INDEPENDENT VERDICT
EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund is not a single $100 million vehicle. Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management created three parallel Ohio LLCs — Fund A, Fund B and Fund C — each with a stated $100 million offering capacity. All three were formed in 2026, use EBS's 10100 Innovation Drive headquarters in Miamisburg, identify Mark Brady and Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management in the management structure and filed amendments together in September 2026. The latest filing data show approximately $16.47 million sold by Fund A, $37.275 million by Fund B and $53.745 million by Fund C, for roughly $107.49 million across the three vehicles. The key investment story is more distinctive than the fundraising totals: EBS designed the strategy around municipal bonds supported by tax increment financing, or TIF, where development-linked tax revenues can create higher yields than conventional highly rated municipal debt but also introduce meaningful project, tax-base and liquidity risk.
A THREE-VEHICLE STRUCTURE, NOT THREE SEPARATE BRANDS
Fund A, Fund B and Fund C were created together and originally filed Form D notices on March 27, 2026. April amendments retained $100 million offering targets and reported no capital sold at that stage. By September, all three had filed new amendments under Rule 506(c), and aggregate reported capital had risen to approximately $107.49 million.
The series should therefore be analyzed together. Each vehicle has its own CIK and legal entity, but the sponsor, address, investment theme, management personnel, offering size and filing cadence are substantially identical. FilingDossier treats them as three sleeves or parallel vehicles within one EBS strategy rather than as independent fund brands.
That distinction also prevents a common data error: the three $100 million offering caps should not be described as $300 million already raised. They represent maximum stated offering capacity. The reported sold amount across the three funds was approximately $107.49 million as of the September amendments.
EUBEL BRADY & SUTTMAN IS A LONG-ESTABLISHED SEC-REGISTERED ADVISER
The manager has a substantially longer history than the TIF funds. Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management, Inc. is registered with the SEC under CRD 107316 and SEC file number 801-44694, with SEC registration effective in September 1993. The firm traces its formation to Mark Brady, Ronald Eubel and Robert Suttman joining together in 1993 after working at another Dayton-area investment firm.
Latest publicly indexed Form ADV data place regulatory assets under management at roughly $2.07 billion. That firmwide figure is entirely separate from the approximately $107.49 million reported sold by the three TIF funds.
EBS manages traditional equity and fixed-income portfolios as well as private investments. Its Form ADV materials specifically identify municipal securities and private placements among the types of investments it may recommend. The firm also files institutional equity holdings reports with the SEC, providing another independent regulatory footprint beyond Form D.
MARK BRADY IS THE CENTRAL LINK TO THE TIF STRATEGY
Mark E. Brady is identified by EBS as Co-Chief Investment Officer and Director of Private Investments. The firm says he has managed equity, fixed-income and private investments since 1985 and was one of EBS's three founders in 1993.
The TIF funds' Form D records identify Brady directly as an executive officer and identify Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management, Inc. as another related person. That creates a direct link between the legal fund entities and the investment adviser rather than relying only on a matching address or brand name.
EBS also maintains dedicated private-investment staff. Its public research-team materials identify personnel responsible for private-fund administration, legal review and private-investment analysis. That broader infrastructure matters because the TIF strategy requires credit underwriting that differs materially from buying highly liquid investment-grade municipal bonds.
WHAT THE FUND IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO BUY
The strategy focuses on municipal bonds associated with tax increment financing.
A TIF district is generally created around a development or redevelopment area. A governmental authority establishes a base level of property tax value, and some or all of the additional tax revenue generated as property values rise can be directed toward financing infrastructure or development-related obligations.
A TIF bond may therefore depend partly on the success of a specific development area rather than solely on the broad taxing power of a state or large municipality.
That creates the opportunity EBS is pursuing.
