NAS Investment Solutions: DSTs, Asset Management, and Review

By Jerry Baker

NAS Investment Solutions sponsors fractional real estate investments, with property operations supported by its related management business, National Asset Services. This guide explains that relationship, its apartment and net-lease focus, and how I would test the co-investment, management, and income claims before considering a DST. [1] [2]

Two related businesses, with different starting dates

Karen E. Kennedy’s current biography dates National Asset Services, often called NAS, to 2008. It dates the launch of NAS Investment Solutions, or NASIS, to 2017. Kennedy is identified as president and founder. Keeping those dates separate avoids giving the sponsoring business a longer history than the source supports. [1]

The relationship also matters when reading a track record. Managing a property for an existing group of owners is different from choosing the property, setting its purchase price, and raising the original equity. A manager may inherit both problems and good features that it did not create.

NAS describes experience with various ownership groups and several property types. NASIS presents a business that selects and sponsors new investments while using the related team to manage them. That connection can make operating experience relevant to underwriting. It does not mean that every property NAS has managed was originally a NASIS investment. [2] [4]

I would request a record that labels those roles clearly. For each property, show when the team became involved, what it controlled, and when any result was measured. That is more useful than combining all managed assets into one figure and treating the total as proof of sponsor performance.

What a management-led review should reveal

NASIS emphasizes that the people who help underwrite an investment remain involved in its management. The stated idea is to connect the purchase assumptions with the work needed during the hold. That is a process claim worth testing through the actual team, budget, and reporting. [2]

For an apartment property, I would ask the operating team to explain a typical unit turn. How many days does the unit sit empty? What work is done? Who checks the contractor’s bill? Does the budget include lost rent as well as labor and materials? A small error repeated across many units can consume a large part of the planned income.

For a net-leased building, I would ask how the manager tracks the tenant’s duties. A lease may require the tenant to maintain a roof or provide insurance. Someone still needs to verify that the work occurs and the coverage remains in place. Passive ownership for the investor does not mean that the property requires no oversight.

I would then compare the answers with a sample report. Can the investor see occupancy, collections, repairs, reserves, and debt coverage? Are deviations from the budget explained? A sound operating process should leave a trail of numbers and decisions that can be followed.

The acquisition focus is broader than one property type

NASIS’s published acquisition criteria include conventional multifamily in primary and secondary markets. The page discusses core-plus and value-add apartments as well as stabilized properties. It also lists retail, medical, office, industrial flex, and warehouse assets with long-term single-tenant leases. These are acquisition preferences, not proof that every asset meets every listed criterion. [3]

That creates two distinct underwriting paths. Apartment income depends on many household leases and ongoing local operations. A single-tenant property depends more heavily on one lease, the tenant’s finances, and the building’s usefulness at lease end.

I would not compare the two only by their first-year payout. A slightly higher apartment payout may require more renovation work. A long net lease may reduce near-term leasing work but create a large event when it expires. The timing and cost of those risks belong beside the income figure.

For each investment, I would write down what must go right. Does the model need rent increases, unit renovations, a lease renewal, lower expenses, or a favorable sale? If the answer includes several steps, test each one rather than accept a general claim that the location is strong.

Apartments: collected rent is the starting point

For the apartment side of NASIS’s strategy, I would begin with a current rent roll and actual collections. Occupied units do not always produce full rent. Concessions, late payments, bad debt, employee units, and units down for work can affect the cash that reaches the owner.

Here is a hypothetical example. A 120-unit property with average monthly rent of $1,500 has annual scheduled rent of $2,160,000. At 92% economic occupancy, collected rent is $1,987,200 before other adjustments. At 87%, it is $1,879,200, a decline of $108,000.

If cash available to investors had been $300,000 before that decline, losing $108,000 of revenue could reduce it to $192,000 if other costs stayed unchanged. That is a 36% reduction in investor cash, even though economic occupancy fell by five percentage points. The example shows why small rent assumptions deserve attention.

I would also review local supply. A new property nearby may offer a month of free rent and better finishes. The subject property may need to reduce price or spend more to compete. A growing city can still have a neighborhood with too much new supply at one time.

