Inflection Capital Management & The Oglethorpe Collective

01 — Agenda

Meeting Agenda

Investment Committee — 15 October 2026.

Six items this session: a year-end tax recommendation on ARMIX, and three votes — Endurance (Stage 3), American Rivers (Stage 2), and Amphora (Stage 1). The 1 October session killed Lattis, advanced Endurance to Stage 3, and put Westwind on ice — see §04 and §08 for the full record. Additional agenda items will be added here as materials come in.

#	Item	Type
1	ARGA Emerging Markets Value Fund (ARMIX) — year-end capital gains distribution — ARMIX's estimated 2026 year-end capital gains distribution is 40.33% of NAV (11.81% short-term, 28.52% long-term). The recommendation is to sell ARMIX and invest the proceeds in IEMG ahead of the distribution. The plan is to rotate back into ARMIX after the ex-date, which is not yet confirmed but has historically fallen at the end of December.	Recommendation
2	Endurance Investment Partners — EIP Fund I — Stage 3 IC Vote — A $350M energy and infrastructure secondaries fund, ~80% closed, led by two ex-Tailwater principals with a strong record in analogous deals and backed by a strategic partnership with Rice Investment Group. The Stage 3 memo recommends a ~1–2% allocation within the real assets / energy sleeve, with no conditions. The main risks are a first-time fund with no realized returns, a 1% GP commitment, and concentration in GulfTex (~56% of capital committed to date). View Stage 3 memo · Stage 2 scorecard · Fact sheet	IC Vote · Stage 3
3	American Rivers Fund — Stage 2 IC Vote — An evergreen Jones Act marine-equipment leasing fund (~$3.8bn book) paying a ~10% annual cash distribution from lease income. The Stage 2 scorecard scores 23/30 and recommends advancing; recent returns are cash-driven, and the July concerns on concentration and redemptions are largely resolved. Open items before the vote: key-person turnover (Austin Sperry steps back 30 Nov, and the COO hire fell through), verifying the ~$35M GP commitment, and LP reference calls. View Stage 2 scorecard	IC Vote · Stage 2
4	Westwind Minerals Strategy — Stage 2 revisit — Put on ice on 1 Oct pending a call on its GP commitment; that call took place on 13 Oct. The revised scorecard rises to 19/30 — still one point below the threshold — after Westwind confirmed an all-cash 1% commitment per fund, funded by the principals' family partnerships. Nothing is yet documented, so the Committee should decide whether to request it in writing or pass. View fact sheet · View revised Stage 2 scorecard	Revisit · Stage 2
5	Amphora Equity Partners — Amphora Fund I — Stage 1 IC Vote — An inaugural $200MM lower middle-market buyout fund focused on operationally intensive packaged food & beverage carve-outs and orphaned brands, ~$150MM closed and Fiducient-approved. The founders restructured Elliott's Factory LLC F&B portfolio, and Fund I's first platform was bought at or below asset value. Key questions are reconciling the predecessor track record, proving independent sourcing and exits, and team capacity. View fact sheet	IC Vote · Stage 1
6	a16z Perennial — follow-up — Hunter had a call with a16z on 10/13 and is waiting on the GP commitment amount and detailed line items on the fund's investments. View fact sheet	Status update

Item 1 (ARMIX) is a portfolio recommendation on year-end capital gains. Item 2 (Endurance) is a Stage 3 approval vote on its investment memo; item 3 (American Rivers) is a Stage 2 vote on a 23/30 C-SMART scorecard; and item 5 (Amphora) is a Stage 1 vote on whether to advance to Stage 2. Each vote requires a majority of the Committee’s voting members (3 of 5), per the Charter amendment effective 3 September 2026; see §09. Item 4 (Westwind) is a Stage 2 revisit, not a vote: its revised scorecard (19/30) remains below the 20-point threshold. Item 6 is a status update.

02 — Pipeline

Pipeline Funnel

A top-down view of the whole funnel — from every strategy we see through to approval — with ideas branching off to Killed (§04) at any stage. Counts are strategies, as of the latest data.

“Ideas seen” counts every strategy logged (Idea Log, §06) plus everything that entered formal diligence. Stage counts are cumulative — a strategy that reached Stage 2 is also counted in Stage 1 — and include the twelve still-active names (two at Stage 1, nine at Stage 2, one at Stage 3) together with strategies later approved or killed. Stage history was tracked inconsistently before this pack, so figures are best-effort and will sharpen as the pipeline is maintained here. Edit the PIPE config in the file to update the counts.

Active opportunities

Twelve strategies are live — two at Stage 1, nine at Stage 2, one at Stage 3. Filter by asset class:

Showing all active opportunities.

03 — Recently Approved

Recently Approved Strategies

Strategies the Investment Committee has approved (trailing ~13 months). Approval reflects a unanimous vote to proceed. Commitment and performance figures are drawn from the TOC-23 Manager Commitments report dated 27 July 2026.

Strategy	Asset class	Approved	Committed	Unfunded	Value	TVPI	IRR
ArrowMark Global Opportunities Fund V	Private Credit	6/10/25	$1.77M	—	$1.80M	1.10x	11.5%
Roundhouse Multifamily Fund II	Real Assets	6/24/25	$0.75M	$0.30M	$0.45M	1.00x	-2.8%
503 Tax Exempt Credit Opportunities Fund IV	Private Credit	8/5/25	$1.15M	$0.28M	$0.91M	1.07x	5.0%
EIV Capital Fund V	Real Assets	8/5/25	$2.00M	$1.44M	$0.75M	1.34x	28.7%
Greybull Stewardship III	Private Equity	8/19/25	$2.30M	$2.13M	$0.09M	0.54x	-45.7%
TCIM Master Fund	Hedge Fund	8/19/25	$1.39M	—	$1.46M	1.05x	6.4%
Brevan Howard Alpha Strategies Fund	Hedge Fund	8/19/25	$0.75M	—	$0.76M	1.02x	1.6%
Southpoint Qualified Fund LP	Hedge Fund	8/19/25	$1.39M	—	$1.59M	1.15x	18.5%
TOC-23 Active Equity Mandates †	Public Equity	9/2/25	—	—	—	—	—
Quantinno DEALS †	Public Equity	10/14/25	—	—	—	—	—
CRC Opportunistic Retail Fund II	Real Assets	1/7/26	$1.00M	$0.33M	$0.67M	1.00x	-1.7%
Synergy 11 Beacon Street	Real Assets	2/3/26	$1.06M	—	$1.06M	1.00x	0.0%
RA Capital Healthcare Fund	Hedge Fund	3/23/26	$1.85M	—	$1.85M	1.00x	0.1%
Lexcor Master Fund	Hedge Fund	4/6/26	$1.79M	—	$1.79M	1.00x	0.0%
Blackrock Systematic Total Alpha Fund	Hedge Fund	4/6/26	$0.90M	—	$0.90M	1.00x	0.0%
The Quarry (Class L)	Hedge Fund	4/6/26	$0.90M	—	$0.90M	1.00x	0.0%
Project Ozark †	Private Equity (Direct)	4/17/26	—	—	—	—	—
GQG Private Capital Solutions Fund	Private Equity	5/8/26	$1.65M	$0.10M	$1.55M	1.00x	0.0%
Hawke’s Point Critical Metals Fund †	Private Equity	6/29/26	—	—	—	—	—
Recurrent MLP & Infrastructure Fund †	Real Assets	7/9/26	—	—	—	—	—
Total — listed approved funds (15)			$20.65M	$4.59M	$16.54M	—	—

Figures per the TOC-23 Manager Commitments report, 27 July 2026 (period 06/27–07/27/2026); fund valuations are as of each manager’s latest statement (3/31–6/30/2026). Positions held at cost pending third-party marks show TVPI 1.00x / IRR 0.0%. “—” in Unfunded denotes fully called.

† Awaiting manager reporting. Public-equity mandates (TOC-23 Active Equity Mandates; Quantinno DEALS) sit outside the alternatives report, and Project Ozark, Hawke’s Point Critical Metals, and Recurrent MLP & Infrastructure were approved too recently to appear yet.

Listed totals cover the 15 funded strategies. Portfolio committed capital per the report is $21.87M (value $17.76M), which additionally includes a Brevan Howard managed-account series (TMC-21 S03, $0.99M) and the RMF2 Columbia co-investment ($0.24M) held alongside Roundhouse Multifamily Fund II. “TOC-23 Active Equity Mandates” denotes internal public-equity mandates rather than a single external fund.

04 — Recently Killed

Recently Killed Strategies

Opportunities the Committee declined (trailing ~13 months), retained as institutional memory. “Killed at” shows how far each advanced before it was passed.

