Every Cardone Equity Fund, From the Form Ds: $818m Raised Against $2.46bn Offered, 4,387 Investor Positions, and a New Fund Filed Five Days Ago

What this is, and why it did not exist

Grant Cardone's fundraising is discussed constantly and documented almost never. The numbers in circulation come from his own stages and podcasts, where the figure is usually an aggregate of everything he has ever touched, stated without a source and impossible to check.

There is a public record. Every private offering sold under Regulation D has to file a Form D with the SEC within 15 days of the first sale, and that form carries four numbers that matter: how much is being offered, how much has been sold, how many investors bought, and the minimum cheque. Nobody had put them in one place.

So we did. Twenty-six filings, twenty-two funds, nine years, pulled from EDGAR's full-text search and read out of each filing's own primary_doc.xml rather than from any summary. Here is the whole thing.

The full series

Read the caveat before you read the total

I have put the number in the headline because it is the number people want, and I am going to spend the next four paragraphs undermining it, because a dataset that hides its own weakness is worse than no dataset.

A Form D is a snapshot, not a running tally. The issuer files within 15 days of the first sale, reports what it has sold so far, and is required to file an annual amendment while the offering continues — but in practice the file often simply stops. Only 4 of these 22 funds ever filed a second Form D.

So look at what happened in those four cases.

Every single fund that told us more, told us it had raised vastly more. That is not a coincidence, it is the mechanic: the first filing is made days after the first sale, when almost nothing has been sold yet, and the amendment is made after the raise has run.

Which means the fifteen funds whose newest Form D predates 2023 are reporting numbers captured near the start of their raises and never touched again. The three funds showing "$0 sold" almost certainly did not raise zero. They almost certainly never amended.

So the honest way to state the finding is this: $2.46bn is what these funds set out to raise, $818m is the amount the filings positively confirm, and the true figure sits somewhere between, unknowable from Form D alone and probably much closer to the top. Anyone quoting the $818m as "what Cardone raised" — including anyone quoting it from this page — is quoting a floor.

The corollary matters more than the number. A 33.2% aggregate fill rate looks like a manager repeatedly missing his targets. Read against the amendment behaviour, it is at least as likely to be an artefact of when the form was filed. I cannot separate the two with this dataset, so I am not going to tell you Cardone's funds under-raise. What I can tell you is what each filing says, and that is what the table does.

What the series does support

Four things survive the caveat, because they do not depend on the sold-amount being current.

1. Rule 506(c) on all 26 filings, without exception. This is the specific exemption created by the JOBS Act that lets an issuer advertise a private placement publicly — on a podcast, on a billboard, to eight million Instagram followers — in exchange for a harder obligation: it must take reasonable steps to verify that every purchaser is accredited, not merely collect a tick-box self-certification, which is what the older Rule 506(b) allows. The entire public-facing Cardone marketing machine is legally possible because of 506(c), and 506(c) is why a buyer is asked for tax returns or a letter from an accountant rather than just asked to confirm. If you have wondered why the pitch is so loud and the onboarding so nosy, that pair of facts is the answer.

2. Zero sales commissions and zero finders' fees, on all 26. No broker-dealer is being compensated anywhere in this series. In an industry where a non-traded product routinely carries 3.5% upfront and a trailing 0.85% a year to the distribution chain, that is a genuine structural difference and it is worth stating plainly, because it is the strongest thing the filings say in this manager's favour. The audience is the distribution channel. What that saves in commission it does not necessarily hand to the investor — the manager's own promote is a separate question, and we go through it in the Cardone Capital review, where the audited numbers are less flattering than the fundraising ones.

3. These are not small-investor funds. The minimum on the Reg D series is $100,000 to $250,000, and the average cheque across 4,387 positions is $186,449. The $5,000-ticket Cardone products people usually mean are a completely separate Regulation A track — Cardone REIT I, the Cardone Non Accredited Fund, the Cardone Equal Opportunity Fund 2, and Funds V, VI and IX. Two different regimes, two different investor bases, two different sets of disclosure obligations, one brand. Almost every confused argument about this manager is really two people describing different vehicles.

4. The machine is still running, and fast. Fund 29 filed on August 19, 2026 reporting $43,407,628 from 290 investors, with the date of first sale given as July 30, 2026. That is roughly $43m in three weeks, and by the logic above it is the opening figure rather than the closing one.

The $5,000,000 minimum that cannot be right

Funds 28 and 29 both report a minimum investment accepted of $5,000,000. Take the filings at their word and Fund 29's 290 investors imply a floor of $1.45bn, against $43,407,628 actually reported sold and an average cheque of $149,681. The two numbers are in the same document and they contradict each other by a factor of thirty-three.

