Suggestions
Shimshi Kronglas
Commercial RE Underwriter/Analyst
Shimshi Kronglas is a Senior Analyst and Underwriting Manager at Vision RE, a real estate advisory company.12 He is known for his expertise in commercial real estate (CRE) acquisitions and analysis.2
Kronglas has progressed through various roles at Vision RE, starting as a Junior Underwriter and advancing to his current position. His experience also includes working as a Property Manager at J Stark Capital before joining Vision RE.
As part of the Vision RE team, Kronglas contributes to the company's reputation for providing specialized commercial real estate knowledge and objective analysis.1 He is described as the "numbers guru" at Vision RE, bringing years of real estate experience and financial expertise to his role.1
Kronglas is active on LinkedIn, where he shares insights about the real estate market. In a recent post, he mentioned that good deals can be found in any market conditions, highlighting his analytical approach to real estate investments.3
His LinkedIn profile indicates that he has over 500 connections in the industry, suggesting a strong professional network.2 Kronglas's educational background includes studies at Excelsior College, though specific details about his degree are not provided in the available information.2
Highlights
Deal sponsor's equity contribution -
Conventional thinking is that LPs want to see the GP co-invest significantly to show their strong conviction in the deal.
And that's entirely true. But there's another reason too.
If the deal crashes, the GP may be able to work really hard to recoup some of the LP equity, yet have no reasonable possibility of recovering 100% of principal plus all accrued investor pref.
The GP still has an absolute responsibility to their investors, as well as their own reputation on the line.
Yet, I've seen too many times where that wasn't enough, and the GP's personal cash investment is the ultimate motivation and the saving grace for investor capital.
Alignment of interests is the name of the game.
One of the biggest flaws in every proforma?
Collection loss (bad debt) budgets.
Before modeling that at 1% or 2% (or less), how about looking at the data and ask your management teams about their history achieving a 98-99% collection rate?
Yes, this obviously varies by market and asset class, but by and large, most proforma bad debt budgets I see are very detached from reality.
Who was the authority to decide that 1% is a reasonable budget?
