Recovered in full: investors got back 100 % of principal - and a 29.55 % total return

A loan defaulted. Fourteen months of enforcement later, investors have every euro of their principal back plus a 29.55 % total return over the two-year period - an XIRR of 14.86 % a year, higher than the rate they originally signed up for. Individual results vary by rate tier and withholding tax. Here is how it happened. 

Most of what gets written about real-estate crowdfunding describes loans that go to plan. This is not one of those. Project 842 - a 46,000 € business loan secured on property in Upytė, Panevėžys district - defaulted, went through full enforcement, and closed on 16 September 2026, exactly two years and a day after it started. 

It is worth writing about precisely because it went wrong. A loan that repays on schedule tells you nothing about a platform’s underwriting or its collection process. A loan that defaults tells you everything. 

The loan as it was structured 

A 46,000 € business loan, 12-month term, interest paid monthly and principal at maturity. The rate ranged from 12.50 % to 13.50 % depending on investment size, averaging 12.95 % across the project. Risk class B - medium. The full amount was raised from 126 investments between 30 August and 12 September 2024, and the loan started on 18 September 2024 with scheduled maturity on 16 September 2025. 

The security package had three layers: 

• A first-rank mortgage over eight real-estate units valued at 92,000 € by Newsec Valuations in August 2024 - a loan-to-value ratio of 50 %. 
• A company promissory note. 
• A personal surety. 

That last layer is the one that matters most to how this story ended, and it is the one investors tend to pay least attention to when they are choosing projects. 

What went wrong, and when 

Early signals were there from the start. The borrower was late on every single instalment - delays ranging from 9 to 65 days - though interest was in fact serviced through the March 2025 period. Then payments stopped. 

We terminated the loan agreement on 5 July 2025 and launched enforcement through a bailiff on 7 July 2025, moving against the pledged property and the personal guarantor at the same time rather than sequentially. That parallel approach is worth noting, because the property route alone would not have produced this outcome. 

Enforcement then ran for roughly 14 months, and it was not smooth: 

• The property owner repeatedly refused the court-appointed appraiser access. Getting the valuation done required a court order and the threat of daily fines. It was finally completed in January 2026 - land plot 8,400 €, residential homestead 88,800 €.
• The first auction round in February-March 2026 sold the smaller land plot for 11,102 €. The homestead attracted no bidders at all and went to a second auction.
• In parallel, we negotiated with the guarantor. A preliminary settlement was reached in May 2026 and a final settlement agreement signed on 27 July 2026, with a payment deadline of 15 August. 

The debt was settled in full. The final distribution to investors was made on 16 September 2026. 

The numbers 

Principal returned: 46,000 € - 100 % 

Total distributed to investors (gross) : 59,591.85 € 

Investor income: 13,591.85 € 

Total return : +29.55 % over 728 days (1.99 years) 

Annualised (simple) : 14.81 % 

XIRR : 14.86 % 

Number of distributions : 9 

Individual results vary by interest rate tier and by applicable withholding tax; personal XIRR across the project ranged from roughly 14.7 % to 15.1 %. 

Enforcement costs of 4,483.75 € were recovered from the borrower’s side. They were not netted off investor principal. 

Why the return was higher than the contracted rate 

This is the part that surprises people, so it is worth being precise about the mechanism. 

Investors did not earn 14.86 % because the loan performed well. They earned it because the loan performed badly and the contract charges for that. Compensatory interest accrued for every day the borrower was late, throughout the entire 14-month enforcement period, and it was passed on to investors rather than retained by the platform. 

Run the counterfactual: had this loan repaid exactly on schedule after 12 months, it would have paid investors roughly 5,957 € in interest. They received 13,591.85 € - about 2.3 times as much, over roughly twice the time. 

A delay is compensated, not absorbed. That is the design intent, and this case is what it looks like when the design holds. 

Why it worked 

Three things. 

• The security package earned its cost. A 50 % LTV, a first-rank mortgage, a promissory note and a personal surety are not paperwork - they are independent routes to repayment. The property route stalled: one auction sold a small plot, the second round found no buyers for the main asset. The recovery came through the surety. Had the loan been secured on the property alone, this would be a very different article. 
• Transparency is not only for the good quarters. Fifty-six public updates were published on this project, including through the periods when there was nothing encouraging to report. Investors could see the appraiser being refused access, the failed auction, the negotiation. We think that is the minimum standard, not a feature.
• Persistence, over 14 months. A court order to get the appraiser through the door, two auction rounds, and a settlement negotiated in parallel with the enforcement. Recovery on a defaulted loan is rarely quick, and we think the timeline is worth showing in full - it is what standing behind a project actually takes. 

Not every default recovers in full, and one project’s result does not predict another’s. But this one recovered every euro - and it did so because of how the loan was built, not because of luck.