When you invest in an Opportunity Zone fund, you are betting heavily on the sponsor — the firm that sources, develops, manages, and ultimately exits the projects. Most OZ funds are development vehicles, and development is execution-intensive, so the sponsor's quality is among the largest determinants of whether your investment succeeds. A strong, experienced, disciplined sponsor improves your odds; a weak, inexperienced, or misaligned one can jeopardize the investment regardless of the tax benefits. That makes sponsor due diligence essential before committing capital for a long, illiquid, 10-year hold. This guide walks through how to vet an Opportunity Zone fund sponsor — assessing development experience, prior-fund track record, compliance and reporting discipline, and fee structure and alignment — and the red flags to avoid. Note that OZ rules are time-sensitive and evolving — verify the current rules with your tax advisor; this is educational information, not investment advice, and real estate carries risk.
Sponsor development experience
The first thing to assess is the sponsor's development experience, because most OZ funds are development vehicles and development is execution-intensive. Look at whether the sponsor has genuinely developed real estate before — ground-up construction or substantial rehabilitation — and not just bought stabilized property or run other strategies. Development involves entitlements, construction management, budgeting, lease-up, and exit, and a sponsor who has done it repeatedly is far better positioned than one new to it.
Examine the depth and relevance of the experience — how many projects, of what type and size, in what markets, and over how many years. A sponsor experienced in the specific property type (multifamily, industrial, hospitality) and the relevant markets brings applicable expertise, while a sponsor pivoting into an unfamiliar sector or geography carries more risk. The team matters too — the experience of the key principals and whether the firm has the in-house or partnered capabilities to execute.
So the sponsor's development experience — its depth, relevance, and the team's capability — is the foundation of vetting. Sponsor development experience — whether the sponsor has genuinely developed real estate before (ground-up or substantial rehab), the depth and relevance of that experience (number, type, size, market, and years of projects), the fit with the fund's property type and geography, and the key principals' and team's capability — is the first thing to assess. Development is execution-intensive. Understanding the sponsor's experience grounds the vetting. Assess the sponsor's development experience first — its depth, relevance to the fund's property type and markets, and the team's capability — since most OZ funds are development vehicles and development is execution-intensive.
Track record on prior funds
Beyond general experience, examine the sponsor's track record on prior funds and projects — how their previous investments actually performed. Ask for the realized and current results of earlier OZ funds or comparable real estate funds: did projects complete on time and budget, lease up as projected, and deliver returns in line with expectations? A sponsor with a demonstrable record of delivering results is more credible than one with only projections and promises.
Probe both the successes and the difficulties — every developer encounters challenges, and how the sponsor handled problems (delays, cost overruns, a difficult market) is revealing. Ask whether any prior projects underperformed or failed, and what happened. Be appropriately skeptical of a track record that shows only flawless results (or of a sponsor too new to have one), and verify claims where possible rather than taking them at face value. Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but it is informative.
So the prior-fund track record — the actual performance of the sponsor's earlier investments, including how they handled difficulties — is a key window into their capability. Track record on prior funds — the realized and current performance of the sponsor's earlier OZ or comparable real estate funds (on-time, on-budget completion, lease-up, and returns versus expectations), how they handled problems and any underperformance, with healthy skepticism and verification — is a key vetting input. Past performance is informative, not a guarantee. Understanding the track record reveals capability. Examine the sponsor's prior-fund track record — how earlier investments actually performed and how the sponsor handled difficulties — verifying claims and recognizing that past performance is informative but not a guarantee.
Every developer hits problems eventually — so how a sponsor handled a delayed project, a cost overrun, or a soft market often tells you more than a track record that claims only flawless results.
Compliance & reporting discipline
A sponsor's compliance and reporting discipline is a critical, often-overlooked dimension. OZ funds operate under technical rules — the 90% asset test, the substantial-improvement requirement, the working-capital safe harbor, and self-certification on Form 8996 — and a disciplined sponsor maintains rigorous compliance to preserve the tax benefits investors are counting on. A sponsor sloppy on compliance risks jeopardizing the very OZ benefits that motivate the investment.
Reporting discipline is equally important — a quality sponsor provides regular, transparent investor reporting (financial statements, project updates, K-1s or 1099s on time, and clear communication), keeping investors informed over the long hold. Weak or opaque reporting is a warning sign, both because it leaves you in the dark and because it can signal broader operational weakness. Ask about the sponsor's reporting cadence and content, their tax and compliance processes, and whether they use reputable third parties (auditors, administrators, tax advisors).