Fund 28 is the same shape: 335 investors at a stated $5m minimum implies $1.675bn against $59,280,236 sold.

The reconciling explanation is almost certainly a data-entry error — a $5,000 minimum with three extra zeros, or the wrong field. I am not asserting that; I am telling you the filings are internally inconsistent here and that the reported average cheque is the number that reconciles with everything else in the document. Where a source contradicts itself, the honest move is to say so and quote both, rather than pick the one that makes a better headline. A "$5 million minimum" would have made a much better headline.

Two smaller oddities, noted because someone will ask

There is no Cardone Equity Fund 26 on EDGAR. Funds 25, 27, 28 and 29 all have Form Ds; a search of the full-text index returns nothing for a 26. It may have been formed and never sold, renamed, or never formed at all. Skipping a number is not evidence of anything, and I mention it only so the gap in the table is not read as a gap in the research.

They were filed out of order. Fund 28's notice is dated August 18, 2025 and Fund 27's November 10, 2025, so the higher-numbered fund began selling first. Entities are typically registered in batches and deployed as deals arrive, so this is unremarkable — but it does mean the fund number is not a reliable proxy for vintage, which matters if you are trying to date a position from its name.

How to use this if you are being pitched one

The table is a base rate, not a verdict on the fund in front of you. Three things it is actually good for.

Ask which regime you are in. If the minimum is six figures and you are being asked to prove accreditation, you are in the Reg D series above. If it is a few thousand dollars, you are in the Regulation A track and none of these numbers describe your vehicle. The Cardone Capital review covers the Reg A side, including the audited losses at Cardone REIT I and the class action certified for trial in March 2027 — and that distinction is not academic, because the Reg A funds file annual audited financials on EDGAR and these Reg D funds file essentially nothing after the Form D, which is why an article like this one has to be assembled out of scraps.

Ask for the current raise figure in writing. You now know the public record is frozen for most of these funds. That makes "how much has this specific fund raised to date, and how much of the target remains" a perfectly ordinary question with a checkable answer, and the answer should match the offering documents you are given.

Do not let the aggregate stand in for the specific. $818m across 22 funds tells you the sponsor can raise. It tells you nothing about whether this property, at this price, with this promote, is a good deal — and the promote is where the economics of these structures are decided. If you want the general version of that argument rather than the Cardone-specific one, we set out how to read a sponsor's compensation stack in our red flags checklist.

Method, so you can redo it

1. EDGAR full-text search for "Cardone Equity Fund" restricted to form type D, which returns 26 filings across 22 CIKs.
2. For each hit, fetch primary_doc.xml from the filing's archive directory and parse it, rather than reading any human-readable rendering. The fields used are totalOfferingAmount, totalAmountSold, totalNumberAlreadyInvested, minimumInvestmentAccepted, dateOfFirstSale, salesCommissions, findersFees and federalExemptionsExclusions.
3. Deduplicate by CIK, keeping the latest filing per issuer, because an amendment supersedes the original. Summing all 26 without deduplicating double-counts four funds and inflates the sold total from $817,955,440 to $864,605,440, an overstatement of $46,650,000.
4. Average cheque is amount sold divided by investors already invested, per fund.

4,387 is a count of investor positions, not of people. An investor in three funds appears three times, and nothing in Form D lets you deduplicate them, so the real number of individuals is lower by an unknown amount.

Sources

Every number here comes from SEC EDGAR, retrieved and parsed on August 24, 2026:

• EDGAR full-text search, query "Cardone Equity Fund", form type D — 26 filings across 22 CIKs. efts.sec.gov
• Each filing's primary_doc.xml, read directly from the filing archive rather than from any rendered summary.
• Cardone Equity Fund 29, LLC, CIK 0002111881, Form D filed August 19, 2026. EDGAR filings
• Cardone Equity Fund 23, LLC, CIK 0001922854, original Form D March 28, 2024 and amendment April 21, 2025 — the pair that demonstrates the freezing problem.
• The parallel Regulation A entities (Cardone REIT I, Cardone Non Accredited Fund, Cardone Equal Opportunity Fund 2, Cardone Equity Funds V, VI and IX) were identified from EDGAR form types 1-A, 1-K and 253G2 and are not included in any total on this page.

We have no relationship with Cardone Capital and earn nothing from this page. The dataset is compiled from public filings and we will correct any figure shown to be wrong — if you hold a position in one of these funds and your documents say something different from the table, that is exactly the kind of thing we want to hear about.