EBS has publicly explained that newly issued TIF bonds are often unrated and may initially offer yields materially higher than highly rated or insured municipal bonds. The manager has cited examples where initial yields can be roughly two percentage points above better-rated municipal securities. If a development matures, tax collections strengthen and the bonds later receive ratings or become part of rated pools, their required yield may decline and their market price may appreciate.
That creates two potential return sources: tax-exempt current income; and possible capital appreciation if credit quality improves.
Neither outcome is guaranteed.
WHY THE TAX-EXEMPT ANGLE MATTERS
For taxable investors, nominal yield alone does not determine the attractiveness of municipal debt.
If interest from a particular municipal security qualifies for federal income-tax exemption, an investor's taxable-equivalent yield can be meaningfully higher than the stated coupon. The advantage becomes more significant at higher marginal income-tax rates.
For example, a tax-exempt municipal yield may compare favorably with a higher nominal corporate-bond yield once federal taxes are considered.
However, investors should not assume that every security held by every EBS Muni TIF vehicle will have identical tax treatment. Original issue discount, market discount, state taxes, alternative minimum tax considerations, investor jurisdiction and the exact bond structure can change after-tax economics.
The fund documents and tax opinion for each security remain essential.
THE YIELD PREMIUM EXISTS FOR A REASON
An unrated TIF bond can yield more because investors are accepting risks that may not exist to the same degree in a large general-obligation municipal bond.
A development can stall.
Property values can grow more slowly than forecast.
Construction can be delayed.
A major taxpayer can fail.
Tax collections can come in below projections.
A municipality can modify development assumptions.
A project can require refinancing.
The assessed-value increment supporting debt service may fail to reach modeled levels.
This means the fund is not simply purchasing "municipal bonds with a better yield." It is underwriting development economics through a municipal-security structure.
Investors should therefore examine the real estate and economic assumptions behind each bond as carefully as the legal bond documents.
THE INVESTMENT CAN LOOK LIKE REAL ESTATE CREDIT EVEN THOUGH THE SECURITY IS MUNICIPAL
This is one of the most important analytical differences in the strategy.
A TIF bond may technically be a municipal security, but the ability to repay can depend heavily on whether a particular commercial, residential, industrial or mixed-use project succeeds.
The credit analysis may therefore require: developer history; construction status; tenant commitments; property valuations; assessed-value projections; tax-collection assumptions; local employment trends; population growth; municipal development agreements; debt-service coverage; and the legal priority of TIF revenues.
In economic substance, parts of the analysis can resemble real estate development underwriting.
That helps explain why EBS's experience with private real estate funds may be relevant to the strategy.
EBS HAS BEEN BUILDING PRIVATE FUNDS SINCE 2008
The Muni TIF funds are not EBS's first private investments.
The firm has publicly stated that since 2008 it has formed and managed funds involving residential and mixed-use real estate development, senior living, syndicated loans, real estate lending, pre-public banks and convertible securities.
EBS reported more than $456 million of equity capital committed across private-investment strategies before launching the municipal TIF effort.
One particularly visible example is its residential-development fund series, through which EBS has invested in land development and homebuilding-related projects.
That does not prove the performance of the TIF fund. It does, however, establish that EBS's private-fund capability predates 2026 and that the manager has experience underwriting development-related investments rather than launching its first alternative product around TIF bonds.
THE SEPTEMBER CAPITAL INFLOW IS SUBSTANTIAL
The September amendments show a major change from the spring filings.
Fund A: approximately $16.47 million sold.
Fund B: approximately $37.275 million sold.
Fund C: approximately $53.745 million sold.
Combined: approximately $107.49 million.
Fund C therefore represents roughly half of the combined reported subscriptions, while Fund A has the smallest balance.
The public Form D record does not explain why investors are divided among A, B and C. Possible distinctions could involve tax status, investor eligibility, portfolio allocation, distribution channel, specific bond pools or other structural considerations, but none should be assumed without the offering memorandum.
This is one of the most important questions for investors.
WHY ARE THERE THREE FUNDS
The A/B/C architecture needs explanation.