Strategy	Asset class	Focus	Killed at	Note
Marco	Private Credit	Direct Investment — Trade Finance Platform	Stage 1 · 4/29/25	—
Pennybacker Critical Infrastructure Partners I	Real Assets	Infrastructure	Stage 3 · 6/10/25	—
137 Ventures Fund VII	Venture Capital	Structured Secondaries	Stage 2 · 6/24/25	—
Leeward Capital Partners Credit Fund	Private Credit	Real Estate Debt	Stage 1 · 7/8/25	—
EIV Resources II	Real Assets	Energy (Upstream)	Stage 1 · 7/8/25	—
Parkway Capital Investments III	Private Credit	Mezzanine	Stage 2 · 7/8/25	—
Thompson’s Yard	Real Assets	Ground-Up Multifamily Development	Stage 3 · 8/19/25	DD manager for future deals
CAZ GPS FC	Private Equity	GP Stakes	Stage 1 · 10/28/25	—
Harpoon Ventures IV	Venture Capital	Early-Stage Dual-Use & Defense Tech	Stage 1 · 11/11/25	—
The Quarry Fund LP	Hedge Fund	Multi-Strategy	Stage 3 · 1/6/26	Keep in hopper — no capacity
EJF Rocade Fund V	Private Credit	Direct Lending (Litigation Finance)	Stage 1 · 1/7/26	—
Dimension Credit Fund II	Private Credit	Direct Lending	Stage 1 · 1/7/26	—
Balerion Space Ventures Fund II	Venture Capital	Space & Defense	Stage 1 · 1/7/26	—
Savano Capital Partners IV	Private Equity	Direct Secondaries	Stage 3 · 1/20/26	Low GP commitment
Intrinsic Health Partners II	Private Equity	Growth	Stage 1 · 2/3/26	—
Gray Line Healthcare Partners Fund I	Private Equity	Early-Stage Growth	Stage 1 · 2/17/26	—
York IE Early Growth Fund	Private Equity	Growth	Stage 1 · 2/17/26	—
Bear Creek Strategic Real Assets Fund I	Real Assets	Diversified Essential Real Assets	Stage 2 · 2/17/26	—
PACT Capital Partners Fund I	Private Equity	GP Stakes	Stage 1 · 2/17/26	—
Atlantic Park Fund III	Private Credit	Opportunistic	Stage 1 · 2/17/26	—
Tembo Capital IV	Private Equity	Growth (Mining & Metals)	Stage 2 · 3/23/26	—
The North Rock Fund	Hedge Fund	Long/Short Equity	Stage 1 · 3/23/26	Tax inefficiencies
Nebari Natural Resources Credit Fund III	Private Credit	Direct Lending (Metals & Mining)	Stage 3 · 6/29/26	Potential revisit
Seyon Industrial Fund II	Real Assets	Real Estate (Small-Bay Industrial)	Stage 1 · 7/9/26	—
Switchboard Fund I	Venture Capital	Early-Stage AI-First Financial Services	Stage 1 · 7/9/26	—
FirstLook Partners Fund II	Venture Capital	Emerging-Manager FoF	Stage 1 · 7/9/26	—
GTIS Co-GP US Industrial Fund	Real Assets	Real Estate (Industrial)	Stage 2 · 7/9/26	—
Essential Holdings	Private Equity	Microcap Buyout	Stage 1 · 7/23/26	—
McNally Capital Fund III	Private Equity	Buyout (Aerospace & Defense, Industrial Tech)	Stage 2 · 7/23/26	Materials ready for discussion *
Scout Energy Partners Fund VII	Real Assets	Energy (Upstream)	Stage 2 · 9/10/26	Automatic kill: frothy upstream market at ~$90 oil (consensus futures ~$50–60) plus leverage/operating risk on top of commodity beta; shift toward the less-proven Uinta basin. Scored 20/30 on the Stage 2 scorecard (a pass, not a strong pass) — team liked, timing not.
Synergy 50 Greenway	Real Assets	Direct Real Estate — Value-Add Office Recapitalization	Stage 3 · 9/24/26	Killed in a one-off special session called for the deal's compressed IOI deadline (9/30). A lender-driven recapitalization of a 224,407 SF Class A office building adjacent to South Station, Downtown Boston, at $26.5M ($118/SF, an 83% discount to Blackstone's 2020 basis) — a repeat Synergy relationship following 11 Beacon Street. Declined on a total-portfolio view: the ~11.15% entry cap rate was judged insufficient for the execution risk taken (62% occupied, no day-one cash flow, a 2.75-year WALT, no independent valuation yet), reinforced by a distressed Boston office comp (100 Summer Street, also in foreclosure, assessed at roughly half its 2019 price); the Committee preferred to preserve its limited direct-real-asset capacity for two energy co-investments expected from EIV in Q4. No dissent among those present; see §08.
Lattis	Real Assets	Energy Infrastructure (with NEO commodity-trading sleeve)	Stage 2 · 10/1/26	Killed at the 1 October session on Hunter's motion; Matt and Katie concurred. The contract underwriting itself held up (4–6 year payback from investment-grade take-or-pay cash flow alone, zero terminal value assumed). The pass came down to portfolio fit and structure: real-asset capacity likely fits only one of Lattis or Endurance, and the Committee prefers thematic energy exposure to “sleepy infrastructure”; the open-ended structure relies on broker-matched secondary sales for liquidity, and in a no-bid scenario the GP can sell assets with no LPAC input (Hunter put this at a <2.5% tail risk, but one he is fine not taking); Matt was uneasy about an anchor-sponsored, open-ended structure that reminded him of Owl Rock; and a trading sleeve would be hard to explain to clients in a down year. Pre-firm track record (1.17x / 1.30x gross) was credit-oriented. Revisit when back in market with DPI. See §08.

Revisit list

Platforms and managers to revisit when timing, capacity, or terms change.

Platform / Manager	Asset class	Focus
NewRoad Consumer Partners Direct Deal Platform	Private Equity	Buyout
The Meridian Group SCIF Platform	Real Assets	Real Estate (SCIF)
Synergy Investments (future deals)	Real Assets	Direct Real Estate (repeat GP relationship)
Lattis (future vehicles)	Real Assets	Energy Infrastructure — revisit once the platform shows DPI

Certain killed strategies are also flagged for potential revisit (e.g., Nebari Natural Resources Credit Fund III; The Quarry Fund LP; Synergy 50 Greenway, when Synergy brings its next deal to market, expected Q1 2026 — kept in the hopper subject to capacity; Lattis, once a future vehicle shows DPI). “*” denotes materials ready for discussion (McNally Capital Fund III).

05 — Investment Memos

Investment Memos

Open any pipeline opportunity’s fact sheet or memo directly from here — everything below opens right in this document, no separate files needed.

Stage 1

Opportunity	Asset class	Strategy	Memo
Atreides Foundation Master Fund	Hedge Fund	Long/Short Equity	Open manager review →
Amphora Equity Partners — Amphora Fund I	Private Equity	LMM Packaged Food & Beverage Control Buyout	Open fact sheet →

Stage 2

Opportunity	Asset class	Strategy	Memo
Westwind Minerals Strategy	Real Assets	Permian Basin Minerals, Royalties & Non-Op Working Interest	Open fact sheet · Open Stage 2 scorecard
a16z Perennial	Venture Capital	Evergreen VC Fund-of-Funds & Directs	Open fact sheet →
Pelican Energy Partners — Base Zero II	Private Equity	Nuclear Supply Chain Buyout	Open fact sheet →
RRIG Energy Fund	Real Assets	Mineral Rights & Royalties	Not yet uploaded
IronArc Ventures Fund I	Venture Capital	Late-Stage AI	Not yet uploaded
American Rivers Fund	Private Credit	Asset-Backed Lending (Maritime Finance)	Open Stage 2 scorecard →
SR Alternative Credit OHPC LP	Private Credit	Asset-Backed Lending	Not yet uploaded
KWHP Opportunistic Fund III	Real Assets	Real Estate (Hospitality)	Not yet uploaded
ArrowMark CRE Structured Finance Fund II	Private Credit	Commercial RE Debt	Not yet uploaded

Stage 3

Opportunity	Asset class	Strategy	Memo
Endurance Investment Partners — EIP Fund I	Real Assets	Energy & Infrastructure Secondaries / Strategic Liquidity Solutions	Open Stage 3 investment memo → Open fact sheet → Open Stage 2 scorecard →

This index is kept in sync by hand alongside the pipeline funnel. When a new memo comes in, it gets embedded directly into this file — nothing to attach separately.

06 — Idea Log

Idea Log — Seen, Not Pipelined

A running log of opportunities the team has reviewed but not taken into the pipeline. Add a line as you go — it saves to this browser automatically. Import your existing spreadsheet once to seed it, and export to CSV any time to back up or share.

Idea / manager

Asset class

Source / referral

Date seen

Reason not pursued

Notes

0 ideas logged Import CSV

Date	Idea / manager	Asset class	Source	Reason not pursued	Notes

Saved to this browser only (autosaved locally); the log is not embedded in the file when you email it. Use Export CSV to back up or share, and Download PDF to capture the current list into a printed record. A standalone file can’t pull ideas automatically from email or a CRM — this keeps capture to a single line per idea instead.

07 — Discussion Topics

Discussion Topics

Three standing items for committee direction. These are discussion, not decision, items — the goal is shared read and clear action items, not a vote.

1 · Sector focus & thematic outlook

Question for the room

Where do we want the next three sourcing quarters concentrated, and which end-markets are we actively de-prioritizing?

Discussion prompts

Which themes have the best entry-multiple-to-growth trade-off today?
Where is sponsor competition compressing returns?
Any sectors to place on a temporary hold?

2 · Portfolio construction & pacing

Question for the room

Are we pacing capital deployment to plan, and is concentration by sector, vintage, and sponsor within our guardrails?

Discussion prompts

Deployment vs. plan for the vintage to date.
Single-name and single-sector concentration limits.
Reserve capital held for follow-ons.

3 · Process, governance & LP reporting

Question for the room

Is the diligence-to-decision process working, and are conflicts, minutes, and LP disclosures being handled to standard?

Discussion prompts

Cycle time from screen to decision.
Conflicts log & recusal discipline.
Quarterly LP reporting cadence & content.

Output expected. Each topic should close with a named owner and a dated action item captured in the minutes. Anything requiring a formal decision is deferred to a decision item at this or a future session.

Prepared for internal Investment Committee use only — confidential. Opportunity names are project code names; figures are illustrative placeholders for template purposes.

08 — Last Meeting

Last Meeting — Minutes & Transcript

The regular bi-weekly session on 1 October 2026 (~1h) brought three Stage 2 names to the table. It killed Lattis at Stage 2, advanced Endurance Investment Partners — EIP Fund I to Stage 3, and put Westwind Minerals Strategy on ice at Stage 2 pending a call on its GP commitment. The Private Credit Sourcing Project and a16z Perennial were discussed as status items. Carried forward to 15 October above (§01–02, §04–05).

Regular session — 1 October 2026

SessionBi-weekly · 1 October 2026

ChairHunter Steadley

Quorum3 of 5 — met (no Rotating Seat needed)

PresentSteadley, Blind, Mahany

Quorum met with three permanent members. Hunter Steadley, Matt Blind, and Katie Riley Mahany — 3 of the 5 permanent voting members — were present throughout (“we got a quorum”), so the Rotating Seat was not needed. Justin Kunz and Chris di Bonaventura did not join. Sam Stanton sat in briefly and left around the 35-minute mark. All three decisions had no dissent among the members present.

Decisions taken

Item	Decision	Stage	Notes
Endurance Investment Partners — EIP Fund I	Advanced — no dissent	Stage 2 → Stage 3	Hunter moved to Stage 3 (“really like these guys”), with the open GP-commitment, management-fee, and Rice-terms questions to be worked into the Stage 3 memo. Matt: “I love this deal” but the GP-commitment explanation “doesn't make any sense” yet.
Westwind Minerals Strategy	On ice — held at Stage 2	Stage 2	Not advanced. Hunter to call Westwind on its GP commitment; if the answer isn't satisfactory, an easy kill at the next check-in. Matt and Katie both want to hear Westwind's explanation first.
Lattis	Killed	Stage 2	Hunter moved to kill (“my vote would be to kill this”), preferring thematic energy exposure given limited real-asset capacity; Matt concurred (“I'm good with that”); Katie was “a little shakier on this one.” Revisit when back in market with DPI.
Private Credit Sourcing Project	Status update — no vote	—	Not a top priority; keep sourcing idiosyncratic, defensive income. Dropped from the 15 October agenda.
a16z Perennial	Status update — no vote	Stage 2	December commitment window; Hunter to schedule the follow-up call.