So compliance and reporting discipline — rigorous OZ compliance to protect the benefits, and transparent, timely reporting over the hold — distinguish a quality sponsor. Compliance and reporting discipline — maintaining rigorous OZ compliance (90% asset test, substantial improvement, working-capital safe harbor, Form 8996 self-certification) to preserve the tax benefits, and providing transparent, timely investor reporting (financials, updates, tax forms, clear communication, reputable third parties) over the long hold — distinguishes a quality sponsor. Sloppy compliance or opaque reporting is a warning sign. Understanding this dimension shows what to demand. A quality sponsor maintains rigorous OZ compliance (protecting the tax benefits) and transparent, timely reporting over the hold — sloppy compliance or opaque reporting is a warning sign.
Fee structure & alignment
Examine the sponsor's fee structure and how well their incentives align with yours. OZ funds typically charge acquisition fees, asset-management fees, and a promote (carried interest — a share of profits above a hurdle to the sponsor). These fees are normal, but their level and structure vary, and they reduce your net returns, so understand what you are paying and whether it is reasonable for the value provided. Excessive or opaque fees are a concern.
Alignment matters as much as the level. A well-aligned sponsor has meaningful skin in the game (co-investing their own capital alongside investors) and an incentive structure (such as a promote earned only above a return hurdle) that rewards them primarily when investors do well. Misaligned structures — high guaranteed fees regardless of performance, little or no sponsor co-investment, or a promote that pays the sponsor even on mediocre results — can put the sponsor's interests ahead of yours. So assess both the cost and the alignment.
So the fee structure and alignment — the level and transparency of the fees, and whether the sponsor's incentives (co-investment, performance-based promote) align with investors' — are central to vetting. Fee structure and alignment — the acquisition, asset-management, and promote/carried-interest fees (their level, structure, and transparency, and their drag on net returns), and the sponsor's alignment (skin in the game via co-investment, and a promote rewarding them mainly when investors do well) versus misalignment (high guaranteed fees, no co-investment, a promote on mediocre results) — are central to vetting. Cost and alignment both matter. Understanding them shows how to assess incentives. Assess the sponsor's fee structure (acquisition, asset-management, promote — their level, transparency, and return drag) and alignment (co-investment and performance-based incentives) — both the cost and whether the sponsor's interests align with yours.
Ask directly how the sponsor is compensated, how much of their own capital is invested, and what return investors receive before the sponsor's promote kicks in — clear, fair answers signal alignment.
- Assess development experience first — most OZ funds are development vehicles, so the sponsor's relevant, proven development capability is foundational.
- Examine the prior-fund track record — how earlier investments actually performed and how the sponsor handled difficulties (verify claims; past performance isn't a guarantee).
- Demand compliance and reporting discipline — rigorous OZ compliance (protecting the benefits) and transparent, timely reporting over the hold.
- Scrutinize the fee structure and alignment — reasonable, transparent fees and a sponsor with skin in the game whose incentives align with yours; watch for red flags.
Red flags to avoid
Certain red flags should give you serious pause about an OZ fund sponsor. Inexperience — a sponsor new to development (or to the specific property type or market) carries elevated execution risk, especially without an experienced team or partners. A poor or unverifiable track record — prior projects that underperformed or failed, or a record that can't be substantiated, is a warning. Weak compliance or reporting — sloppy OZ compliance (risking the tax benefits) or opaque, infrequent reporting signals operational weakness.
Misaligned or excessive fees — high guaranteed fees, little or no sponsor co-investment, or a promote that pays regardless of performance suggest the sponsor's interests may not align with yours. And a lack of transparency — evasive answers, reluctance to share information, vague projections, or pressure tactics — is perhaps the biggest red flag, because a sponsor unwilling to be open during the courtship is unlikely to improve once they hold your capital for a decade.
So watch for inexperience, a poor track record, weak compliance, misaligned fees, and a lack of transparency — any of these warrants caution or avoidance. Red flags to avoid — inexperience (new to development, the property type, or the market), a poor or unverifiable track record, weak compliance or reporting (risking the benefits or leaving you in the dark), misaligned or excessive fees (high guaranteed fees, no co-investment, a promote regardless of performance), and a lack of transparency (evasiveness, vague projections, pressure) — should give you serious pause. Transparency may be the most telling. Understanding the red flags helps you screen out weak sponsors. The key OZ sponsor red flags are inexperience, a poor or unverifiable track record, weak compliance or reporting, misaligned or excessive fees, and a lack of transparency — any of which warrants caution or avoidance.