If all three vehicles invest in the same portfolio on identical economic terms, investors need to understand why separate legal entities are required.
If they invest in different TIF bonds, then risk can differ materially among the vehicles.
If they serve different tax or investor categories, the legal and economic treatment may differ even when underlying assets overlap.
Questions include: Does each fund buy separate municipal bonds Are investments allocated proportionally across A, B and C Can one fund hold a bond that the others do not Do they have identical management fees Do they have identical liquidity rights Do they have different tax classifications Can assets be transferred between the vehicles Are any obligations cross-collateralized Does one fund have priority over another
Form D does not answer these questions.
THE SHIFT TO RULE 506(c) IS ALSO MATERIAL
The spring filings were initially associated with private-offering structures that were later amended, while the September filings identify Rule 506(c).
Rule 506(c) permits general solicitation provided all purchasers are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify accredited status.
That can materially change distribution.
A 506(c) vehicle may be marketed more openly than a traditional Rule 506(b) offering. Investors should therefore distinguish increased visibility from reduced investment risk. Accredited-investor verification is an eligibility process, not a credit-quality test for the underlying municipal bonds.
The original filings reported a $250,000 minimum investment, reinforcing that the strategy was designed for relatively substantial private-market allocations rather than retail municipal-bond accounts.
UNRATED MUNICIPAL BONDS CAN BE DIFFICULT TO VALUE AND EXIT
Liquidity deserves particular attention.
A large, widely traded municipal bond with a public rating and substantial institutional ownership may have frequent dealer quotes. A niche unrated TIF issue can be very different.
Trading may be limited. Bid-ask spreads can be wide. Comparable securities can be scarce. Valuation models can depend on assumptions. A forced sale may occur below modeled fair value.
This becomes particularly important inside a private fund if investors expect periodic liquidity.
Investors should understand: fund lock-up; redemption frequency; notice periods; gates; valuation policy; third-party pricing; and what happens when a bond has no observable transaction price.
CAPITAL APPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AUTOMATIC
One appealing part of the EBS thesis is the possibility that an unrated bond becomes more seasoned and eventually obtains a stronger market valuation.
That can happen.
A project may complete. The tax base may expand. Debt-service coverage may strengthen. A credit rating may be obtained. Required market yields may decline. The bond price may rise.
But the reverse is also possible.
A development may fail to meet projections, causing spreads to widen and bond prices to fall.
Investors should therefore treat rating improvement and price appreciation as an upside scenario rather than the base-case certainty.
FINAL ASSESSMENT
EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund has a substantially stronger manager-verification profile than many newly launched private funds. The three issuers are directly tied to Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management, Mark Brady and the same Miamisburg headquarters. EBS is an SEC-registered investment adviser with a regulatory history dating to 1993, approximately $2 billion of publicly reported regulatory AUM and private-fund experience dating to 2008.
The strategy itself is also differentiated. Rather than purchasing conventional investment-grade municipal securities, EBS is targeting TIF-related municipal bonds where development risk may create higher tax-exempt yields and the possibility of capital appreciation if credit quality improves.
That opportunity comes with correspondingly higher underwriting demands. Investors need bond-by-bond information on the issuer, TIF district, developer, tax base, projected incremental tax revenue, debt-service coverage, ratings, maturity, call provisions, liquidity and legal priority. The approximately $107.49 million already reported across Funds A, B and C demonstrates meaningful capital formation; it does not establish the credit quality of the municipal assets ultimately purchased.