Action items & open questions

Endurance Investment Partners — EIP Fund I (advanced to Stage 3)

GP commitment: the Rice family office reference (Kyle Denham) confirmed ~1% is all the principals (Terry and John, mid-to-late 30s) have: a $5M personal working-capital loan (to pay staff and set up shop), a ~50% pay cut, and no liquidity event from prior roles at large energy PE shops. They put 1% into the Golf Tech co-invest and 0.5% into a second co-invest, and target 5% for Fund II.
Senior Advisors: putting north of $20M into the Fund, deliberately not counted toward the GP commitment — ~$60M combined across the Rice family office, the Senior Advisors, and the principals.
Fee waiver: early LPs viewed a waiver/deemed contribution as a GP tax benefit rather than skin in the game, so the documents now preclude it. Matt pushed back: a deemed contribution is worse than cash but far better than nothing, which is why most first-time GPs use a mix. He also questioned why a $5M loan was needed next to a ~$7M/yr management fee. Hunter believes the Rice family office isn't paying fees, since it bought a slice of the management company.
Action (Hunter): request a management-company budget/forecast with detailed SG&A line items — who is paid, team, hiring budget — to compare fee income against operating cost (Matt).
Action (Hunter): establish the terms of the Rice family office's GP deal — whether the Fund is pari passu with Rice on deals, whether Rice could ever sit senior to the Fund, and whether any special arrangements could work against LPs if a deal goes wrong (Matt).
Rice family office reference: ~99% of its portfolio is direct, so a fund commitment signals conviction in the team and in energy secondaries; a partnership, not a GP seed. Technical support from Rice Investment Group (Derrick Rice, Ryan Rice, and a former Rice Energy VP) looks at every deal, with indirect EQT gas-market insight. By contract, the Rice family office sends every secondaries deal it sees to EIP first; EIP does its own underwriting.
Team: two associates added, one from Quantum, who took a significant pay cut for day-one carry.
Strategy: not distress — buys cash-flowing upstream/midstream assets from institutions rotating out late-cycle or funds selling single assets at term-end; management typically rolls ~30% of its equity. “Best ideas,” but guided to 40–45% upstream / 40–45% midstream / 10–20% power; the 4th and 5th deals and the pipeline are gas/NGL-weighted; the crude deals were underwritten in a mid-$50s environment.
Portfolio & fundraise: three deals closed, a fourth pending; full memos and models in the data room (the Golf Tech deal, sourced by the Rice family office, is performing strongly). ~80% of the $350M target raised, expected fully raised by year-end. Matt flagged first-time-fund risk of over-sizing early deals if the raise falls short. Action (Matt): review the data-room memos and models.
References: an off-the-record check with Max Harris (worked with John in banking) was very positive. Action (Matt): connect Hunter with Lloyd, Matt's contact who referred the deal and is taking a serious look.
First-time fund & sizing (Katie): Hunter sees a wider range of outcomes than a Fund II/III, mitigated by the secondaries model and the principals' prior track record; proposed sizing ~1%, 2% tops depending on the client, saving room for co-invest.

Westwind Minerals Strategy (on ice at Stage 2)

Sourcing edge: real but narrower than advertised. The New Mexico side of the Delaware Basin (private ownership records) has the longest and still-extending inventory life of any basin surveyed, but $100B+ of Permian consolidation is high-grading held acreage rather than leasing new ground, shrinking the opportunity set the edge depends on. Matt called the relationships a real edge if they have them.
Breakevens (Hunter's own research, EIV/EIA data — not from Westwind's deck): existing-well breakeven ~$31/bbl in the Delaware vs. ~$38 in the Midland; ~$62 Permian-wide. Not county-specific — action: press Westwind for Eddy/Lea breakevens.
Price deck: the Grooms deal memo underwrites a strip to $65/bbl flat, with sensitivity down to $60 and returns still above a 12% IRR — reasonable, not aggressive, vs. ~$90 spot, but one deal only. Walking through more memos is a Stage 3 task.
GP commitment — the main red flag: the PPM/LPA define it as “Westwind Affiliates” capital (family partnerships, special LPs), not personal balance sheet. The 1% is split at the GP's discretion between this $50M fund and Westwind's parallel upstream oil & gas fund (which the Committee is not evaluating, having killed Scout). Matt: 1% is “not remotely in the ballpark” for a $50M fund; RRIG commits ~10%. Alignment would need to go from 1 to 4 to reach the 20-point threshold.
Track record: 2 of 67 minerals positions realized (1.5x and 4x MOIC, quick turnarounds) — largely a bet on the team. Katie: the commitment question combined with no fund-level returns makes it hard to support.
Action (Hunter): schedule a call on the GP commitment — how much of the 1% goes to this fund vs. the upstream fund and who funds it. If the answer isn't satisfactory, kill at the next check-in.
Action (Hunter): find a comparable manager active on the New Mexico side (Spicewood re-approached — Hunter's co-founder contact has left the firm) and research Delaware Basin specifics; basin diversification matters more than first thought.
RRIG comparison (apples to apples, different basins): RRIG appears to be struggling to land an anchor; its data room holds only a deck (a yellow flag); it markets itself as 100% Permian but says half is earmarked for the Uinta, where views diverge (Devonshire negative; EIV positive on oil, but no midstream). RRIG uses an outside petroleum consultant; Westwind relies on its operating partners. RRIG stays open in the Pipeline.

Lattis (killed at Stage 2)

Answers received: the infra team prices and hedges contracts through the NEO trading desk, which takes directional risk hedged out of the infra book; underwriting assumes a 4–6 year payback from investment-grade take-or-pay cash flow alone, with $0 residual value and no re-contracting (Stable Current: 4-year payback on a 15-year contract); contracts pay monthly, with distributions at least annually at Lattis's discretion — not a reliable quarterly yield.
Liquidity — the biggest hang-up: open-ended, with no voluntary redemption right. Exits run through broker-matched secondary sales to new LPs, with redemption windows starting after an initial lock and recurring every few years. In a no-bid scenario the GP can sell assets with no LPAC input, and the 20% trading sleeve is gated on the same terms, so it is no buffer. Matt read the anchor-sponsored, open-ended structure as uncomfortably close to Owl Rock: Dell was part of the small early syndicate there, alongside Soros, the State of New Jersey, and Brown University, and the early sponsors did well while later investors lost money. The pattern he worries about is a large institutional sponsor putting up early capital, getting it back as soon as possible, and keeping a compounding stake in the GP. Possible action: run it by Workman, who knows the team from the Dell family office, and ask whether they worked on Owl Rock.
Track record: Arun's pre-firm record at the Dell family office was credit-oriented, IRR-focused (1.30x / 1.17x gross MOIC), not infra equity.
Why killed: Hunter put the forced-sale scenario at a <2.5% tail risk but is fine not taking it; real-asset capacity fits only one of Lattis or Endurance, and he'd rather pursue thematic energy than “sleepy infrastructure.” Matt found the structure too confusing; Katie wanted much more before getting comfortable; a down year with a trading component would be hard to explain to clients. Revisit when Lattis is back in market (every ~4 years) with DPI.
Action (Katie): ask Justin about his Scottsdale power-generation contact (a prospective client) for perspective on the power-gen space.

Private Credit Sourcing Project

Hunter asked whether the area deserves more of his time. Katie: no need to chase it, but bring anything interesting — some families (e.g., Burbage, already heavy in real estate) need income that isn't real-asset-based; they like ArrowMark and will add to it, plus Greybull. Matt: avoid run-of-the-mill and sponsor-backed private credit (Apollo/Ares-type macro risk); bring idiosyncratic strategies; be wary of commercial real estate debt landmines — if taking CRE risk, get paid like an equity investor.
SR Alternative Credit OHPC LP: update call held 30 Sept — similar to ArrowMark (small-end asset-backed), low-teens yield, evergreen with slow redemptions; may come back as a “middle of the fairway” income option.
American Rivers (one call remaining) and ArrowMark CRE Structured Finance Fund II (Hunter souring on real estate debt): complete Stage 2 and take a final temperature check.
KWHP Opportunistic Fund III: best-ideas hospitality across the cap stack (pref equity, project finance) — a possible credit-like component classified as real estate; Hunter to press further.
Matt offered to set up an ArrowMark series in TMC-21 for low dollars; Burbage may anchor at $1–2M. Action (Katie): gauge client demand.

a16z Perennial

Next commitment window is December (then June); availability goes to existing clients first, so a16z asks for interest to be flagged now. December entrants may see early distributions if Anthropic and OpenAI IPO, since both are held. Matt: a ~1% “venture beta” foothold, not a big swing.
Action (Hunter): schedule the follow-up call to close out open questions. Hunter is fine approving and parking capital in the capital-call program until the window. Katie: the team will do some for eager clients regardless; June is a fallback.
FourBridge (John Turble) is a possible comparable — coming to market next year; more first-look than emerging-manager.

Summary prepared from the meeting recording. Figures quoted by managers, GPs, and third-party sources (e.g., commitments, track records, breakevens, fundraise status) are as represented in the session and unverified pending diligence.

Full transcript — session of 1 October 2026

Transcript loaded below — edit or replace as needed.

Bi-Weekly Investment Committee-20261001_130349-Meeting Recording

October 1, 2026, 5:03PM

59m 33s

Hunter Steadley started transcription

Hunter Steadley 0:03
Talking orange, didn't touch him.

Matthew Blind 0:06
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 0:07
Yeah, very close quarters and it's 90 degrees in this office right now.

Matthew Blind 0:08
TMI.
They are a conference room.

Hunter Steadley 0:15
You doing alright alone down there, Matt?

Matthew Blind 0:18
I don't know, I'm pretty bored to be honest with you, like Archie just like keeps walking up to me, like barking at me, so I'm like...
Got my golf clubs in the truck, so worst case scenario.
Erin just texted me, she's like, you want to do dinner on the boat tonight? And I'm like, hell yeah.

Hunter Steadley 0:35
Sounds pretty nice. Looks like it's like the last couple days of sunshine, good weather for quite a bit.

Matthew Blind 0:37
Yeah.
Yeah, I know. Well, the boat comes out of the water.
Not next week, but the following week. I mean, you just don't really get many boating days around here in October, so take whatever you can get.

Hunter Steadley 0:55
Yeah, yeah.
Sweet, I hope we can.
Jump in, I guess there's three of us here, and then Justin and Sophia can join whenever.

Matthew Blind 1:06
Let's do it.
We got a quorum.

Hunter Steadley 1:11
We got a quorum. Perfect. So energy real asset heavy today. We'll kick it off.

Matthew Blind 1:15
No pressure, katie.