A sponsor's willingness to be transparent during the courtship tells you a great deal — if they are evasive before they hold your money, they are unlikely to improve once they have it for a decade.
Doing the diligence in practice
Putting the vetting into practice involves gathering and verifying information. Request the offering documents (the private placement memorandum, operating agreement, and subscription materials) and read them carefully — they disclose the strategy, fees, risks, and terms. Review the sponsor's track record materials, ask for references, and verify claims where you can (public records, prior-investor references, third-party data). Check the principals' backgrounds and any regulatory history.
Ask direct questions and judge the answers — about the development experience, the prior results (including difficulties), the compliance and reporting processes, the fees and the sponsor's co-investment, and the risks. A quality sponsor answers openly and specifically; evasiveness is itself informative. Because OZ funds are typically private securities sold to accredited investors, working with a broker-dealer and your own advisors (attorney, CPA) adds professional scrutiny and helps you interpret what you find.
So doing the diligence means gathering the documents, verifying the claims, asking direct questions, and using professional help — turning the vetting framework into concrete steps. Doing the diligence in practice — requesting and reading the offering documents (PPM, operating agreement, subscription materials), reviewing and verifying the track record (references, public records, third-party data), checking the principals' backgrounds and regulatory history, asking direct questions and judging the answers, and using professionals (broker-dealer, attorney, CPA) — turns the framework into action. Verification and openness matter. Understanding the practical steps makes the vetting actionable. Do the diligence by gathering and reading the offering documents, verifying the track record and backgrounds, asking direct questions, and using professionals — turning the vetting framework into concrete, verifiable steps.
How Baker 1031 helps you vet sponsors
Baker 1031 Investments helps investors vet Opportunity Zone fund sponsors — assessing development experience, prior-fund track record, compliance and reporting discipline, and fee structure and alignment, and watching for the red flags — so you can invest with a sponsor whose capability and alignment you have genuinely scrutinized, not just the tax benefits.
QOF interests and related securities are offered through the broker-dealer, Aurora Securities, Inc. (member FINRA/SIPC), and any recommendation follows a suitability review (and OZ funds are typically offered to accredited investors). As part of our process, we examine sponsors' experience, track record, compliance, fees, and alignment, and we help you ask the right questions and interpret the answers and the offering documents. We coordinate with your CPA and attorney on the time-sensitive, technical rules — Baker 1031 does not provide tax or legal advice, so verify the current rules with your tax advisor. Our role is to help you vet sponsors rigorously and access well-vetted funds, recognizing that the sponsor's quality is one of the largest determinants of an OZ investment's success. The tax benefits matter only if the sponsor executes, and we help you put sponsor due diligence at the center of your decision, so you invest with clear eyes and a sponsor you have genuinely scrutinized.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is vetting the sponsor so important in OZ investing?
Because Opportunity Zone funds depend heavily on the sponsor's execution. Most OZ funds are development vehicles, and development is execution-intensive (entitlements, construction, budgeting, lease-up, and exit), so the sponsor's quality is among the largest determinants of whether your investment succeeds. A strong, experienced, disciplined sponsor improves your odds, while a weak, inexperienced, or misaligned one can jeopardize the investment regardless of the tax benefits. And because you are committing capital for a long, illiquid, 10-year hold, you have limited ability to exit if the sponsor underperforms. So sponsor due diligence is essential before investing — the tax benefits are only valuable if the sponsor executes and the project performs. Vetting the sponsor's development experience, track record, compliance, fees, and alignment, and watching for red flags, puts the most important factor at the center of your decision rather than relying on the tax incentives alone.
What development experience should an OZ sponsor have?
Look for genuine, relevant development experience — whether the sponsor has actually developed real estate before (ground-up construction or substantial rehabilitation), not just bought stabilized property. Assess the depth and relevance: how many projects, of what type and size, in what markets, and over how many years, and whether that experience fits the fund's property type (multifamily, industrial, hospitality) and geography. A sponsor experienced in the specific sector and markets brings applicable expertise, while one pivoting into an unfamiliar sector or geography carries more risk. Also examine the team — the key principals' experience and whether the firm has the in-house or partnered capabilities to execute. Development is execution-intensive, so this foundation matters. So an OZ sponsor should have demonstrable, relevant development experience with a capable team, fitting the fund's strategy — be cautious of sponsors new to development or operating outside their proven expertise, as inexperience elevates execution risk.
