Direct-hold solutions structural comparison
editorial(investments): fix IFRS citation + de-narrate BCSC cease-trade caveat (Track-B) — asset-vehicle-isolation: correct IFRS 10.31-33 consolidation exception citation (was 10.27, the definition section not the exception), same error in ES; direct-hold-solutions-structural-comparison: integrate Canada-only-currently-established fact directly into lead instead of a bolted-on Correction block, EN+ES
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ paired_with: direct-hold-solutions-structural-comparison.es.md cites: [] --- The Direct-Hold Solutions differ from the three most common alternative real estate investment structures — Legacy Joint Ventures, Private Equity real estate funds, and Traditional Real Estate Investment Trusts — across twelve governance and economic dimensions. Some dimensions distinguish the Direct-Hold Solutions from all three legacy structures simultaneously; others represent parity with listed REITs at features that private structures systematically lack. Four dimensions are exclusive to the Direct-Hold Solutions: they appear in no other investment structure in the comparison set. The Direct-Hold Solutions, as designed, differ from the three most common alternative real estate investment structures — Legacy Joint Ventures, Private Equity real estate funds, and Traditional Real Estate Investment Trusts — across twelve governance and economic dimensions. Only one Direct-Hold Solution is currently established — the Canada limited partnership, Woodfine Professional Centres Limited Partnership — and its units are not currently freely transferable, and comprehensive regulated reporting is not currently occurring, because the partnership is subject to an active British Columbia Securities Commission cease-trade order; the United States, Spain, and Mexico vehicles are planned, not yet established. Some dimensions distinguish the Direct-Hold Solutions' design from all three legacy structures simultaneously; others represent parity with listed REITs at features that private structures systematically lack. Four dimensions are exclusive to the Direct-Hold Solutions' design: they appear in no other investment structure in the comparison set. ## Structural Comparison Matrix @@ -37,14 +37,6 @@ The Direct-Hold Solutions differ from the three most common alternative real est | Debt Right of First Refusal | No | No | No | Yes | | Qualified Investment (Major Retailer Anchor) | No | No | No | Yes | **Correction (2026-08-04):** the "Direct-Hold Solutions" column describes the structural design as a class, not current per-vehicle status. Only the Canada vehicle (Woodfine Professional Centres Limited Partnership) is currently established; it is currently subject to an active BCSC cease-trade order, under which units are not currently freely transferable and comprehensive regulated reporting is not currently occurring. The United States, Spain, and Mexico vehicles are planned, not yet established. **Flagged, not silently rewritten.** ## Features Where Direct-Hold Solutions Eliminate Legacy Disadvantages **No asset sale required for exit.** Legacy Joint Ventures and Private Equity real estate funds require asset sales — or portfolio liquidation — to return capital to investors. The exit event is manager-initiated and occurs when market conditions and the fund's internal timeline converge. Investors have no independent exit mechanism. Traditional REITs and the Direct-Hold Solutions both solve this problem through Freely Transferable ownership: investors can exit individually through a secondary transaction without requiring a portfolio-level sale event.