Hunter Steadley 1:25
With West Wind.
and just...
Kind of bringing this to attention. This is the minimum rights and royalties. Did not score well on the scorecard, like per the metrics, 20 is the minimum VAR, the move forward to stage 3, but wanted to talk about it anyways. This could be adjusted alignment, obviously.
very well, but figured I'd jump in the open-ended questions from first IC we spoke about West Win in terms of like stage one.
But just going down through the list, like how durable is their sourcing edge? Because sourcing, it's huge when it comes to mineral rights and royalties. Just to reference, West Wind, they're targeting the New Mexico side of the Permian, so the Delaware Basin. Why they do that is mineral ownership records are private.
So it's really, that's their whole edge. And just kind of doing some of my own research, the Delaware Basin, longest and still extending inventory life of any basin surveyed. So it is a tailwind for what they're looking to accomplish. But flip side, there is some risk when it just comes to mineral rights and royalties in general.
So especially in the Permian, which is where they play, there's been 100 plus billion of consolidation. It's been the big players. I think like Exxon, Pioneer, Diamondback, and Beaver. They're doing high grading. And what that means is they're buying scale and contiguous acreage that drill the
best rock they already own. So what that means for players like Westwin, these...
developers are not leasing any new ground. So it just shrinks the undeveloped, not yet permitted opportunity set that really what West Wind is depending on. And rig count data, it's mixed, but like I'd say it's consistent.
with high grading, meaning that these players are not expanding the new acreage. So like my take away on that question, I do believe Westwind does have an edge when it comes to sourcing, but I just think it's a lot more narrow than advertised. So that was number one. Number 2, it's like comparison to RRIG.
That's the other mineral rights and royalties in our pipeline. They play Permian in Juanita, which is more Utah. RIG, like I caught up with them. I think they're like struggling finding an anchor investor in fundraising. Like they completely like re...
I guess, did their data room, they're still uploading stuff, like their marketing, how their fund is, different than when we initially spoke back in the spring. So like they initially said they're 100% Permian based, but when I talked to them, they said like half of that's earmarked for Utah.
RIG just as referenced, they use outside petroleum consulting for their technical underwriting. West Wing, they actually leverage their operating partners for the underwriting. So like that one's still a work in progress. Like RIG's data room is very bare. They just have a deck in there.
which is a little bit of a yellow flag, but like still keeping them open. But just a heads up on that, like there wasn't much to compare there. The break even economics, just in mineral rides and royalties in general, like this applies to Westwind and RIG. So like the industry data, like existing wells break even.
like runs it like $31 per barrel in the Delaware specifically. And that's versus $38 per barrel in Midland. So Delaware is cheaper on a pure cost basis point. And then if you take the Permian as a whole, which takes Delaware and Midland, it's
It's break even at $62 per barrel. With those major players, Exxon firms I mentioned, they're down to like 30 to $40 per barrel on lifting costs specifically. So I don't have specifics and that would be like a next step with West one of going to press further because like
The counties that are targeting New Mexico, Eddie and Leah, I would want to know about those break evens more specifically, but I would say like the gist where oil sits today, I still think that we've got tailwinds there with the break even. Like, I mean, I think for looking cats or
forward-looking assumptions, it's like low 60s, high 50s crude oil. So we still got some room to run for the break even there.

Matthew Blind 6:23
Hey, Hunter, where are you getting that? So can you explain the break evens again? So you said the entire Permian, so Texas and New Mexico is more like 31 bucks a barrel break even. But when you just look at the New Mexico side, New Mexico is 61.

Hunter Steadley 6:38
So New Mexico is 31 per barrel in the Delaware Basin.

Matthew Blind 6:42
Okay, 30. What was the 61?

Hunter Steadley 6:45
So the 62 is the Permian wide. So it takes into account like the New Mexico side, Midland, and then just like all the other basins within the Permian, like the subbasins. Yeah.

Matthew Blind 6:54
Okay.
So New Mexico is actually advantageous versus the rest of the... Okay, I had that mixed up. All right.

Hunter Steadley 7:00
Mhm.
Yeah, yeah, so it shows like there.

Matthew Blind 7:03
And where do you get that? And is that data from their deck or is that something that you discovered elsewhere?

Hunter Steadley 7:09
Discovered elsewhere. I mean, I use a lot of stuff from EIV and then just ask Paul to pull like a lot of it's from the energy independent agency. So.

Matthew Blind 7:10
Got it. Okay.
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 7:20
And then what price does Westwind underwrite to? So I looked at a deal memo they had. Grooms is what they called the project. It shows a fear strip to $65 per barrel flat is the base case. The sensitivity was down to $60 per barrel.
And even if it hit that, returns were above 12% IRR in that scenario. So just one deal, but it shows they are, you know, being maybe a little bit more conservative. I still think that's higher than what like the EIA is forecasting. But like take away is I don't think they're being aggressive in their assumptions. I think they're being reasonable.
And like spot crude right now, it's like around $90 per barrel just with geopolitical risk. But like I would say take away here from the one memo I did review is I don't think West Wind is doing anything outrageous and they are pricing in oil coming back to Earth a little bit, which is good.
So have that and that's something I would push into further, like stage 3 with entities. It would be to walk through memos and just get a true feeling for how they underwrite. But that's just like a little touch on one of the open end questions. And then final one, it was GP commit. Like obviously that's going to be why the alignments at a one here.
So I dug deeper into the PPM and LPA on this. I would say definitely a red flag here. So GP commits to find as quote un quote West Wind affiliates. So it's not personal balance sheet related at all. Can come from their family partnerships.
special limited partners, which I don't know what that means. I'd have to get on the call. But take away, it's like it can be funded beyond these principles, the general partner themselves. I will say on the call, they said they were putting in 1% personally. But I know these guys come from extremely wealthy families.
So, like, I think...
That doesn't really bode well. 1% commit and, you know, their families aren't putting in nearly as much. Like I think the Westwind affiliates gives them room to up the ante there. But it's what they told me 1%, but like the affiliates motto gives me a little hesitation where like, is this true net worth?
And will they feel it if this fund goes down? 1%, what their family's worth, tells me not really that well aligned. Especially if you look at like RIG, for example, they're putting like 10% GP commit in for the other mineral rights and loyalty strategy. So that's the biggest red flag take away and why it's scored so well.

Matthew Blind 10:00
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 10:09
easily could be sussed out, getting on a call, getting into more specifics with them. But like, even with that said, like, they don't really have a track record. I mean, they've realized 2 of 67 mineral positions, they had a 1.5 and 4x MOIC, like really quick turnarounds.
So it really is investing in the team here, less the process, the idea. But I'll pause here. Like, I mean, score is what it is, but like, I figured we'd still talk about it. A, if we wanted to still evaluate the RIG, or B, we want to get on the horn, suss out this alignment.
before killing them, but I'll open up to the floor and see what folks think.

Matthew Blind 10:52
You'd like to get to, what do we have, 21 for the aggregate score on the C-Smart?

Hunter Steadley 10:57
20 is the minimum threshold.

Matthew Blind 10:59
Okay, so 20, so you'd have to get alignment all the way up to a four in order to even hit that minimum threshold.

Hunter Steadley 11:07
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 11:12
I mean, I think the New Mexico exposure is really interesting, especially given that data point around 30 bucks, $31 a barrel break even. I'm not as interested in this just because it's upstream and it's more oil versus midstream and gas. You know, my bias on that. But with that being said, like,

Hunter Steadley 11:20
Yeah.
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 11:32
For a smaller position, I could get behind a, you know, mineral rates deal in a basin that's, you know, your break even is 31 bucks a barrel.
But you know, I mean, alignment's a really big thing. I don't know, I mean, I guess...
Maybe it still makes sense to have that conversation around alignment and get them to explain themselves.

Hunter Steadley 11:56
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 11:57
But I think that if you can't look, so they've got a, it's just a $50 million target on this fund.

Hunter Steadley 12:03
Correct.

Matthew Blind 12:05
And they can only come up with 1%?

Hunter Steadley 12:08
Yeah, and it's like the 1% is not for this fund because they run an upstream oil and gas fund.

Matthew Blind 12:16
O.

Hunter Steadley 12:17
at the same time. So like they could take that 1% and go anywhere. The way they phrase it on the call will be 1% split between the two. And I think that I'm not even evaluating the upstream gas one, just given like we killed Scout. And I think Scout's a lot more established than these guys.

Matthew Blind 12:31
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 12:36
So it's like the 1% can go anywhere, but like that's something we would suss out, like on the call to your point and just make sure like, is that 1% actually going here? How much is going in the non-hop? Is that their discretion for the PPM? But like it could go 0.5 to this and 0.5 to upstream.

Matthew Blind 12:54
Yeah, which I don't even think 1% is remotely even in the ballpark of how much you should put into a $50 million fund.

Hunter Steadley 13:00
Yeah, sure, because these guys come from me.

Matthew Blind 13:03
Yeah. I mean, I think it would be like, intellectually.
Interesting to ask them the question, try to figure out what they're thinking on this, but...
I don't know, it's a pretty, they would have to move significantly, I think, for us to, or at least for me to support this.

Katie Riley Mahany 13:27
I think that's the question also for me that in combination with right now and not having any of the like fun level information on the performance returns, like I know they have their own track record and stuff, but just like without that information, not knowing how committed they are to the outcome, kind of those two coupled together does make it a little bit of a difficult.
conversation, but I do agree. I would love to know what they say and kind of what this what their position on is that even if we even if we kill it ultimately.

Hunter Steadley 13:59
Yeah, no, I like that idea, especially because RIG still remains in the pipeline. So who knows, maybe the alignment way less of an issue, but I can get on the horn. We can just put this on like ice proceeding until that call and then just quick check up next one. If it's not.
The answer we want, then easy kill, we don't have to spend any more time on it, so...

Katie Riley Mahany 14:23
Do you consider these two, this one and the RG as like kind of an apples to apples or just generally kind of in the same space? Just as we think about comparing the two.

Hunter Steadley 14:33
I would.
I would say apples to apples. Different basins. RIG is Texas side of the Permian. That's where they've always played. But they're also expanding to Utah. Utah, it's like, it's funny because when we got lunch with Brandon or Brendan,

Katie Riley Mahany 14:37
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 14:55
from Devons here, he said he didn't like that basin at all. But then when I was like down in Houston talking to EIV, like they're like, oh, no, that basin's great. Like there's a lot of crude. The only thing is there's no midstream and there's really difficult. It's difficult to build out the infrastructure there because you're surrounded by the Rocky Mountains.

Katie Riley Mahany 15:14
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 15:15
So it's more like trucks taking the offload. So it's never going to be like a huge Permian test type of basin, but like ton of oil, ton of activity. But that's where RIG is like.
They told me verbally they're quoting, but like their deck says 100% Permian. I just think like they're kind of like moving the goalposts a little bit while fundraising. But like, I'm just waiting to get more data on them. But I would say apples to apples at the end of the day for what the strategy is.
Cell.
Cool, alright, well...

Matthew Blind 15:50
It'd be really interesting to find somebody else who's really, you know, similar to Westwind that's super active in the New Mexico side. I mean, I know how challenging it is to negotiate for those mineral rights because it's all relationship-based, but that's a real edge if they've got those relationships.