KEY FINDINGS EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund is sponsored by Eubel Brady & Suttman. There are three parallel vehicles: Fund A, Fund B and Fund C. Each fund has a stated $100 million offering. Total stated offering capacity is $300 million. Fund A reported approximately $16.47 million sold in September 2026. Fund B reported approximately $37.275 million sold. Fund C reported approximately $53.745 million sold. Combined reported amount sold is approximately $107.49 million. The three figures should not be added to the $300 million capacity as if both represented capital raised. The three funds use the same Miamisburg address. Mark Brady is an executive officer. Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management is directly identified in the filings. The September amendments use Rule 506(c). The vehicles are pooled investment funds. Initial public filings reported a $250,000 minimum investment. EBS is an SEC-registered investment adviser. CRD is 107316. SEC adviser number is 801-44694. SEC registration became effective in 1993. Latest publicly indexed regulatory AUM is approximately $2.07 billion. Mark Brady is Co-Chief Investment Officer and Director of Private Investments. EBS has managed private-investment funds since 2008. The manager has disclosed more than $456 million historically committed to earlier private-fund strategies. The Muni TIF strategy targets municipal securities associated with tax increment financing. The underlying bonds may initially be unrated. Higher yields are accompanied by development, credit and liquidity risks.
FUND FAMILY SNAPSHOT
EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund A, LLC CIK: 0002119820 Formation: Ohio, 2026 Offering target: $100,000,000 Spring 2026 amount sold: $0 September 2026 reported amount sold: Approximately $16,470,000 Latest exemption: Rule 506(c) Address: 10100 Innovation Drive, Suite 410, Miamisburg, OH Related persons: Mark Brady; Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management
EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund B, LLC CIK: 0002119819 Formation: Ohio, 2026 Offering target: $100,000,000 Spring 2026 amount sold: $0 September 2026 reported amount sold: Approximately $37,275,000 Latest exemption: Rule 506(c) Address: 10100 Innovation Drive, Suite 410, Miamisburg, OH Related persons: Mark Brady; Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management
EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund C, LLC CIK: 0002119818 Formation: Ohio, 2026 Offering target: $100,000,000 Spring 2026 amount sold: $0 September 2026 reported amount sold: Approximately $53,745,000 Latest exemption: Rule 506(c) Address: 10100 Innovation Drive, Suite 410, Miamisburg, OH Related persons: Mark Brady; Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management
COMBINED FUND FAMILY Total maximum offering capacity: $300,000,000 Combined September reported amount sold: Approximately $107,490,000 Approximate combined subscription versus maximum capacity: 35.8%
The 35.8% figure compares reported sold capital with combined maximum offering capacity. It is not a performance return or portfolio-investment percentage.
EBS MANAGER SNAPSHOT Legal adviser: Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management, Inc. Primary business name: Eubel Brady & Suttman CRD: 107316 SEC: 801-44694 CIK: 0001080382 SEC registration effective: September 9, 1993 Headquarters: 10100 Innovation Drive, Suite 410, Miamisburg, Ohio Phone: 937-291-1223 Official domain: ebsinvests.com Latest publicly indexed regulatory AUM: Approximately $2.07 billion Private-investment activity: Since 2008 Historical private-fund areas: Residential development Mixed-use real estate Senior living Syndicated loans Real estate lending Pre-public banks Convertible securities Municipal TIF bonds
MARK BRADY Role: Co-Chief Investment Officer Role: Director of Private Investments Role: Principal EBS co-founder: 1993 Investment-management experience: Since 1985 Public securities experience: Confirmed Fixed-income experience: Confirmed Private-investment role: Confirmed Muni TIF fund SEC relationship: Confirmed directly in Form D
HOW TIF FINANCING WORKS A defined development or redevelopment district establishes a tax-base value. Development can increase property values. Incremental property-tax revenue above the base may be captured under a TIF structure. That revenue can support infrastructure or debt repayment. TIF bonds can therefore depend heavily on local development performance.
Exact structure differs by jurisdiction and bond issue. Investors should review the specific bond indenture rather than assume every TIF security operates identically.
POTENTIAL RETURN DRIVERS Tax-exempt municipal income where applicable Yield premium on unrated or less-seasoned municipal credits Property-tax-base growth Successful project completion Improving debt-service coverage Potential future credit rating Spread compression Possible secondary-market price appreciation
None of these return drivers is guaranteed.