Ask for the property’s competitive set, not only broad market charts. Compare unit size, age, amenities, school access, commute, and total monthly cost to the resident. The rent forecast should explain why households will choose this particular property at the proposed price.

Value-add needs a workable renovation plan

The firm’s criteria include properties where improvements may add value. That can create a useful business plan, but it brings execution risk. I would separate work required to keep a building sound from work intended to raise rent. Those are different uses of capital. [3]

Suppose 60 units need $12,000 of work each. The direct budget is $720,000 before vacancy, project oversight, permits, or unexpected repairs. If each completed unit earns $125 more per month, the full annual rent increase is $90,000 once all 60 are occupied at the higher rent.

That gives a simple eight-year payback on direct cost alone. It does not include changes in value, taxes, financing, added expenses, or time spent finishing the work. The return may still make sense, but it needs more support than a statement that renovated units earn higher rent.

I would ask for completed test units, signed leases at the new price, contractor bids, and a schedule tied to lease expirations. If work is planned inside a DST, counsel must also confirm that the structure can carry out the plan within its tax limits. A sponsor’s management skill cannot remove those limits. [6]

Net leases: read the responsibility chart

For the single-tenant strategy, I would create a chart assigning each cost to the owner or tenant. Include property tax, insurance, roof, structure, utilities, common areas, repairs, and environmental obligations. Then add any caps, exclusions, or conditions in the lease.

A long lease can reduce the frequency of leasing decisions. It does not ensure that the tenant will remain healthy for the entire term. I would review the legal tenant, any guarantee, current financial information, and the role of the site in the tenant’s operations.

The building itself needs an exit test. Could a different tenant use it? How long might it remain empty? Would the next user need a new layout, more parking, or upgraded power? An owner’s duties can expand sharply when a tenant leaves, even if the lease passed many costs to the tenant while occupied.

I would compare rent increases with the owner’s remaining costs. A fixed increase every several years can lag rising insurance or repair costs. That gap may matter more than the advertised lease length. The right question is what cash is left under the actual contract, not whether the brochure uses the phrase triple net.

What does investing alongside clients mean?

NASIS states that it invests alongside clients in the properties it sponsors. That can be relevant to incentives, but the amount and terms need to be established in the investment documents. A general website statement is not a complete description of the sponsor’s position. [5]

I would ask five questions. Who makes the investment? How much new cash is committed? Does it receive the same class of interest as the client? Can it sell or redeem sooner? How much fee income does the sponsor earn apart from that investment?

Consider a hypothetical sponsor that puts $100,000 into a $10 million equity raise. That is a 1% equity position. If the sponsor or its affiliates also receive fees, those payments should be reviewed separately. The presence of co-investment does not tell us whether its economic exposure is large relative to its compensation.

The position may still provide useful alignment. I simply want to measure it rather than assume it. A shared investment also does not prevent both parties from losing money. What matters is the combination of shared risk, sound underwriting, fair terms, and clear accountability.

Review the management agreement as closely as the people

A close relationship between sponsor and manager may help preserve knowledge about the property. It can also mean that the same group selects the investment and receives ongoing fees for operating it. The management contract should define those responsibilities and payments.

I would look at the fee base first. A percentage of collected revenue differs from a percentage of scheduled rent. A construction supervision charge may sit outside the base management fee. Leasing fees, renewal fees, accounting charges, and reimbursements can add other costs.

Next come service standards and controls. Who approves large expenses? How are related-party vendors handled? Who reviews bank reconciliations? What happens if performance falls short? For a passive investor, the practical ability to change a manager may be limited, so the initial selection and oversight matter.

I would also ask how the firm avoids a gap between asset management and property management. Asset management sets the broader plan and capital decisions. Property management handles daily work. If each assumes the other has checked a major item, the property can suffer. The report should show who is responsible.