Hunter Steadley 16:07
Yeah, and I do think it's like, that's like their biggest strength. Yeah, I reached out to Spicewood. They're way bigger and more established than like West Winter RIG. But like the guy, he's one of the co-founders, he left, which is a flag in itself. So I reached out to him, he was my contact there. And he's like, yeah, I'm no longer there.
but I could try following up with them again. But yeah, there's a bunch of mineral players we can reach out to, like if they target New Mexico, I forget if Spicewood did or not, but.
Regardless.

Katie Riley Mahany 16:43
I think that would be a helpful data point because I do think that is interesting. And so it would also just be good to know contextually for this too, if nothing else, just to get a sense of that specific area.

Hunter Steadley 16:55
Yeah.
No, I hear you. I'll definitely start looking more into Delaware basin specific, because I do think basin diversification, like I've listed as break evens, like I think it is more important than I initially thought, just because things could go easily upside down in certain basins pretty quickly.
I mean, you're seeing like the major players kind of consolidating that messes up, like if you're just playing in the Texas Basin, for example, so...
Cool, all right, so marching orders on that one, I'll schedule a call with them, but shift gears, another energy name, this is endurance. So this is the secondaries play. Open in question, like biggest hot button for these guys with the GP commit, it's at 1%. So I had a reference call with the Rice Family office.
They really made it sure that it was recognized. We're not seeding them, we're partnering with them on the call. But like they've known Terry and John, who founded Endurance for a decade plus now. And I just asked like their take on the GP commit.
Is it unbiased? I mean, I guess it is biased because they're investing in them, but like they're like, hey, look, like these guys are in their mid to late 30s. They took out a $5 million personal capital working loan. I know they took like a 50% pay cut from their previous job to do this. Like they haven't had liquidity. They've been working at like big private equity energy shops.
and they just haven't had a liquidity event. So this is really all they have put to work here. And then I got on the horn.

Matthew Blind 18:42
Hunter, if they took out a $5,000,000 loan, it's a $350 million fund, what they do with the other million and a half dollars that they're not putting into the fund?

Hunter Steadley 18:49
But it's a it's a working capital loan to pay their employees, they said.

Matthew Blind 18:56
I just don't get it. Like, like what are they doing with all the management fee?

Hunter Steadley 18:57
Setup shop.
It.

Matthew Blind 19:01
They're gonna be more than 7 million bucks a year management fee.

Hunter Steadley 19:05
Yeah, it's uh, I mean, I...

Matthew Blind 19:06
I want to get, I love this deal. I think this is an amazing like story. I think it's an amazing investment opportunity, but like nothing that they say about this damn GP commitment makes any sense whatsoever.

Hunter Steadley 19:19
Yeah, I mean, I will say what I liked, because I did ask Terry and John, their senior advisors, Sam, I think you asked this. I was like, you asked, are they putting capital into it? They're putting north of 20 million bucks into it, the senior advisors. So that just shows that like some GPs actually count the advisor commitment as part of the GP.

Matthew Blind 19:39
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 19:41
They're not counting it because they think that's kind of ********, to be honest, which I liked. And they're very like transparent. Like I didn't even bring it up. I asked them. I was like, are the senior advisors putting in capital? They said yes. So between like the Rice family office, the senior advisors in their own capital, it's like over 60 mil combined.
which I think like paints the picture a little bit better alignment than just like their personal balance sheet. But to your point, Matt, I like asked, I was like, have you guys thought about the fee waiver and like the deemed GP contribution? Their take, I didn't ask the Rice Family office this, but they said early investors, LPs,
were like anti-doing that. They didn't think it was like true skin in the game. They're like, you guys would just be doing it as a tax benefit for yourselves. They considered it initially, but like based on that feedback, they pretty much like wrote in the docs that they're not able to do it.

Matthew Blind 20:39
See, see, I think Hunter, sorry just to touch on that for a second though, is that I get it, like, deemed contribution is not nearly as good as cash contribution. I 100% agree with that. But it's way better than no contribution, you know? So it's like, what the ****, dude? I mean, there's no LP that would rather than not put any money then in than...

Katie Riley Mahany 20:42
You.

Hunter Steadley 20:48
Mm-hmm.
It is, it is.
I know, I know. I mean, it's.

Matthew Blind 21:02
you know, defer some of their management fee. Unless they have, maybe this is what we need to do is we need to see like a management company forecast. Like, send us your model. Like, where is all the money going? Right? Are the $7 million on this 350 million, and maybe they're not charging Rice any money, right? Maybe Rice isn't paying any.

Hunter Steadley 21:11
Yeah.
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 21:23
The advisors probably aren't paying any, so maybe there's just so much less in management fee that I'm not giving them credit for. But like I've been through that negotiation with LPs before, and of course they want cash contribution, but dean contribution is like the next best thing.
Right? So that's why most early GPs do kind of a mix of the two if they can't put all the cash on.

Hunter Steadley 21:42
In here.
Yeah, no, I think that's a good point because yeah, I don't believe I would have to double check. I don't think Rice is paying the fees because like they actually bought a slice of the management company. And just like the arrangement they have. So like I don't think.

Matthew Blind 21:49
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's more money that they could have put in if Rice bought this slice of the management company.

Hunter Steadley 22:05
Yeah, exactly.
In Rice, I will say, so like, I will say that they have some of that money. They did like 1% on next golf co-invest, not part of the fund. They did like 0.5% on the other co-invest they offered. They said like in the ideal world, they would like to be at 5%. That's their goal for fund 2.

Matthew Blind 22:20
Okay.

Hunter Steadley 22:30
But like, they're just like, we can't get there. Like, we have everything we have. But so that was that. Spoked, once again, reference with the Rice Family office. Thanks, Matt, for setting that up. Thought this was interesting, was Kyle Denham there. They do not.
do fund investments whatsoever. They're like a lone wolf, 99% of their portfolio was just investing directly, very similar to like a Devon share. He was like, this just speaks to how much we like respected, like these guys, but like not only do we like that, like we just think the energy secondary space is tremendous. Like they're buying upstream midstream assets that are through the J curve, completely de-risked, cash flowing.
We just like this space more than anything. He confirmed that they get the technical horsepower from the Rice Investment Group, so their family office. Specifically, it's like Derek Rice, Brian Rice, and then the vice president who is the vice president.
President Rice Energy, he's also involved. They look at every deal and then just indirectly they get the benefits of EQT on the natural gas side. So like they get an idea of like gas prices, the market, et cetera. So they do benefit.
tremendously from that relationship. And Kyle said, any secondaries deal we see, we send to them before we invest. So like they get first look, rofer, they could say no, and the family office might invest their own money. But he was like, by the way of contract,
we send everything we see to them to make the investment in the fund if they want to. And they do their own underwriting, which I thought was interesting. Then team capacity, they just added two associates, one from Quantum. Quantum's like more upstream than EIV, not like upstream versus midstream, but just bigger version of EIV.
That associate like has a pretty tremendous background. He took a huge pay cut. They paid him to carry day one. So that's why this guy moved over. But they feel like they're in a good place capacity wise there, especially just relaying and utilizing the rice relationship too. And then commodity concentration was the last one idea.
One, this is a best ideas fund. So end of the day, they think it's going to be like 40, 45% upstream, 40, 45% midstream, 10 to 20 power. Current portfolio is going to be more crude weighted, but their 4th and 5th investments are going to be more

Matthew Blind 25:13
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 25:15
Nat gas, but like they wanted to reiterate when they did these crude investments, it was underwritten in the mid 50s environment. So it was before the spike, it was before the geopolitical events that happened. So they still think like it's a good attachment point. And then they said their pipeline moving forward is definitely more
nat gas and liquids relative to crude moving forward too. So that's where they stand. Like, I really like these guys if it wasn't for the GP commit. Like, I think like the secondary space, we play upstream, like, this is the way to do it. You're getting cash flowing assets from day one.
We still get midstream. And then like, they're even going to get some like mineral rights and royalties here. It's just literally like diversified play on the value chain in a dearest manner via the secondary market. But like a policy of questions folks have, like I heard you, Matt, getting like the management company outlook.
And definitely, like, they've been super responsive and transparent, so I don't envision that being the problem, but...

Matthew Blind 26:20
Yeah, yeah, I'd say just like, yeah, I think we definitely should look at management company budget and I just ask for like detailed, you know, SG&A line items like.

Hunter Steadley 26:28
Mhm.

Matthew Blind 26:30
Like what, who's getting paid right now? Who's on the team? What's the budget for hiring new people? You know, I think that also allows us to understand like how much management fee those guys are taking in relative to what it costs to, you know, run the company. I think those would be really helpful. And then I think we should also maybe understand
what is that GP deal with Rice? And are we paired to pursue Rice on these deals? Or is there a possibility that Rice is ever senior to this fund in the investments that get made? Because those guys, like Dan Rice is a, I mean, I don't know him very well, but like his reputation is one that
He's a real money maker, right? Which is great on one hand, but if you get crosswise with him, it's not great, you know? And so if they have a deal that goes wrong, is there any chance that Rice has got like the, you know, kind of first tranche of the capital coming to them before the fund gets paid? I doubt that that's the case, but

Hunter Steadley 27:14
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 27:31
I would just want to make sure that there's no special deals that Rice has that, you know, could work against us if **** doesn't go as planned.

Hunter Steadley 27:40
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 27:43
I mean, they are ruthless in the market.

Hunter Steadley 27:45
I was going to say, Kyle is very, like a lot of oil and gas people. Kyle is very intense, I would say. You could tell he is a wolf. Yeah, he was a non-bullshitter at all. So

Matthew Blind 27:54
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah. Great to have them on your side.

Hunter Steadley 28:07
Yeah, don't be on the other side. Yeah.

Matthew Blind 28:07
But not going to be good. Yeah, yeah.

Katie Riley Mahany 28:12
And Andrew, did you guys talk about this when you first came up? Because I think I missed the initial one on like how we're categorizing first time funds. I guess just how we think about that generally.

Hunter Steadley 28:12
Um...
Yeah, I mean, I think it's funny because it's like I've been a firms where we don't do first time funds. I think you sacrifice potential because like the data shows when you look at like micro market, like private equity, for example, like micro is where you get the alpha, but like,
peeling the onion back further. Folks who spit out and start their first funds, like that's usually where like you can get like that top decile performance. You really got to put it under a microscope though, because it's first time these guys have run their own business, but like they do have a track record at larger private equity.
firms. They have realized deals, etc. Like obviously Rice, they invested in Rice before EQT bought them and that deal is a home run and that's like how the relationship came about. But like, to your point, katie, I think it's like really feeling comfortable with what they did before and if it's.
directly applicable to what they're doing now. Short story is like yes for these guys, but like it's a risk, no way around it. Like I'd say it's way wider range of outcomes than fun two or three, because there's going to be some growing pains.

Katie Riley Mahany 29:40
Yeah, so would you think about sizing this slightly differently if it got approved with that in mind?