How do I evaluate a sponsor's track record?
Examine how the sponsor's prior funds and projects actually performed. Ask for the realized and current results of earlier OZ funds or comparable real estate funds: did projects complete on time and budget, lease up as projected, and deliver returns in line with expectations? Probe both successes and difficulties — every developer encounters challenges, and how the sponsor handled problems (delays, cost overruns, a difficult market) is revealing. Ask whether any prior projects underperformed or failed, and what happened. Be appropriately skeptical of a track record that shows only flawless results, or of a sponsor too new to have one, and verify claims where possible (references, public records, third-party data) rather than taking them at face value. Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but it is informative. So evaluate the track record by examining real results and difficulty-handling, verifying claims, and recognizing that it is informative but not a guarantee.
Why does compliance discipline matter in a sponsor?
Because OZ funds operate under technical rules — the 90% asset test, the substantial-improvement requirement, the working-capital safe harbor, and self-certification on Form 8996 — and a disciplined sponsor maintains rigorous compliance to preserve the tax benefits you are counting on. A sponsor sloppy on compliance risks jeopardizing the very OZ benefits that motivate the investment, which would undermine your after-tax return even if the project itself performs. So compliance discipline directly protects the tax advantages. Ask about the sponsor's compliance processes, whether they use reputable third parties (auditors, administrators, tax advisors), and how they ensure the fund meets the OZ requirements over time. Weak compliance is a warning sign, both for the tax benefits and as a signal of broader operational weakness. So a quality sponsor's rigorous compliance discipline safeguards the OZ benefits, making it an important — if often overlooked — dimension of vetting. Verify the current rules with your tax advisor.
What reporting should I expect from an OZ sponsor?
Expect regular, transparent investor reporting over the long hold — financial statements, project updates, timely tax forms (K-1s or 1099s as applicable), and clear, responsive communication. A quality sponsor keeps investors informed about how the projects are progressing, the fund's financial position, and any material developments, on a predictable cadence. Weak or opaque reporting — infrequent, vague, or hard to obtain — is a warning sign, both because it leaves you in the dark over a decade-long, illiquid investment and because it can signal broader operational weakness. Ask prospective sponsors about their reporting cadence and content, and if possible, speak with current investors about their actual reporting experience. So you should expect and demand transparent, timely, substantive reporting from an OZ sponsor — it is essential for staying informed over the long hold and is a marker of a disciplined, investor-respecting operation. Reporting quality is a meaningful differentiator among sponsors.
What fees do OZ fund sponsors charge?
OZ funds typically charge several fees: acquisition fees (on acquiring or developing properties), asset-management fees (ongoing, for managing the fund and assets), and a promote or carried interest (a share of profits above a return hurdle, paid to the sponsor). There may be other fees as well (financing, disposition, administrative). These fees are normal in private real estate funds, but their level and structure vary, and they reduce your net returns — so understand what you are paying and whether it is reasonable for the value provided. Excessive or opaque fees are a concern. Ask the sponsor to explain clearly how they are compensated, what each fee is, and how the promote works (the hurdle and the split). So OZ sponsors generally charge acquisition, asset-management, and promote fees, which are normal but should be reasonable, transparent, and understood, since they affect your net return — compare funds on total cost and alignment, not just headline projections.
How do I judge whether a sponsor is well-aligned?
Alignment means the sponsor's incentives reward them primarily when investors do well. Key markers are meaningful skin in the game (the sponsor co-investing their own capital alongside investors, so they share the downside) and an incentive structure such as a promote earned only above a return hurdle (so the sponsor's profit share kicks in after investors receive a baseline return). Misaligned structures — high guaranteed fees regardless of performance, little or no sponsor co-investment, or a promote that pays even on mediocre results — can put the sponsor's interests ahead of yours. So ask directly how much of their own capital the sponsor has invested, how the promote works (the hurdle), and what return investors receive before the sponsor profits. Clear, fair answers signal alignment. So judge alignment by the sponsor's co-investment and a performance-based incentive structure that rewards them mainly when investors succeed — both the cost and the alignment matter when vetting a sponsor.
What are the biggest red flags in an OZ sponsor?