Read the track record in the right categories

NAS’s site presents its management experience and selected property results. NASIS also presents client comments and its own investment story. These are useful leads for a document request. They are not a complete, independently verified result set for all investments. [4] [5]

I would divide the record into three groups: properties NASIS acquired and sponsored, properties NAS managed from the start for other owners, and properties NAS took over later. For a takeover, show the starting condition when NAS arrived. That lets a reader assess the work performed without assigning the entire prior result to the replacement manager.

Each result should include invested capital, added capital, distributions, fees, net proceeds, and dates. Keep cash actually received apart from a current estimated value. Keep a cumulative return apart from an annualized return. A property held for twelve years and one held for four years cannot be compared using only a total percentage.

Selected testimonials can describe how a client experienced communication or service. They cannot establish the likely return for another investor. I would ask for the full relevant record, including investments below plan. The difficult cases often reveal the most about the team’s judgment and reporting.

Loan maturity and the exit plan should fit together

For a financed property, I would put loan maturity, major lease events, and the expected sale on one timeline. If the loan matures before the planned sale, the investment depends on another step. That step could be an extension, new financing, or a change in the hold period.

A fixed interest rate can help with near-term budgeting. It does not settle the refinancing rate or the future property value. Ask how much debt a new lender might allow if income falls or lending standards tighten. The difference may require money or a sale at an inconvenient time.

For example, a property worth $12 million with $6 million of debt has a 50% loan-to-value ratio. If value falls to $10 million, the same debt produces a 60% ratio. If a new lender will lend only 50% of that lower value, its $5 million loan leaves a $1 million gap before costs.

The legal structure determines how such a gap can be handled. A qualifying DST has limits on raising new capital and changing financing. I would request the plan for stress, including any conversion provision and its tax consequences, rather than assume the manager can simply ask investors for another check. [6]

How I would decide whether it fits a client

I would bring the property review back to three client questions: how much income is needed, how long the money can remain invested, and what the exchange requires. A strong operator may offer a property that does not fit those answers.

For a 1031 exchange, the adviser must confirm ownership, reinvestment, debt replacement, timing, and the other relevant rules. Ordinary securities and partnership interests are not direct replacement property merely because the underlying business owns real estate. The trust arrangement must be reviewed on its own. [7]

I would also review a cash investment without assuming that tax eligibility makes it suitable. Liquidity, costs, concentration, and downside loss still matter. FINRA’s private-placement guidance supports a substantive investigation rather than reliance on a sponsor’s presentation alone. [8]

This profile does not confirm current offering availability, independent verification of sponsor claims, or a Baker 1031 relationship. Its purpose is to make the review more useful by connecting NASIS’s stated model with the evidence an investor should request.

Frequently asked questions about NAS Investment Solutions

When did NAS Investment Solutions begin?

Kennedy’s official biography dates NASIS to 2017 and National Asset Services to 2008. Those dates refer to related but different businesses. Do not treat all earlier management work as NASIS-sponsored investment history. [1]

Who manages the investments?

NASIS describes management by the related National Asset Services team. Confirm the named manager, its contract, fees, and responsibilities for the particular investment being reviewed. [2]

What property types does NASIS seek?

Its published criteria include apartments and single-tenant commercial assets across several uses. The criteria are preferences, not a promise that every property has the same lease, debt, or business plan. [3]

Does sponsor co-investment guarantee alignment?

No. It is one part of the review. Verify how much is invested, who owns the interest, whether terms match yours, and what other compensation the sponsor receives. Shared exposure does not guarantee a good result. [5]

Can a DST fund any renovation or refinance it wants?

No. The IRS ruling describes limits that affect a qualifying trust’s activities. Review the business plan and stress options with qualified advisers before relying on a renovation, new loan, or capital contribution. [6]

How should I use a successful property case study?

Use it to request the full record and understand the manager’s role. Check all cash flows, dates, costs, and whether the result is realized. One selected success does not show the range of outcomes across a program.

Educational information, not an offer or a personal tax, legal, or investment recommendation. Examples are hypothetical and omit stated adjustments. Tax treatment depends on your facts and current law. Review your transaction with your CPA, attorney, and qualified intermediary. Real estate investments can lose value and may be illiquid.