Partner vetting question set template
This template collects the questions and supporting documents that make up a partner vetting question set, with one entry for each item a reviewer wants answered. A reviewer at a family office or a sponsor fills it in for each prospective partner.
The template
| Field | What to record | Why a reviewer cares | Your entry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsor data reviewed | List of documents and data supplied by the sponsor, such as the track record schedule and property level reports, with the reviewer who read each one. | Questions put to a sponsor are only as useful as the data behind them, so reviewers check what was actually received. | |
| Underwriting assumptions | Occupancy and exit cap rate assumptions the sponsor used, each with its source and the sponsor’s explanation of how it was set. | Assumptions drive every projected return, so reviewers compare them with the sponsor’s own history and with market evidence. | |
| Business strategy | Short summary of the sponsor’s business plan, including target property type and hold period, in the sponsor’s own words. | Strategy is checked against the data and assumptions already recorded, and any mismatch shows where follow up questions belong. | |
| Past challenges disclosed | Past events such as a partner departure or a bankruptcy, with the entity involved and the sponsor’s explanation of the outcome. | Relevant history raised openly by the sponsor signals candor, and an omission found later raises doubt about every other answer. | |
| Property management ability | Who manages each property, whether in house or third party, and the sponsor’s operating record at those assets. | Concerns about management ability reduce the discretion an investor extends, so this entry feeds directly into the next one. | |
| Discretion granted | Level of authority the investor gives the partner over operations and capital decisions, and the matters retained internally by the investor. | More concern about the partner means less discretion and more kept internally, so this entry records the conclusion drawn from earlier answers. | |
| Decision maker | Name and title of the person with final authority in the operator partnership, and the matters on which that person can decide alone. | A clear decision maker reduces the time partners spend disputing choices, so a vague or shared answer is flagged. | |
| Funding requirements | Capital the sponsor expects from each party at closing and afterward, including the sponsor’s own contribution and any obligation to fund shortfalls. | Funding terms are a value item in a joint venture and draw extended negotiation, so the sponsor’s position is written down early. | |
| Fee and promote structure | Fees charged by the sponsor and the promote percentage, with the return hurdle that triggers the promote. | Fees and promote move value between sponsor and investor, and they sit among the joint venture items needing the most negotiation. | |
| Investor distribution rights | Order and timing of cash distributions to investors relative to the sponsor, including any preferred return and the conditions that pause payments. | Distribution rights are a value item that determines when investors are paid, and they are among the topics negotiated longest. | |
| Exit terms | Conditions for selling or buying out a partner, who can initiate each, and the pricing method that applies. | Exit terms are one of the joint venture topics needing heavy negotiation, and gaps here surface when partners disagree about timing. | |
| Governance | Major decision approvals and removal provisions for the sponsor, as set out in the operating agreement. | Governance is among the joint venture topics needing the most negotiation, and it determines who controls the property when plans change. | |
| Risk screen questions | Seven questions about the highest ranked risks, drawn from a screen across 25 risk types, with the sponsor’s written answer to each. | Focusing on the largest risks keeps the question set manageable, and written answers give the reviewer something to verify later. |
How a reviewer uses a completed template
A reviewer reads Sponsor data reviewed and Underwriting assumptions first, because those two rows show what the partner supplied and what the numbers rest on, and every later entry gets checked against them. Business strategy gets read against both. Past challenges disclosed holds any departed partner or foreclosure, with an explanation beside it. Property management ability feeds Discretion granted, so weaker answers in the first field point toward a narrower entry in the second and more authority kept in house. Risk screen questions close out the review, seven in all.
Decision maker and Governance are read together, since one named person with final say cuts the time spent disputing choices. Fee and promote structure and Exit terms mark where negotiation tends to concentrate. Funding requirements and Investor distribution rights sit beside them, because those value items draw the longest discussion.
Common gaps in a completed template
Gaps tend to cluster in a few entries. Past challenges disclosed is often left blank or reduced to a single line, which leaves the reviewer guessing. Underwriting assumptions sometimes arrive without Sponsor data reviewed to support them. Discretion granted is filled in with a generous level while Property management ability stays thin. Decision maker may read as a committee. Exit terms and Governance frequently go unrecorded until late in negotiation, when changing them is slow.