Q3 Form D sales: two offerings dominate a finite sample

Twelve of 14 finite pooled-fund notices in a defined Q3 2026 sample reported zero remaining. On a dollar-weighted basis, however, reported sales equalled just 10.9% of the stated offering amounts in those same 14 records. Two offerings explain the difference: they accounted for 91.5% of the finite subset’s offered-dollar denominator and all its positive remaining amounts.

Across the 14 notice snapshots, the offering fields sum to $191,194,644, reported sold to $20,820,019 and remaining to $170,374,625. The latter two reconcile to the first. These are summed notice fields, not unique underlying capital, settled cash or Q3 fundraising flows.

The contrast changes how this particular watchlist should be read. A count of zero-remaining records emphasizes numerous smaller offerings. The remaining-dollar view directs attention to Play Fund IV and WHCG Fund Series 2.

Two records carry the remaining amounts#

Play Ventures Investments VCC—Play Fund IV filed its original notice on July 9. The venture-capital-fund record stated a $150 million offering, zero sold and $150 million remaining. Its first-sale field said the sale had yet to occur. The zero therefore remains part of the financial comparison; it is not a missing sales observation.

WHCG Fund Series 2, classified as a hedge fund, filed August 10. It reported $25 million offered, $4,625,375 sold and $20,374,625 remaining. Reported sales were 18.5015% of the stated offering amount, rounded to 18.5%. The notice gave July 9 as its first-sale date and reported ten investors.

These are different dated positions: Play’s notice preceded a reported first sale, while WHCG’s disclosed positive sales against a larger finite offering amount. The records do not reveal subsequent subscriptions, current allocation availability or why either amount remained. They support prioritizing follow-up on two specific offering histories rather than assuming that the twelve zero-remaining records describe the dollar position of the whole finite subset.

A zero balance is a notice result#

The twelve zero-remaining records ranged from Axel Ventures Fund LLC—Series 6’s $34,994 offering to Standard Fund Series II, a series of HII Standard Fund LLC, at $12,462,301. Both reported sold amounts equal to their offering amounts. In all 14 finite records, sold plus remaining reconciled exactly to offered; none of those three fields was missing.

Standard’s July 6 notice also marked the intended offering duration as more than one year. Its zero remaining consequently should be retained as the reported amount at that filing, rather than converted into an independently confirmed final-close announcement. A finite amount in Item 13 describes the securities covered by the notice; it need not represent every vehicle or the wider manager’s fundraising objective.

The Form D instructions require offering and sold amounts to include cash and other consideration, including future cash under mandatory capital commitments. A reported-sale ratio therefore compares disclosure fields. It does not establish how much cash has settled, been called or become available for investment.

The finite denominator matters#

This is a secondary, exploratory financial analysis of the same 30 original notices used in Altss’s first-sale-date study, not a new independent sample. All were filed between July 1 and September 30. Six reported other industries. Of the 24 pooled-fund records, ten gave indefinite offering amounts and therefore supplied no numeric denominator for this comparison. The remaining 14 form the finite subset; no record was replaced.

The financial subset was examined after the earlier date analysis. Its 10.9% dollar ratio is calculated by dividing summed reported sales by summed stated offering amounts within those 14 notices. It is not the average notice’s sales percentage or an estimate for the ten indefinite offerings. Thirteen finite issuer names contain “Series,” and related records can share a manager or platform. Notice counts do not count independent LPs, and the field sums do not establish unique underlying economic capital.