When investors evaluate a Delaware Statutory Trust (DST), much of the attention naturally goes toward the property, projected distributions, sponsor, leverage, and anticipated holding period. But investors should also understand how the financial professional recommending and helping execute the investment is being compensated.
DST investments are generally accessed through one of two compensation models. In a traditional brokerage relationship, compensation is primarily transaction-based and paid in connection with the investment. In an advisory relationship, the advisor may instead charge an ongoing fee for advising on and servicing the DST position. Neither model is inherently better, but the total cost can differ meaningfully depending on the investment size, holding period, and services provided.
Additionally, 721 UPREIT strategies can add another layer because the pricing and compensation structure may change when the investment transitions from the DST into the REIT operating partnership.
How an advisor is compensated does not determine whether an investment is good or bad. But investors should understand the compensation arrangement, what they are paying over time, and what services they are receiving in return.
The percentages alone do not tell the full story. The more useful comparison is what an investor may pay over the life of the investment and what advice and services are provided in return.
DSTs have historically been distributed through broker-dealers and registered representatives. Under this model, the financial professional and broker-dealer receive transaction-based compensation, typically through selling commissions and other distribution-related compensation disclosed in the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM).
Unlike an annual advisory fee, this compensation is primarily associated with the initial investment. If an investor holds a DST for seven or ten years, the initial selling commission does not repeat each year simply because the investment remains outstanding.
The broker-dealer also performs an important due diligence and compliance function. Before making a DST program available on its platform, the broker-dealer typically reviews the sponsor and offering, which may include the property's underwriting, sponsor history, financial structure, offering documents, conflicts of interest, and other investment risks. This review does not eliminate investment risk, but it provides an additional layer of due diligence before a registered representative can recommend the program.
Investors should understand how both their financial professional and broker-dealer are compensated, including any additional transaction or account-level charges. These amounts should be disclosed before the investment is made.
Investors working with a Registered Investment Advisor may access DSTs through an advisory relationship instead. Rather than receiving a traditional selling commission, the advisor may charge an ongoing advisory fee on the DST position.
This changes the economics because compensation continues over time. If an advisor charges an annual percentage of assets under management, the fee may continue for as long as the DST remains within the advisory relationship and is subject to that fee.
For example, a 1% annual advisory fee may initially appear much lower than a 5% or 6% transaction-based commission, but the percentages are not directly comparable. Over a seven-year holding period, the cumulative advisory fees may exceed the upfront commission. The actual cost will depend on the fee methodology, investment value, and length of the holding period.
An advisory relationship may also include services well beyond the DST itself, such as portfolio construction, investment monitoring, financial planning, liquidity management, estate planning coordination, and future exchange planning. Investors therefore need to consider both the cumulative cost and the scope of advice they are receiving.
The most useful comparison is not simply 5% upfront versus 1% annually. It is the expected dollar cost of each arrangement over the anticipated holding period.
Consider a $1 million DST investment expected to be held for seven years. Under a brokerage arrangement, compensation may be paid primarily when the investment is made. Under an advisory arrangement, fees may be assessed annually throughout the holding period.
Because DSTs are generally long-term, illiquid investments, the difference can become meaningful over time. One model concentrates compensation near the beginning of the investment, while the other spreads it across the advisory relationship. Investors should evaluate the cumulative cost alongside the services they receive.
Planned 721 UPREIT strategies require a different analysis because they do not necessarily follow the same compensation framework as a traditional DST that is expected to hold a property and eventually sell it.
The initial DST investment may have one pricing arrangement, while the economics can change after the property is contributed to a REIT operating partnership and investors receive operating partnership units. Depending on the sponsor, advisor, distribution platform, and available pricing option, compensation may include different combinations of upfront charges and ongoing investor servicing or advisory fees.
In some respects, these structures can resemble mutual fund pricing, where different options may shift more of the cost upfront or spread compensation over time. There is no universal pricing model for planned 721 strategies, so investors should understand the entire compensation path, including what they pay during the DST stage and what may change after the anticipated UPREIT transaction.
Compensation should also be considered in the context of the work being performed.
A 1031 exchange involving DSTs can require evaluating multiple sponsors and offerings, reviewing property-level underwriting, constructing a replacement portfolio, coordinating with the Qualified Intermediary, addressing equity and debt replacement requirements, monitoring available allocations, and executing investments within the 45-day and 180-day exchange deadlines.
The relationship may continue well beyond the exchange. Depending on the advisor, services can include monitoring DST performance and distributions, reviewing sponsor reporting, coordinating with tax and estate professionals, evaluating full-cycle events, and planning future exchanges or liquidity decisions.
The scope of these services varies considerably among advisors. Cost matters, but the lowest compensation structure is not necessarily the best value if the investor requires broader planning and ongoing advice.
The better question is not simply whether an advisor charges a commission or an advisory fee. It is what the relationship will cost over time, what advice and services are included, and whether that arrangement makes sense for the investor’s circumstances.
The appropriate compensation model depends partly on the relationship the investor wants. Someone seeking assistance primarily with a specific 1031 exchange may evaluate transaction-based compensation differently from an investor seeking an ongoing wealth management relationship that includes DSTs, a liquid portfolio, retirement planning, estate considerations, and future real estate decisions.
Holding period also matters. Because DSTs can remain outstanding for many years, investors considering an ongoing advisory model should evaluate the estimated cumulative cost rather than focusing solely on the annual percentage. Planned 721 strategies require additional scrutiny because compensation may change as the investment transitions from the DST into the REIT operating partnership.
Financial professionals can be compensated for DST investments in different ways. Brokerage relationships generally rely more heavily on transaction-based compensation, while advisory relationships may charge ongoing fees for advice and servicing. Planned DST-to-721 UPREIT strategies can introduce additional pricing arrangements that vary by sponsor, advisor, and distribution platform.
Rather than comparing percentages in isolation, investors should understand the expected cost over the anticipated life of the investment, when and how their financial professional is compensated, what services are included, and whether the compensation structure changes over time.
A transparent advisor should be able to explain these economics clearly before an investment is made. Understanding how the advisor is compensated is an important part of evaluating the overall DST relationship.
General Disclosure
This material is provided for informational and educational purposes only and is based on information from sources we believe to be reliable. However, its accuracy is not guaranteed, and it is not intended to be the sole basis for investment decisions or to meet specific investment needs.
Wealthstone Group does not offer tax or legal advice. This content should not replace professional advice tailored to your individual situation.
Not an offer to buy, nor a solicitation to sell securities. All investing involves risk of loss of some or all principal invested. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Speak to your finance and/or tax professional prior to investing. Any information provided is for informational purposes only. Securities offered through Arkadios Capital, member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory Services offered through Arkadios Wealth. Wealthstone Group and Arkadios are not affiliated through any ownership.