SCPI-type managed funds, property crowdfunding and club deals keep appearing in the same conversations — yet they are three different objects: a managed collective placement, a fixed-term credit, an equity stake in an identified operation. None is "better" in the absolute: each answers a distinct patrimonial question, with frameworks, rights and horizons that have nothing in common.
Key points
- The SCPI (French regulated property fund) is a managed collective placement: a management company licensed by the AMF collects, buys a diversified portfolio and distributes a share of rents. The investor delegates everything — selection, management, arbitrages — and exercises no operational governance.
- Property crowdfunding makes the investor a lender, not an owner: through a platform authorised under the EU crowdfunding regulation, they finance a developer for a short term against an agreed remuneration. No governance, no asset held — a receivable, with the borrower's risk.
- The club deal takes you into the equity of a single, identified operation, held in a dedicated vehicle: the investor examines the file BEFORE entering, exercises the rights written into the pact, and commits for the duration of the business plan.
- The three logics differ on the essentials: what you hold (fund units, a receivable, a stake), what you decide (nothing, nothing, whatever the pact grants) and what you may examine before committing (a distribution record, a project sheet, a complete study file).
- The work required is inversely proportional to the delegation: a fund is subscribed, crowdfunding is picked, a club deal is INSTRUCTED.
What each delegates — and what each demands
The managed fund buys tranquillity: broad pooling, professional management under licence, sought-after regularity. Its structural counterpart: the investor chooses neither the assets nor the calendar, and the organised liquidity of units is never guaranteed.
Crowdfunding buys simplicity: small ticket, short duration, announced remuneration. Its counterpart: the investor is one creditor among others on a developer's balance sheet, with no view of execution and no real recourse beyond the granted securities. Selecting the platform and the sponsor IS the whole trade — outsourced to the party with the least to lose.
The club deal buys control: an operation you have examined, written governance, an operator you can judge on evidence. Its counterpart: accepted illiquidity, a meaningful ticket, and genuine analytical work — the one we describe in our method for assessing a club deal.
The question that settles it
"What does it yield?" is the wrong first question — the three vehicles' remunerations are not of the same nature and do not compare like for like. The right first question: which role do you want to hold? Saver in a managed fund, creditor of a developer, or partner in an operation. The house has picked its side: we structure operations for restricted circles, one company per operation, because it is the form that best aligns operator and investors — and the only one where examination precedes commitment.
General, non-personalised information: each vehicle carries its own risks, including capital loss; the cited frameworks (AMF licensing, the EU crowdfunding regulation) evolve; every situation calls for licensed advice.