The key red flags are inexperience (a sponsor new to development, or to the specific property type or market, with elevated execution risk), a poor or unverifiable track record (prior projects that underperformed or failed, or a record that can't be substantiated), weak compliance or reporting (sloppy OZ compliance risking the tax benefits, or opaque, infrequent reporting), misaligned or excessive fees (high guaranteed fees, little or no co-investment, or a promote paid regardless of performance), and a lack of transparency (evasive answers, reluctance to share information, vague projections, or pressure tactics). A lack of transparency may be the most telling — a sponsor unwilling to be open during the courtship is unlikely to improve once they hold your capital for a decade. So watch for inexperience, a poor track record, weak compliance, misaligned fees, and opacity — any of these warrants caution or avoidance. Screening out sponsors with these red flags is a core purpose of the vetting process.
How does a lack of transparency signal risk?
A lack of transparency is one of the most telling red flags because it often precedes problems and reflects the sponsor's character. If a sponsor is evasive about their track record, vague about fees or the promote, reluctant to share offering documents or references, or uses pressure tactics to rush your decision, that opacity is a warning. The reasoning is straightforward: a sponsor unwilling to be open during the courtship — when they are trying to win your investment — is unlikely to become more transparent once they hold your capital for a decade-long, illiquid hold. Transparency about experience, results (including difficulties), fees, alignment, and risks is a marker of an honest, investor-respecting operation, while opacity can hide weakness or worse. So treat a lack of transparency as a serious red flag — it signals both potential problems beneath the surface and a sponsor relationship likely to frustrate you over the long hold. Favor sponsors who answer openly and specifically.
How do I do sponsor diligence in practice?
Gather and verify information through concrete steps. Request the offering documents (the private placement memorandum, operating agreement, and subscription materials) and read them carefully — they disclose the strategy, fees, risks, and terms. Review the sponsor's track record materials, ask for references (including prior investors), and verify claims where you can (public records, third-party data). Check the principals' backgrounds and any regulatory history. Ask direct questions about development experience, prior results (including difficulties), compliance and reporting, fees and co-investment, and risks, and judge the answers — openness is a good sign, evasiveness is informative. Because OZ funds are typically private securities sold to accredited investors, work with a broker-dealer and your own advisors (attorney, CPA) to add professional scrutiny and help interpret what you find. So do the diligence by gathering the documents, verifying the track record and backgrounds, asking direct questions, and using professional help — turning the vetting framework into actionable, verifiable steps.
Should I use professionals to vet a sponsor?
Yes — using professionals strengthens your sponsor diligence. Because OZ funds are typically private securities with technical structures and rules, a broker-dealer (such as Aurora Securities) helps you access offerings, applies a suitability review, and brings scrutiny to the sponsors and structures. Your own attorney can review the offering and legal documents (the PPM, operating agreement, and subscription materials), and your CPA can assess the tax aspects and OZ compliance and how the investment fits your situation. These professionals add expertise and objectivity that are hard to replicate on your own, helping you interpret the documents, verify claims, and spot issues. So while you should do your own homework, professional help is valuable in vetting a sponsor and a fund — it adds rigor and protects you. So yes, use professionals (a broker-dealer and your attorney and CPA) to vet sponsors, especially given the technical, long-term, illiquid nature of OZ investments. Remember Baker 1031 does not provide tax or legal advice.
Is past performance a guarantee of future results?
No — past performance is informative but not a guarantee of future results. A sponsor's strong track record indicates capability and increases your confidence, but every project and market is different, and prior success doesn't ensure a new fund will perform similarly. Conversely, a sponsor encountering past difficulties isn't automatically disqualified, especially if they handled the challenges well. So treat the track record as one important, informative input — not a promise. Combine it with the other vetting dimensions (development experience, compliance, fees, alignment, and red-flag screening) and with scrutiny of the specific fund's strategy, projects, and risks. Be skeptical of any sponsor implying that past results guarantee future ones, and of projections presented as near-certainties. So use the track record to inform your judgment about the sponsor's capability, while recognizing that real estate development carries risk and that no past performance guarantees a future outcome. Maintain measured, non-promissory expectations throughout.
How long should sponsor vetting take?
Sponsor vetting should take as long as it needs to be thorough — it shouldn't be rushed, especially because you are committing capital for a long, illiquid, 10-year hold. Reading the offering documents, reviewing and verifying the track record, checking backgrounds, asking questions and weighing the answers, and consulting your advisors all take time. While the OZ 180-day investment window creates a deadline to deploy a specific gain, that is a reason to begin your diligence early (ideally before or around your sale), not to cut corners. A sponsor who pressures you to decide quickly, or discourages thorough diligence, is itself a red flag. So allow enough time to vet the sponsor properly, start early to accommodate the 180-day window, and don't let deadline pressure push you into an under-vetted investment. So sponsor vetting takes meaningful time and should be done carefully — plan ahead so you can be thorough within your timeline, and treat pressure to rush as a warning sign rather than a reason to compromise your diligence.