Hunter Steadley 29:47
I would say like 1%, 2 tops, depending on the client, and then saving some room for co-invest.
And you have to remember too, because it's secondaries. So it's not like these guys are going, it's like these businesses are already well established, cash flowing. Crucial part of their underwriting is when the transaction happens, like management rolls over 30% of their equity. So like the management.
of when they're doing these transaction is highly aligned. They have high skin in the game. But like, I think that secondaries also helps de-risk this to an extent. Like, I feel more comfortable this is a first time fund than West Wind or RIG, for example, just because it's not secondaries.

Katie Riley Mahany 30:36
Right, no, that's helpful.

Hunter Steadley 30:37
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 30:38
Hunter, is there any distress component of this? I mean, are these secondary targets that they're looking after? Are they not functioning well, or is it just people that have been involved, funds that have been involved for a long time, that need some liquidity? I mean, what's the...
What's the like, I guess what I'm trying to get at is like, what is the post-investment requirement for these guys to step in and operate these businesses?

Hunter Steadley 31:03
Yeah, I mean, typically it's...
Energy, whether it's upstream, midstream, kind of like on its late cycle. A lot of institutional investors have like wanted to rotate out. So like they're scooping up things by virtue of that. Or it's like things hitting a term life and it's like a single asset sale.
from a fund. So they're taking advantage of there. So like where they play, it's not distress. Like there definitely are energy distress secondary funds out there. Like the space isn't that well traveled. And it's like you talk to like Quantum. I was actually talking to Kyle about this at Rice Family office.

Matthew Blind 31:36
Babe.

Hunter Steadley 31:45
Like Quantum tried to start a strategy doing this, but like EIV is not going to let Quantum into like the henhouse because like they're direct competitors and see like all their underwriting, all their like modeling on portfolio companies because like at the end of the day, they're going to end up bidding on the same stuff in midstream assets.
So like these guys being independent helps a ton. But like, yeah, they're not playing distress. It's like they only want cash flowing, positive type of businesses. But like, I think to your point, yeah, to your point, like I would definitely want to like the case studies to bring a lot of light to that to like see exactly what they're doing.

Matthew Blind 32:15
Got it, okay, good. Yeah, that's helpful, yeah.
Are there any deals yet in the fund?

Hunter Steadley 32:27
Yeah, three, about to be 4.

Matthew Blind 32:30
Could we, would they share the, or have they already shared the memos and the models for each one of those deals?

Hunter Steadley 32:35
Yes, they're in the data room. I haven't like taken it. Yeah, it's the golf tax. This one is crushing it.

Matthew Blind 32:37
Okay, all right, I'll go look at the data.
So they got full memo and full model in the data room.

Hunter Steadley 32:46
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 32:47
Okay, cool.

Hunter Steadley 32:48
Yeah, you can see this golf tax. This is this was sourced by the Rice Family office.
And...
Regardless, yeah, you can find the memo in it, but like, yeah, you can see it's kicking ***.
This is Nat Gas, I believe, but no, this is crude. But yeah, regardless, you can get further into that. But yeah, it's definitely seasoned.

Matthew Blind 33:15
Perfect. And where are they at on their capital raise right now?

Hunter Steadley 33:19
I have to double check. I don't know off the top of my head, to be honest. I have to look at my call notes.

Matthew Blind 33:28
Yeah, just make sure, you know, I mean, obviously raising capital for a first time fund is hard. You know, you just want to make sure that they didn't get too far over their skis with the sizing on the early deals, you know, because then if they don't raise as much capital as they want to, I know this from experience, then you end up having, you know, highly concentrated funds. Sometimes, sometimes that

Hunter Steadley 33:29
But.

Matthew Blind 33:49
That works, but you know, you want to make sure that they can still get to the appropriate level of diversification.

Hunter Steadley 33:55
Yeah, yeah, no, I agree.
Um, okay, so they're 80% of the 350 mil target.

Matthew Blind 34:06
Okay.

Hunter Steadley 34:08
And this was brought to you by your contact, Lloyd. I know he's taking a serious look at it.

Matthew Blind 34:12
Yeah.
You want to talk to Lloyd?

Hunter Steadley 34:16
Yeah, I would love to.

Matthew Blind 34:18
Alright, I'll connect you with Lloyd.

Hunter Steadley 34:20
And they think by like year end this is going to be fully raised. And then I talked to...
Guy DIV worked with John.
on the banking side right out of school. This guy, Max Harris, and like he was like, yeah, John, one of the more sharp guys that I've ever worked with. So like kind of an off the record reference check for somebody working on the mainstream side to suss these guys out.
But I say move to stage 3 and just, I mean, we have all of these questions. I'll wrap that on to the memo, but like really like these guys.

Katie Riley Mahany 35:02
That's great. Thank you.

Matthew Blind 35:02
Goodbye, Neil.

Hunter Steadley 35:03
Yeah.
All right, lattice. So this one, like a power.

Matthew Blind 35:13
See him go.

Hunter Steadley 35:14
I don't know where he went. Yeah, he just got up and left.

Matthew Blind 35:15
Sam disappeared. The hell!
Just the three of us, guys. What the hell's going on with this meeting?

Hunter Steadley 35:22
I know, he's just *******, I actually think he's dealing with some NetJet stuff with Neil. Yeah, yeah, trying to stop the the bleed, but uh...

Matthew Blind 35:27
Ohh, good.

Hunter Steadley 35:33
So it's been a while that we discussed this one, just Dell Family office backed it. What they're doing is like energy infrastructure and like 20% of it is like commodity trading. So like the open items, like the trading sleeve and the infrastructure, like how do they provide synergies?

Matthew Blind 35:33
That a boy.

Hunter Steadley 35:55
What they told me, infrastructure team prices and hedges its contracts in-house using the trading desk, which is Neo, they call it. The two sides share market views. And then Neo takes directional risks hedged out of the infrastructure book. So that was like one open. Number 2, I like this answer. So it was like the capital payback.
how de-risk the contracts really are. Matt, you brought this up. Strongly de-risk, like they underwrite to a four to six year payback from the contracted cash flow alone. They assume $0 residual value. So they're not putting anything into like reselling these power generators.
and they're assuming 0 recontracting. So like all their underwriting is just paid back from take or pay contracts with investment grade counterparties. And just an example, like stable current, it's a deal, it's a four year payback on a 15 year contract. So capital comes back in the first third.
of that contract and it's stable current, it's an investment grade counterparty. Anything over that just created the upside on top. So.
Payment cadence, they're paid, the contracts are paid monthly, but like lattice distributes annually at a minimum. It's really a discretion. They can distribute more frequently. So it's not like a reliable quarterly cash on cash return like some other funds. And then like this is the biggest hang up we had, it was the liquidity.
So there's no voluntary redemption rate at all. So interests are not redeemable or purchasable. So liquidity windows, they're satisfied by a broker assisted secondary sale of the existing LP units to a new buyer. So it's not funded by like investors lining up and cashing people out.
It's not, you know, paying old investors with the new money coming in. So Ponzi scheme question, like, I think that is a little bit cleared up there. An existing LP is matched with a buyer at a discount price, essentially is how that works. But like in a no bid doomsday scenario,
The GP here can elect to sell assets. There's no LPAC or advisory committee input. It just like really rests on good faith within the lattice guys. The trading sleeve is not like a liquidity buffer. It's 20% of the portfolio, but like they gate that trading sleeve.
on the same terms as the infrastructure fund. So it's moving in unison. So like they were saying like, why would there never be a no bid when you're like buying essentially like investment grade cash flowing assets? Like, I mean, this is their sales pitch, but like there could be a real scenario if this goes out of favor and they have to sell some assets.
like that's maybe like a tail risk event, but like just the risk with how this is structured nonetheless. And then.

Matthew Blind 39:03
So, so Hunter, sorry, can you remind, so I'm trying to figure out why we had that question. So, is this a drawdown structure or is this a open-ended structure?

Hunter Steadley 39:13
So it's open-ended and after seven years they start offering like redemption terms.

Matthew Blind 39:20
OK, and then how do how do we get out? So let's say we invest $10 million into this thing and in seven years that.
Ten $1,000,000 is, I guess, because we're getting cash flow along the way, right? So it's really just a cash flow vehicle, and then hopefully that's still worth $10 million in seven years.

Hunter Steadley 39:35
Yeah.
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 39:41
How do we get who who bought who?
Do we get side pocketed then and then they go out to the market and they sell that or is it a new investor coming in that's going to buy that $10 million?

Hunter Steadley 39:51
Yeah, so they would essentially try to look, they would run a broker process. So it's four years and then every three years after, essentially, like they would try to match with a broker, somebody to come and buy our share. But like if there's no bids, then they might have to sell assets to get us out.

Matthew Blind 40:10
Okay, so would those people that are buying our share become LPs of Lattice or do they just own the project?

Hunter Steadley 40:17
They would become LPs of lattice.

Matthew Blind 40:18
Okay, yeah. So that seems a little bit Ponzi scheme to me.

Hunter Steadley 40:19
Yeah, they buy shares in like the GP.
Yeah, I mean, it's a brokered independent process. So it's like they always think what they said, it's not like new cash lining up and just using that.

Matthew Blind 40:34
These, did these people, did these people come from the GP continuation market or something? That's what they say about GP continuation funds as well. Everport just stuff and it makes a market, like you could sell that for whatever, you know, and they just sell it to themselves.

Hunter Steadley 40:39
Hey, come.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, it could, but I mean, like, yeah, if like the Dell Family office wanted to get out, like, they're the anchor investor here, like, that could completely turn this upside down. So, like, I mean, the structure, it's definitely a real risk. Like, I'd say it's like maybe less so than your typical.

Matthew Blind 40:57
Bye.

Hunter Steadley 41:05
It's not like they have gates or anything like that, but like the risk of selling assets just to get folks out that want to redeem, like it does exist. It's not like you need, they need to meet 5% quarterly liquidity, like they would just have to sell some stuff to like try to get, you know, those redemptions out.
So like this is kind of the fact sheet where you can see the liquidity terms here. Pre-HTML.

Matthew Blind 41:32
How much is Delon for?

Hunter Steadley 41:34
Do what?

Matthew Blind 41:34
How much is Dell in for?

Hunter Steadley 41:37
Option they put in.
The double chair, let me see the HTML.
They stood them up, I think with a sizable check. I'll double check what they did specifically in it. I have it in my notes.

Matthew Blind 41:59
Yeah, the only thing I worry about with, you know, Dell was one of the part of that small syndicate group that did the Al Rock deal, which is a similar kind of a structure, right?

Hunter Steadley 42:07
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 42:09
And.
I think we all know how much Dell made, Dell and Soros and State of New Jersey and Brown University made on this and how much investors have actually lost on LROC.

Hunter Steadley 42:24
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 42:24
I just worry about the structure of the, you know, this weird open-ended structure.
Hanzi scheme rhyming type of a thing that there's a big institutional sponsor that puts the early capital up and then tries to get it back as soon as possible, but they still have this kind of residual share in the management company or the GP that continues to compound capital.