CORE CREDIT QUESTIONS Which TIF bonds does Fund A own Which TIF bonds does Fund B own Which TIF bonds does Fund C own Are the portfolios identical What states and municipalities are represented What developments support the TIF districts Who are the developers What is each developer's completion history What projects have already broken ground What percentage of construction is complete What assessed-value growth is assumed What tax increment is currently being collected What debt-service coverage ratio applies Is debt service dependent solely on TIF revenue Is there any general municipal pledge Is there a developer guarantee Is there a reserve fund Is bond insurance present Are securities rated If unrated, why What would need to occur before the issue could obtain a rating What maturities apply What call provisions apply What percentage of the portfolio is callable What percentage is tax exempt federally What state-tax treatment applies Is any income subject to AMT What happens if a development fails What recovery rights do bondholders have
FUND STRUCTURE QUESTIONS Why were Fund A, B and C created separately Do they own the same securities Are investment opportunities allocated equally Can EBS favor one fund over another Do the funds have different investor classes Do they have different tax treatment Do management fees differ Can assets be transferred among funds Are liabilities segregated Can one fund lend to another Can the vehicles co-invest Who independently administers each fund Who audits each fund Who values unrated municipal bonds How often is NAV calculated What redemption rights exist Can redemptions be suspended Are gates permitted
CORE RISKS TIF revenue shortfalls Real estate development risk Property-value risk Developer default Construction delays Municipal-credit risk Concentration in specific projects Unrated security risk Limited secondary liquidity Wide bid-ask spreads Valuation uncertainty Interest-rate risk Duration risk Call and reinvestment risk Tax-law risk Local-government policy risk Geographic concentration Economic downturn Private-fund illiquidity Potential mismatch between fund redemption terms and underlying bond liquidity Risk that anticipated rating improvement never occurs Risk of treating tax-exempt income as equivalent to low credit risk
WEBSITE / ENTITY PENETRATION Official manager: Eubel Brady & Suttman Official domain: ebsinvests.com Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management legal entity: Confirmed CRD: Confirmed SEC registration: Confirmed Mark Brady relationship: Confirmed Miamisburg address match: Confirmed 937-291-1223 phone match: Confirmed Private-investment platform: Confirmed Municipal-security investment capability: Confirmed through Form ADV Fund A relationship: Confirmed Fund B relationship: Confirmed Fund C relationship: Confirmed Specific TIF bonds currently held: Not publicly disclosed in Form D Individual municipal issuers: Not disclosed in Form D Portfolio credit ratings: Not disclosed in Form D Current NAV: Not disclosed in Form D Fund performance: Not publicly verified Exact management fee: Not disclosed in Form D Performance allocation: Not disclosed in Form D Auditor: Not established from Form D Administrator: Not established from Form D
PRIMARY EVIDENCE REVIEWED SEC EDGAR — EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund A LLC SEC EDGAR — EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund B LLC SEC EDGAR — EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund C LLC SEC IAPD — Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management Inc. SEC Form ADV — Eubel Brady & Suttman SEC Form 13F — Eubel Brady & Suttman Asset Management Eubel Brady & Suttman — official firm website Eubel Brady & Suttman — official team biographies Eubel Brady & Suttman — private-investment and municipal-security disclosures Public reporting concerning EBS's Muni TIF Bond Fund strategy
IMPORTANT FORM D NOTICE Form D is a notice of an exempt securities offering. Filing with the SEC does not mean the SEC has approved, endorsed, rated, audited or verified EBS Muni TIF Bond Fund A, B or C, Eubel Brady & Suttman, Mark Brady, any municipal bond, TIF district, developer, tax-base projection or expected investor return. Tax-exempt status may vary by security and investor circumstances. Investors should independently review the private placement memorandum, bond official statements, tax opinions, TIF development agreements, debt-service projections, portfolio holdings, valuation procedures, fees and liquidity terms before investing.