Model comparison
LDT vs UIT: stage, liquidity, fee load, and return shape side by side.
Pick the mandate fit before subscribing to a programme.
Models
Compare LDT and UIT profiles across stage, risk appetite, return shape, and liquidity expectations.
At a glance
Institutional context in compact cards — hover each icon for motion.
LDT vs UIT: stage, liquidity, fee load, and return shape side by side.
Pick the mandate fit before subscribing to a programme.
How coupons, refi events, or exits translate to outcomes.
Helps CIOs sanity-check allocations against policy.
What documents typically accompany each model.
Shortens legal and tax review loops.
DNA offers two structured investment models catering to different risk and return profiles.
Fit
Suited when liquidity is secondary and uplift drives policy outcomes—often paired with longer horizons.
Suited when distributions matter for liability matching and volatility budgets are tighter.
Many desks ladder both to dampen path dependency while staying inside geography limits.
Pick based on drawdown tolerance and liquidity governance—not headline yield alone.
| Feature | LDT | UIT |
|---|---|---|
| Stage | Early | Post-completion |
| Risk | Higher | Lower |
| Return | Higher potential | Stable income |
| Liquidity | Low | Moderate |
Risk & liquidity
Delivery delays hit paths differently—your desk should stress phased absorption explicitly.
Flash windows are deliberate governance tools—not secondary market promises.
Transfer mechanics remain controlled to protect programme integrity and AML posture.
FAQ
Participate in large-scale development opportunities backed by real assets, structured capital, and long-term growth fundamentals.