By Jai Thompson
Appreciate the recognition, Paul.
Consistent action, clean structure, and stewardship always win long-term.
Grateful to be part of a room that values execution.
My name is Jai Thompson.
I manage a private equity operation deploying 13–18 million per quarter across multiple asset classes, including:
Multifamily
Mixed-use
Hospitality and hotels
Single-tenant and small commercial
Residential income portfolios
Our group closes under 23 days EDD when structure aligns, and we tithe 10 percent back to the communities we serve because capital without stewardship is incomplete.
I’m writing this for brokers and agents who want real closings, not gatekeeping theater.
In real private equity, capital is allocated, not parked.
That means:
Funds are earmarked after underwriting, not before
Capital tied up without diligence becomes dead capital
Dead capital produces:
No yield
No velocity
No stewardship
That is not investing.
That is amateur theater.
When proof of funds is requested before basic diligence such as:
Rent roll
T12
Expense breakdown
Seller motivation
Structural flexibility
The message being sent is:
“I want certainty from the buyer, but I’m not willing to provide clarity.”
That creates asymmetric risk, and serious buyers do not operate that way.
This framework—taught well by Coach Marco—explains why proof of funds becomes unnecessary when positioned correctly.
The Triangle:
Identity → Process → Capital
Not:
Capital → Maybe → Hope
We lead with:
Identity: who we are and how we operate
Process: structure, escrow, and timeline
Capital: allocated only after diligence confirms fit
When the triangle is set correctly, proof of funds becomes irrelevant.
In the private equity world:
Capital commitments often last 12 months or more
Once earmarked, funds cannot be freely redeployed
Allocating capital to an unvetted asset is a fiduciary violation
So declining early proof of funds is not aggressive.
It is responsible capital stewardship.
If a deal requires proof of funds before information, it is not a deal.
It is a gatekeeping exercise.
“We operate as a private equity group.
Capital is deployed after underwriting, not before.Tying up funds on an asset that hasn’t been vetted would freeze that capital for up to a year, which isn’t how institutional capital works.
If a seller requires proof of funds before sharing basic diligence, that tells us the deal isn’t ready for a serious buyer.”
No emotion.
No debate.
Just reality.
Subject: Re: Proof of funds request
Appreciate you reaching out.
We don’t issue proof of funds prior to underwriting.
We operate as a private equity group, and capital is allocated only after diligence confirms structure and fit.If the seller is open to sharing the rent roll, T12, and expense details, we can move quickly and outline next steps.
If proof of funds is required before that stage, this one likely isn’t a fit for us.
Either way, appreciate the clarity.
Appreciate it.
We don’t provide POF before underwriting—capital is allocated after diligence.
If the seller is flexible on structure and info, we can move fast.
If not, no worries at all.
Here’s the paradox most people miss:
Those demanding early proof of funds often don’t control the seller
Sellers who want certainty care about:
Process
Speed
Closing
Not screenshots of bank balances.
This stance filters noise, attracts real sellers, and leads to cleaner closings.
I’m not avoiding proof of funds.
I’m saying:
Capital follows clarity — not the other way around.
That’s not defensive.
That’s institutional.
And it’s why the right deals find us—and close.
Structure over sacrifice.
Stewardship over struggle.
Every deal builds legacy.