Hunter Steadley 42:53
Yeah, and these guys came from the Dell DFO. They know Workman.

Matthew Blind 42:56
Right.

Hunter Steadley 43:01
But yeah, regard, it's a real risk.

Matthew Blind 43:01
Yeah, it'd be interesting to ask, like, to run this by Workman and ask him if these are some of the guys that worked on the Iraq deal.

Hunter Steadley 43:08
Yeah, I mean, you can. They set like they, so Arun, he was on the infra side there and then the other guy was just like kind of commodity trading. Honestly, like Arun's like track record on infra is like not that great. It's more credit oriented. Chosen does how to structure, but it's like a...

Matthew Blind 43:22
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 43:26
1.3 and like a 1.17 gross MOIC at the end of the day. He was more cash flow IRR focused when he was at Dell. But like regardless, I mean, it's got a track record of what he did at Dell, but it was definitely more credit oriented, less equity.

Matthew Blind 43:44
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 43:47
But yeah, I mean, these guys, it's like, I think it's interesting. It's power demand, but like, yeah, if we can't get over like that hump, like, I mean, I'm totally fine. Because like, I mean, I do think it's probably like a less than 2.5% real tail risk, given what these assets are.
that you're met with for sales, but at the end of the day, it still can happen. I'm totally fine just not taking that risk. And we probably only have room for like something like this or something like an endurance within real assets, I'd say. Like, I don't think we want to do both of these.
And these guys will always be back in market, you know, every four years too, so.

Matthew Blind 44:30
Yeah, I mean, it's a little embarrassing for me to admit it, but I don't really understand this lattice thing.

Hunter Steadley 44:37
Yeah.

Katie Riley Mahany 44:37
It says definitely a little shakier on this one than the other one. So welcome to get more clarity, but I think this would, I need to have a lot more to kind of wrap my head around and get super comfortable with it.

Hunter Steadley 44:49
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 44:50
Yeah, I think this energy stuff, Hunter, I mean, I'm super glad we're focused on it, but like, we're going to see some really, really good deals in energy, power generation, you know, stuff like that. And so I don't know if we need to get super creative on it, you know?

Hunter Steadley 45:06
Correct. Yeah. I mean, this is definitely a niche like katie. It's like they're doing like power generators. So it's like for Texas, if like Heb, like the big grocery store, like goes off the grid and there's a power outage. Yeah, they're like supplying the power gens for that, which like I think Michael Dell's brother.

Katie Riley Mahany 45:14
Hey, thank you.
Ohh, I remember this now. OK, yeah.
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 45:25
did something standalone, something similar, but like there's more people doing it. But like to your point, like it's not like there's a huge tailwind that we're seeing in energy with like AI and stuff. Like this isn't really a secondary, tertiary idea where it's like if endurance, EIV, we see new stuff, like I think that's tailwinds are a lot stronger.

Katie Riley Mahany 45:44
This actually just reminded me, Justin was just in Scottsdale last week and met with someone who does power generation. They're, they just, I think they just got the contract for maybe talking about semiconductors or somebody, but they're doing all the power generation. They sell the generators, so they're on the front end of the development on the generator.
So honestly, just a good, maybe have, I'll bring this up to Justin, just kind of check on their perspective on this, if nothing else, given that we're looking to have them come on as a client. So, and they've been very open about like talking about generators, who runs them, who does a good job, kind of like that power space.
Um...
That might be good to know.

Hunter Steadley 46:32
Yeah, yeah, I would love to.

Katie Riley Mahany 46:34
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 46:36
Yeah, like, I like these guys, but I just don't know if I'm as excited. This is more kind of sleepy infrastructure. I honestly kind of like the thematic play of energy right now where my vote would be to kill this. Like, in a world where we have a lot more capital to allocate, like,
I could see a place for this, but like we got to be selective on our shots. I would rather pursue something energy related than this personally. So my mode is to kill as much as I like them and then maybe potentially revisit when they're back in the market with some DPI and we see this come to fruition.

Katie Riley Mahany 47:12
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 47:13
I'm good with that.

Katie Riley Mahany 47:14
Sam.

Hunter Steadley 47:16
Cool. All right, so we got 9 minutes, so yeah, we'll kill that one. And then just kind of...

Matthew Blind 47:20
Good job. I mean, good job on bringing that. It's really interesting to look at this stuff, but it's just a little bit too confusing for me, so...

Hunter Steadley 47:27
Yeah, I mean, it's just, it's tough to, when it's down, especially with the trading component, like that could be very difficult to explain to clients why it's down. So, final, like private credit, like just wanted to kind of like,

Matthew Blind 47:39
Right.

Hunter Steadley 47:46
sourcing. I've cooled and haven't really turned over many stones here. Like just wanted to see folks like opinion. Is there much demand from clients? Like I've heard folks wanting more income, but like.
Real assets providing a lot, like Continental, I just did their call, like they're tracking it like a 13% yield annualize once these buildings get off the ground in like 3 years. Roundhouse is going to be.
Up like a higher single digits, and we have air Mark 503, but like just wanted to check, like katie, I know especially like your crew, like should this be a priority? We have like three things in the funnel: commercial real estate debt, American rivers, which is more like the...

Katie Riley Mahany 48:22
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 48:30
Jones Act, Inland Marine leasing, and then just kind of like a middle of the fairway asset back with Shrack, this one. But just wanted to see, should we be spending much time here, like me personally, like I kind of like chasing energy more, but I've kept these guys in the loop.
But just I have a one call with American Rivers to go, but like just want to make sure we're spending the right amount of time here based off like what you guys are hearing or want to see.

Katie Riley Mahany 48:54
Yep.
I mean, I would love this. I would love this to be, you know, as you hear something that might be interesting, obviously, let's bring it up. We just talked about this yesterday. For some of our families like Burbage, who, I mean, they're in real estate, they own a ton of assets. So some of the like,
We're trying to maybe do a little bit like metals and mining stuff with them, but they they need something that's less infrastructure real assets based on the income side because that that is their whole their whole operating business. They like 503, they like Arrow Mark, we're going to add more to both.

Hunter Steadley 49:32
Yeah.

Katie Riley Mahany 49:37
after yesterday, which is great. Love Grey Bull. So as we kind of like pitch it to them of like cash, Munis, 503, Arrow Mark, Grey Bull, then you have kind of a like fun, next Gen. let's do a venture deal thing that they love to play with. Is there something more in kind of that like?
Yeah, that either interesting private credit, like an arrow mark that we really like and can get behind. Like, I think that was really special, like the team and what they're going after. Or even like a lower middle market private equity type of deal they love. So I don't think we need to be chasing it necessarily.
But would love as we look through any of this stuff, if you come across a manager that's even worth looking at, I'd love to throw it in the mix because there are definitely some families that could use that.

Hunter Steadley 50:31
Mm.

Matthew Blind 50:35
Yeah, I think the more...
you know, kind of like none, like the far, like in the private credit world, as long as we can stay away from like sponsored deals, like the, we don't want to do the, I just don't think that we should put any like run-of-the-mill private credit in the portfolio, but like the private credit exposure that we have, like I'm really excited about.

Hunter Steadley 50:58
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 51:03
But it doesn't have the same like macro risk profile like the Apollos and the Aries and stuff like that, you know, and so I feel like, you know, 503 is going to be coming back to market. Definitely re-look at that one. Arrow Mark, like they seem to be chugging along. We're really happy with their performance.

Katie Riley Mahany 51:11
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 51:23
Let's do some more of that. You know, we can set up a series for Arrow Mark. You know, anything that's a little bit more idiosyncratic, like let's bring to the committee, but you know, I don't think we need like broad-based, run-of-the-mill private credit in the portfolio.

Hunter Steadley 51:36
Yeah, yeah, and it's like I was trying to take shots because like how I look at it is like defensive plus income. Like Nabari, like I think was like to this day probably like one of the more impressive yield profiles, but we're approved hawks. So it's like totally get why we didn't want to pursue that one. But yeah, like I'll keep on like sniffing around like.

Katie Riley Mahany 51:42
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 51:55
Knowing that it's not a huge priority, I just want to make, because like I haven't really been too active here. But like, we'll keep it in mind. I had an update call with Sr. alternative yesterday. They're kind of similar to like an Aramark, which is asset backed, very small end of the market.
where like they're putting out like low teens yield year after year. And it's like same type of profile where it's evergreen, but slow redemption out. Where like we do something, maybe it's that type of play versus like real estate debt. I'm just kind of souring on that, to be honest.

Matthew Blind 52:30
Yeah. Yeah, there's some landmines and real estate debt. I mean, you could say 503 is real estate debt as well, but it's a different type of, it's not the commercial real estate that people are really worried about. You know, like if you're going to take risk and like we've got plenty of real estate equity operators and sponsors in our network that if we want to

Hunter Steadley 52:40
Correct.

Matthew Blind 52:50
lean into commercial real estate, then we ought to get paid like equity investors and not just, you know, kind of take a mid to high single digit type of a coupon with the hope that, you know, you get some type of a warrant kicker or something like that. So.

Hunter Steadley 53:05
Yeah, and I like, it's been a while, but Matt, yeah, I know you and I had a call with Kevin's Wilson. So this is the hospitality fund, katie. They play up and down the cap stack. So you get some credit. Like they just do, hey, best ideas within hospitality. That's what it is. But like they'll do pref equity.

Katie Riley Mahany 53:14
Mm.
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 53:24
They can do like project finance, uh, like a common, but like you could pick up some type of...
Credit component with something like that, where it's just diversified on classified as real estate. I wouldn't classify as credit by any means, but we could get our exposure because I do want to press further into those guys, but exposure is somewhere like that too, so...

Katie Riley Mahany 53:44
Yeah.
Yeah, and none of this is like, by any means, like, we got to get it done now. It's just like, I think as you're having conversations with folks you trust in your network, even just floating out the idea of what they're looking at and if anything interesting has come along, would love to look at it. Just so, you know, call it, you know, 6, 10 months from now, you know, we're thinking about kind of like, what's that next?
thing in the portfolio for folks. To your point, I like what you're looking at here. The income generation is really key for a lot of folks. So no rush, but.

Hunter Steadley 54:16
Yeah, yeah, I know 503 is back, like it'll probably be a quick underwrite since they're a re-up candidate where it's just like I'll probably just do one memo and then call it a day and vote on that.

Katie Riley Mahany 54:22
Yeah.
Yeah.
When is that?

Hunter Steadley 54:29
November 1st is their next close, or first close. And they just cut management fees too, which is good for the drawdown. So I'll get going on that one. I might bring this back because it's like middle of the fairway, sleepy yield, but like the rest, like American Rivers and Aramark.

Katie Riley Mahany 54:30
Oh, okay, okay.
Okay.

