing documents at all. That gap frames everything else in the comparison.