Does Baker 1031 vet OZ sponsors itself?
Yes — as part of our process, we examine OZ fund sponsors' development experience, prior-fund track record, compliance and reporting discipline, fee structure, and alignment, and we watch for the red flags, so we work with well-vetted funds. QOF interests are offered through the broker-dealer, Aurora Securities, Inc. (member FINRA/SIPC), and any recommendation follows a suitability review (and OZ funds are typically offered to accredited investors). This means there is an additional layer of scrutiny beyond your own diligence. That said, you should still do your own homework and use your own advisors — our review complements, but doesn't replace, your judgment and your attorney's and CPA's input. We help you ask the right questions, interpret the offering documents and answers, and access funds we have scrutinized. So Baker 1031 does vet sponsors as part of our process, adding professional scrutiny — while encouraging you to do your own diligence too. We coordinate with your CPA and attorney on the technical rules, and we do not provide tax or legal advice.
How does Baker 1031 help me vet sponsors?
We help you vet Opportunity Zone fund sponsors — assessing development experience, prior-fund track record, compliance and reporting discipline, and fee structure and alignment, and watching for red flags — so you can invest with a sponsor whose capability and alignment you have genuinely scrutinized, not just the tax benefits. QOF interests are offered through the broker-dealer (Aurora Securities, member FINRA/SIPC) after a suitability review, and OZ funds are typically offered to accredited investors. As part of our process, we examine sponsors' experience, track record, compliance, fees, and alignment, and we help you ask the right questions and interpret the answers and the offering documents. We coordinate with your CPA and attorney on the time-sensitive, technical rules — Baker 1031 does not provide tax or legal advice, so verify the current rules with your tax advisor. We help you put sponsor due diligence at the center of your decision and access well-vetted funds, so you invest with clear eyes and a sponsor you have genuinely scrutinized.
Glossary
- Sponsor
- The firm that sources, develops, manages, and exits OZ projects.
- Development Experience
- A sponsor's proven record of developing real estate.
- Track Record
- How a sponsor's prior funds and projects performed.
- Compliance Discipline
- Rigorous adherence to the technical OZ rules.
- Reporting Discipline
- Transparent, timely investor reporting over the hold.
- Acquisition Fee
- A fee charged on acquiring or developing properties.
- Asset-Management Fee
- An ongoing fee for managing the fund and assets.
- Promote / Carried Interest
- A share of profits above a hurdle, paid to the sponsor.
- Hurdle
- The return threshold before the sponsor's promote applies.
- Skin in the Game
- Sponsor co-investment aligning incentives with investors.
- Alignment
- The sponsor's incentives rewarding them when investors do well.
- Red Flag
- A warning sign (inexperience, opacity, misalignment, etc.).
- PPM
- Private placement memorandum disclosing strategy, fees, risks.
- Form 8996
- The IRS form a QOF files to self-certify compliance.
- Suitability Review
- Assessing whether an investment fits the investor.
- Due Diligence
- The process of investigating and verifying a sponsor and fund.
Sources & References
- FINRA. Real Estate Investments (Investor Information)
- IRS. About Form 8996, Qualified Opportunity Fund
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investor.gov — Opportunity Zones
- IRS. Opportunity Zones Frequently Asked Questions
Disclosures
This article is published by Baker 1031 Investments, LLC for general educational purposes for accredited investors and is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security, nor is it tax, legal, accounting, or investment advice or a recommendation. Any securities offering is made solely through a sponsor’s private placement memorandum (PPM) following a suitability determination. Securities offered through Aurora Securities, Inc. (ASI), member FINRA / SIPC; Baker 1031 Investments is independent of ASI.
Oil & gas mineral and royalty interests and DST programs are speculative, illiquid securities sold only to verified accredited investors and involve substantial risk, including possible loss of principal, commodity-price and production-decline risk, lack of control, and the risk that an intended 1031 exchange fails to qualify for tax deferral. Whether a particular interest qualifies as like-kind real property is a fact-specific legal determination that varies by state and by the terms of the instrument. Tax results depend on your individual circumstances. Consult your own CPA and attorney before acting. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