Hunter Steadley 54:49
maybe complete a stage two and then just kind of take final temp check from everyone, but like maybe we just get away from these thematic ideas and just go for something a little bit more defensive yet incoming. So.

Katie Riley Mahany 54:56
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 55:04
And then, and Hunter, this reminds me, what's our plan with the A16Z perennial fund? When are we going to talk about that one again? Because I think they're, they, if I remember correctly, they open up what, twice a year, so at the end of the year.

Hunter Steadley 55:04
Awesome.
Yeah, yeah, no, I need to schedule another call because we like had a bunch of...

Matthew Blind 55:22
Okay.

Hunter Steadley 55:24
questions on it like right here. So yeah, that's on me. I need to schedule a call and follow up with them. If we want to get it.

Katie Riley Mahany 55:34
It'll be December for commitment. I will say they did caveat that just in general, this goes for December, but always that obviously the availability goes to existing clients first and then there'll be, you know, availability dependent for new clients.
So they suggest kind of outside of regular calls, you know, if we have any potential interest flagging it now, so that way they can start budgeting and understanding what that might look like.

Hunter Steadley 56:04
Yeah, and even like as we survey the venture, like, I'm fine like approving it and then getting in if it's on December later, and then just, you know, having it parked in the cap call program until then, just because it is perpetual. It's not like it's a final close. That's which admittedly I've kind of.
put down the back burner and focus more on energy. But I can take that back on.

Matthew Blind 56:27
You know.

Katie Riley Mahany 56:28
Yeah, you can do it again in June anyway. So it's more of I think the folks that come in for December likely of, you know, Anthropic and OpenAI move forward, you're going to likely get like immediate cash back once those IPO because they're both in there. So for some folks, you know, if that's.

Hunter Steadley 56:30
Yeah.

Katie Riley Mahany 56:48
Depending on the client base, if that's something that's interesting or like a good indicator, you know, for them to kind of immediately get a distribution. Some people like that, so...

Hunter Steadley 56:58
Yeah, yeah, no, I'll schedule a file, call them.

Matthew Blind 57:00
I think, yeah, I think it's kind of an, you know, more thematically for the portfolio, like just kind of like venture beta, you know.

Katie Riley Mahany 57:06
Yeah, yeah.

Matthew Blind 57:07
And then, you know, like one, like probably 1% of the portfolio, something like that, you know. I don't think we want to make a big swing on it, but it might not be a bad foothold to secure.

Hunter Steadley 57:08
Yeah, that's.
I did have a...
I got lunch with John Turble at Forebridge. You know, yeah, they're interesting. I mean, they're kind of similar, Boston-based, but like they would be a direct comparison. They're coming to market next year. He's a good dude. I like him in general, but

Matthew Blind 57:22
Yeah, I know him.

Hunter Steadley 57:39
Yeah, like obviously they're not injuries and they're playing, they're kind of more like a first look to an extent, but less emerging manager. But regardless, yeah, all right, well, I'll.

Katie Riley Mahany 57:52
I think if it helps Hunter on the timeline, like, we're going to do some just because folks want it and are eager. So if there's any, like, wanting to use that as an excuse to get more information on how that goes beyond the one client we have in there, always happy to say, like, we don't need to rush this for December. We can.
do it for June and we kind of use this as a task to see how it goes over the next few months to get more information. But I would say, unfortunately, sooner rather than later if you want to do the December.

Hunter Steadley 58:16
Yeah.
Got it. Alright, I'll schedule something with him.

Matthew Blind 58:24
katie, what is maybe something for you guys to think about if you guys want to set up the like a series in the TMC 21, happy to do that. You know, I mean, we can do that for pretty low dollars as well, but maybe let us know what the demand is and.

Katie Riley Mahany 58:38
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 58:39
You know, it makes it really easy, so...

Katie Riley Mahany 58:39
What?
Okay, we'll let you know because we have one client who does it outside of us and we just help him with it. He's kind of got us more access for other folks and we're probably due from Burbidge yesterday. They're going to do, they were going to do a million, I think they might go to 2 million. So we'll see kind of who else.

Matthew Blind 58:57
Yeah, that'd be a great anchor in the series if you guys are willing to do it through that.

Katie Riley Mahany 59:02
Okay.

Hunter Steadley 59:04
You do too. It's like once we get that, then we're always a new client. So new clients that come in, they would be that first, it's not like they're a new client waiting. So.

Katie Riley Mahany 59:09
Right.
Exactly.
Yeah.

Hunter Steadley 59:17
Awesome. All right, well, that's it for today. So I appreciate the time. Yeah, let me know if questions as always, but yeah, no, appreciate spending the time skeleton crew today.

Matthew Blind 59:27
Yeah, nice job, Hunter. Thanks, buddy.

Hunter Steadley 59:29
Yeah.

Matthew Blind 59:31
Alright, see you later. Bye.

Hunter Steadley 59:31
See ya. Thank you.

Hunter Steadley stopped transcription

Embedded directly in this file so it travels with the pack; also autosaved to this browser if edited. To archive a fixed copy, use Download PDF, which captures the text into the printed record.

09 — Committee & Governance

Committee & Governance

Composition and operating rules of the Investment Committee, per the Investment Committee Charter (March 2026, as amended August 2026 — Rotating Seat).

Members

Member	Role
Hunter Steadley	Chair
Matt Blind	Managing Partner
Justin Kunz	Managing Partner
Chris di Bonaventura	Member
Katie Riley Mahany	Member
Jim Machinchick	Rotating Member · Q3–Q4 2026

Jim Machinchick holds the Rotating Member seat through year-end 2026 (Q3 and Q4), per the Chair’s designation. This is a non-permanent seat in addition to the five permanent members above — see the Rotating Seat rule below.

Operating rules

Rule	Detail
Composition	At least three members, including the Managing Partners of ICM and TOC-23.
Quorum	A majority of members (3 of 5 permanent members).
Advancing a deal	Majority vote of voting members (3 of 5) to move an opportunity to the next stage, or to approve it to proceed.
Voting (other actions)	By a majority of the quorum, provided either Matt Blind or Justin Kunz is present and votes in favor.
Rotating Seat	One additional, non-permanent seat held for one calendar quarter at a time by an ICM/TOC-23 team member who is not otherwise a permanent member; the Chair designates who fills it each quarter. The Rotating Member is expected to come prepared on the pipeline and to vote at every meeting during their term — but that vote counts toward the outcome only if a permanent member is absent from the meeting. In all other respects the Rotating Member participates as a full voting member.
Chair (if absent)	Matt Blind acts as Chair first; Justin Kunz second.
Cadence	At least quarterly, and as often as needed; the Chair sets agendas and maintains minutes.
Written consent	Unanimous written or electronic consent of all members is as effective as a meeting; telephonic / electronic participation is permitted.
Guests	Non-members may be invited to attend; invited non-members may have their vote recorded.
Appointments	Members are appointed or replaced by a majority vote of the Committee, or by both Matt Blind and Justin Kunz.

Rotating Seat, in practice. The Rotating Member (Jim Machinchick, Q3–Q4 2026) attends and participates fully — prepared to discuss the pipeline and vote at every meeting during the term — but their vote only counts toward the outcome of a Committee vote if a permanent member is not present at that meeting.

Responsibilities & duties

Identify, evaluate and approve or reject prospective investments and recommendations.
Identify, evaluate and oversee third-party managers for client portfolios, per the Manager Due Diligence Policy.
Review investment policy and strategy, and the performance of existing assets, investments and funds.
Monitor investment-related risk, including risk exposure and market conditions.
Provide direction and oversight of investment processes, practices, disclosures and record-keeping.
Review the selection of custodians, administrators, consultants and other service providers, and monitor Best Execution.
Evaluate the allocation of underlying investments across ICM or TOC-23 funds and clients.
Report periodically on the status and performance of ICM and TOC-23 assets, and ensure compliance with fiduciary standards and regulatory requirements.

Source: Inflection Capital Management, LLC and The Oglethorpe Collective, LLC — Investment Committee Charter, March 2026, as amended August 2026 (Rotating Seat) and September 2026 (Advancing a Deal — majority vote). Summarized for reference; the Charter governs in the event of any conflict. The majority-vote (3 of 5) requirement for advancing or approving an opportunity is now a Charter provision as of 3 September 2026, replacing the prior unanimous-consent practice. The Committee may delegate responsibilities to subcommittees and may engage internal or external advisors.

10 — Disclosures

Important Disclosures

Information presented is for informational purposes only. The Oglethorpe Collective, LLC ("TOC-23") delivers advisory services through Inflection Capital Management, LLC ("ICM"), a registered investment adviser doing business as TOC-23. Registration as an investment adviser does not imply a certain level of skill or training. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risk, including the possibility of loss of principal. The ideas and opinions expressed herein do not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security or strategy. Before making any investment decision, you should seek expert, professional advice and obtain information regarding the legal, fiscal, regulatory and foreign currency requirements for any investment according to the laws of your home country and place of residence. Any forward-looking statements or forecasts are based on assumptions and actual results may vary. Information presented from third parties is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is provided. Inflection is not required to update information presented, unless otherwise required by applicable law. For more information about ICM and TOC-23, including our Form ADV Part 2A Brochures, see https://adviserinfo.sec.gov or contact us at (415) 805-8682.

Hypothetical Performance. Hypothetical performance is necessarily based on several estimates, assumptions and the existing conditions as of the date of these materials and does not constitute a guarantee of the returns a fund or investment deal will realize upon exit. Hypothetical performance does not represent actual performance and should not be interpreted as an indication of such performance. The returns achieved may be more or less than the target performance described herein, and actual performance may be materially lower than shown. Hypothetical performance results do not represent the impact that future unforeseen material economic and market factors will have on the decision making process or the future factors' impact on estimated valuation and performance returns. Market conditions can vary widely over time and all investments involve risk, and transactions will not always be profitable and can result in loss. Upon request, Inflection Capital Management ("ICM") dba The Oglethorpe Collective, LLC ("TOC-23") will be happy to share more information regarding the underlying assumptions used to calculate target performance returns. Hypothetical performance is stated net of TOC-23 and underlying manager fees except where expressly labeled gross.

Market Commentary. Any market commentary represents the opinion of Inflection Capital Management dba The Oglethorpe Collective, LLC. The views are subject to change at any time based on market conditions and are current as of the date indicated on the materials.

Advisory Fees. Inflection Capital Management dba The Oglethorpe Collective, LLC's advisory fees will reduce a client's actual returns by the fee schedule in accordance with the client's investment advisory agreement.

Confidentiality. This Investment Committee pack is confidential and is intended solely for the recipient. It is not a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument and may not be reproduced, distributed, or shared, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of TOC-23.

Pipeline stages, decision records, and dates in this pack are internal working information and are subject to change. Manager, fund, and strategy names are the property of their respective owners; their inclusion does not imply any endorsement, recommendation, or current or past investment. Nothing herein is an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell any security or to pursue any investment strategy.