Industrial real estate
HarborPoint Logistics Fund I
HarborPoint Industrial Partners · Invested May 2024
- Expected IRR
- 12.2% ↓ 3.2 pts
- Latest update
- Q3 2025
- Status
- Watch
Investor workspace
Portfolio
One place to see what changed, what it affects, and what to ask next.
Active investments1
Updates analyzed1
Needs attention1
Last activityQ3 2025
Your deals
Ordered by what most deserves a fresh look.
Active investmentIndustrial real estate
HarborPoint Logistics Fund I
HarborPoint Industrial Partners · Invested May 2024 · $1,000,000 commitment
Expected IRR12.2%15.4% original
Expected exit20302029 original
Current occupancy90%94% original target
Source documents8Across 2 events
Investment timeline
Updates are compared with the original case and preserved in reporting order.
Material change Original case
- Plan drifting2 documents · 5 cited facts
Quarterly operating update
Leasing pace falls behind plan
Expected IRR12.2%↓ 3.2 pts vs originalOccupancy improved from acquisition but remained below plan. The sponsor moved the sale to 2030 and widened the exit cap to 5.75%.
- Occupancy vs target 94% → 90%
- Exit 2029 → 2030
- Cash yield 7.8% → 6.3%
- Original case6 documents · Baseline locked
Investment established
Original underwriting and closing record
Target IRR15.4%2029 expected exitAcquire a 600,000 square foot logistics portfolio at 82% occupancy, reach 94% occupancy by Q4 2027, and sell in 2029.
- Investment deck
- CIM
- Private placement memorandum
- Underwriting model
- Subscription agreement
- Limited partnership agreement
Investment Change Brief · Q2 2026
HarborPoint Logistics Fund I
Original Case · May 2024Selected update · Q2 2026
Expected IRR
15.4%10.1%
Down 5.3 pts
Lower occupancy, a two-year exit delay, and a wider exit cap all weaken the Original Case.
Original deck · p. 15 → Q2 2026 update · p. 18What changed in the case
Select an input to trace the change from explanation to challenge.
Why this changed
Sponsor-stated · proximateThe update attributes the occupancy shortfall to two suites remaining unleased, but does not explain why they remain unleased.
Document sourceQ2 2026 update · p. 8 + p. 14
What must happen next
The asset reaches the revised stabilization plan by late 2030 without tenant improvements, leasing commissions, or concessions exceeding budget.
Downside if wrongLater stabilization, weaker NOI, and more capital required.
Challenge on the call
What specifically kept the two suites unleased—tenant demand, pricing, concessions, building fit, or execution—and what evidence shows the cause is temporary?
Follow-up questions
- 02
Which prospects and square footage support the late-2030 lease-up plan?
- 03
What probability-weighted start dates, effective rents, and concessions are underwritten?
- 04
Show the quarter-by-quarter bridge to stabilization. What happens to IRR if absorption is six and twelve months slower?
External context to verify
Potential contributors—not asserted causes. Verify with date-matched third-party evidence.
- Signed leases in the immediate submarket—not asking rents
- Quarterly vacancy, net absorption, and sublease availability
- Competitive supply delivering before late 2030
Document evidence
The base case targets 94% stabilized occupancy by Q4 2027.
Current occupancy is 86%, eight points below the Original Case stabilization target; two suites remain unleased.
Why this changed
DealFlo read-throughThe update places late-2030 stabilization and a 2031 disposition in the same passage; it does not explicitly state the dependency.
Document sourceQ2 2026 update · p. 14
What must happen next
The asset reaches sale-ready occupancy and NOI before debt or market conditions constrain a 2031 exit.
Downside if wrongLiquidity extends again, with more refinancing and market exposure.
Challenge on the call
Is 2031 a deliberate value-maximizing exit or simply the earliest date the asset may be sale-ready—and what evidence supports that distinction?
Follow-up questions
- 02
What occupancy and NOI thresholds trigger the 2031 sale process?
- 03
Which milestone dates are sponsor-controlled, and what could move them?
- 04
What debt or hedge constraints arise before sale—and what is IRR if exit slips to 2032?
External context to verify
Potential contributors—not asserted causes. Verify with date-matched third-party evidence.
- Comparable transaction volume, marketing periods, and buyer depth
- Loan quotes, lender leverage appetite, and extension economics
- Benchmark rates, credit spreads, and the bid–ask gap
Document evidence
The base case assumes a 2029 disposition.
Leasing velocity remains below plan. Stabilized occupancy is now expected in late 2030, with disposition targeted for 2031.
Why this changed
Not explained in updateThe update changes the exit cap to 6.25% but supplies no market rationale or comparable-sales schedule.
Document sourceQ2 2026 update · p. 18
What must happen next
A 6.25% exit cap is achievable at sale, and a 6.75% downside remains above the investor's minimum return threshold.
Downside if wrongSale proceeds and IRR compress further if pricing weakens.
Challenge on the call
What evidence caused the sponsor to revise the exit cap to 6.25%—and is it market-supported or the rate required to preserve the revised return case?
Follow-up questions
- 02
Which closed transactions were used, and how were occupancy, lease term, tenant credit, location, and capex normalized?
- 03
Which otherwise comparable transactions were excluded from the analysis, and why?
- 04
Show sale proceeds, equity multiple, and IRR at 6.50%, 6.75%, and 7.00% using the same NOI and sale-cost basis.
External context to verify
Potential contributors—not asserted causes. Verify with date-matched third-party evidence.
- All date- and radius-matched closed trades, including excluded deals
- In-place versus forward NOI and capex normalization
- Financing costs, lease duration, and tenant-credit differences
Document evidence
The base case assumes a 5.25% exit cap rate.
The revised base case uses a 6.25% exit capitalization rate.