Firstly what do they do?
What assets do they have.
"One of RiverOak’s active funds (there are only three of them) is RiverOak Realty Fund III. It looks as if this RRFIII invested in three assets. One was liquidated in 2013 with no profit coming back to RiverOak. One is a limited service business hotel. The third is a development that was going to be a block of flats. RiverOak ran into construction problems and the lender demanded its money back. Judgement has been awarded to the lender and it looks as if RiverOak will lose the money that it put into this investment. Total money made in management fees by RiverOak for 2013? $90,000 – less than £60,000. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? £59,000.
Let’s look at another fund, RiverOak Realty Fund IV. One asset, an office block, was taken back by the lender via a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.” The other assets are a block of flats and various blocks of student housing. RiverOak’s management fee for 2013? £275,000. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? Zero.
And the third fund? That’s MKRO I. The deadline for investing in this fund was extended. Normally this happens when you go to the market to attract investors and you don’t get knocked over in the rush. The fund’s two assets in 2013 were a 25% share in a portfolio of flats spread over four blocks and a 60% share in an additional, separate, block of flats. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? Zero.
So, RiverOak invests in flats, student housing, a bit of house building, and the odd hotel or office block. In the three current funds, RiverOak’s directors appear to have just £59,000 of their own money invested. They can’t play with the rest of the money invested in the funds – it’s not theirs. Management fees earned by RiverOak look pretty small and a couple of investments have gone belly up" link to here
But Beau Webber says they have a AAA+ rating, higher than a lot of Countries including it seems the United Kingdom?
Now this is where it gets interesting so bear with me. In financial circles companies that deal in financial matters are judged on a number of areas such as Financial strength and these rating are given out by Standard & Poors, and Moodys however it seems that in Riveroaks case their rating is given out by the Better Business Bureau (who?)
To quote "Another of these little-known facts about the BBB: “We are not a consumer watchdog.” While the BBB offers consumers many services—lists of popular scams to watch out for and such—the organization’s mission isn’t to have your back. From top to bottom, the BBB is funded by the annual dues paid by businesses it anoints with “accreditation,” which allows the companies to put those iconic BBB stamps of approval on their storefronts and websites. This fact raises obvious questions about an inherent conflict of interest: The organization’s customers are businesses, not taxpayers or consumers. How can the BBB serve as an honest broker between businesses and consumers when it is fully funded by one of these parties? Many argue that it cannot — that there’s a natural incentive to paint its paying clients in the best possible light."
You can read the rest of the article here