This piece is part of my 2016–2026 archive migration. Some original formatting, content, and external links may be missing, changed, or not be optimized.
But please continue sending them in case I change my mind
When I came across my first syndication, I was hesitant. A friend was able to secure a discounted rate for me, so I wouldn’t have to lock up even more capital. I still wasn’t thrilled, but I was deeply curious. So, I figured: I’ve never tried it before, the deal underwriting is good enough, and I’m okay parking this capital for a bit – let’s go for it.
Mistake? Not necessarily. Would I do it again? Yes, but the deals would have to be ridiculously good, which is why I’ve declined the last three deals that have come my way.
Here Are the Seven Reasons:
1. They lock up capital for too long.
Agility matters to me. I want to be able to shift capital when the market moves. Most syndications require a 3–10 year lock-up, and if you need to exit early, good luck finding a buyer or an early redemption option.
2. They’re too illiquid for my aggressive growth strategy.
I’m a woman of contradiction: I LOVE liquidity – even though I never sell. Just knowing I can sell if I want to gives me peace of mind. In ETFs, I can exit in seconds; in a syndication, I could be stuck for years, even if a far better opportunity comes along.
3. The returns usually don’t match my upside targets.
I’m not after 10–15% annualized returns – I’m always looking for absurd returns, and I’m willing to stomach the volatility. Syndications can be solid, but for my goals, they’re too stable in the wrong way and too slow in the right way.
4. Limited control and transparency.
In a syndication, you’re betting on the GPs (general partners). If you’re not part of the management team, you have to trust their execution and their reporting. Some sponsors do a great job, but most syndication “updates” are quarterly PDFs or occasional emails.
My style? I like a public fact sheet, updated monthly, with holdings, performance, and strategy clearly spelled out – like you can get with ETFs.
No chasing down managers, no waiting for tours, no reading between the lines of a glossy pitch deck.
5. Scaling syndications doesn’t fit my vision.
Some investors live off syndication cash flow and have the GP relationships to get a first look at top-tier deals. That’s just not my model. My capital works harder and faster in vehicles I can add to or exit anytime.
6. REITs can give you similar exposure without the handcuffs.
A REIT is basically a publicly traded real estate portfolio. I can buy and sell shares instantly, see the portfolio breakdown anytime, and still get real estate exposure – without the multi-year lock-up.
However, some REITs require longer holding periods. Always read into what you buy before you buy.
7. They don’t align with one of my core values: flexibility.
I’ve dabbled in a few illiquid asset classes – e.g., syndications, angel investing, venture capital, private equity, and art. One thing I have learned is that some illiquid asset classes are worth further exploration, and others are dealbreakers.
I invest best when I can move fast, double down on winners, and cut losers – not when I’m waiting years for an exit – unless it’s cutting edge tech, which I never have a problem waiting for to complete its incubation period.
Takeaway
Syndications aren’t bad – certain deals just aren’t for me. I’m wired for liquidity, transparency, and high-growth opportunities I can track and adjust in real-time. That means ETFs, certain VC plays, and other public and speculative vehicles – my sweet spot.
Syndication Vs ETFs
Chart by (LPs = Limited Partners)Disclaimer: I’m not your financial advisor. I’m sharing what I do with my money, what’s worked, what’s flopped, and what I’m still figuring out. This is not financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy or sell anything. Always do your own research, run your own numbers, and make decisions based on your situation.
(
Visit us at
This content is for informational purposes only — not professional advice. Consult a qualified professional before making any major decisions.