For this Field Note, we wanted to address a question we are asked from time to time — why we have chosen not to build the company as a fully institutional platform.
Over the years, we have had opportunities to raise larger discretionary funds, pursue bigger transactions, and grow the business in a way that would look more like a traditional institutional real estate sponsor. While there are clear advantages to that model, we have generally decided to stay with a structure that allows us to remain more selective, more flexible, and more closely aligned with our partners.
Institutional capital often requires a certain pace of deployment and a defined investment window. That structure can work well for very large portfolios, but it can also make it harder to wait for the right deal or to hold an asset longer when market conditions suggest patience is the better choice. One of the benefits of our current approach is that we are not required to put capital out on a fixed schedule, and we are not forced to sell simply because a fund term is ending.
We have also found that many of the opportunities that fit our strategy are too small or too hands-on for large institutional investors, but still very attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. Projects in growing suburban corridors, land-driven developments, and smaller partnerships often require more work and more local knowledge, but they can also provide better long-term results when executed carefully.
Another factor is alignment. In most of our investments, the general partner, the operating team, and the investor group are all participating in the same partnership structure. We believe this keeps decision-making straightforward and allows us to focus on the performance of each asset rather than managing a large fund with multiple layers of capital.
Staying non-institutional also gives us the ability to adjust as markets change. Over the past several years, we have moved between development and acquisitions, expanded into new submarkets, and evaluated new asset types when they made sense. Maintaining a smaller, partnership-based structure makes those shifts easier than they might be in a larger platform with more rigid mandates.
This does not mean we will never work with institutional partners, and we remain open to those relationships when the right opportunity presents itself. At the same time, we believe the model we use today has allowed us to navigate multiple cycles while staying disciplined about where and how we invest.
Our goal has never been to build the largest platform, but to build one that can perform consistently over time and remain aligned with the investors who have partnered with us along the way.
