Housers Review - The Licence Is Current, the Loan Book Is Not

Spain’s original real estate crowdfunding platform, live since 2015 and holding a current CNMV authorisation under the EU crowdfunding regulation. It is also the platform with the longest adverse record in the Spanish market: two CNMV fines, an Italian regulator’s fine that survived appeal, an open criminal case brought by eight investors, an operator that says in its own accounts it depends on shareholder support to keep going, and a recent loan book where roughly 60% of the money lent since 2023 is past its maturity date. In December 2025 the company changed its legal name to Crowpire, S.L. The name changed; the entity, the register number and the liabilities did not.

What is Housers in 60 seconds

Housers is a Spanish platform where retail investors lend money to property developers. You put in from €300, the developer takes a loan secured by a first-ranking mortgage on the property, and you are meant to receive quarterly interest and your capital back within 12 to 36 months. The platform is authorised by the CNMV, Spain’s securities regulator, under the EU crowdfunding regulation, and the CNMV supervises it directly. Housers used to sell other things too: equity stakes in property companies from 2015 to 2017, and participative loans from 2017 to 2019, both discontinued. In December 2025 the company renamed itself Crowpire, S.L. and in February 2026 announced a relaunch under new management. As of 2 September 2026 the public site is still branded Housers, still names the old legal entity in its footer, and has no campaigns open for investment.

Strengths

• The authorisation is real, current and directly supervised. The CNMV register lists CROWPIRE, S.L., NIF B87269999, as crowdfunding service provider number 13, effective 10 November 2023 under Regulation (EU) 2020/1503. We checked the register entry on 2 September 2026: it is live, it has not been withdrawn or suspended, and a search of the CNMV’s warnings database for “Housers” returns no results. That matters, because a large part of the sector’s history is platforms that were never authorised at all. Housers went through the transition from the old Spanish PFP regime (register no. 20, granted 2 June 2017) into the EU regime without a gap.

• The loan book disclosure is unusually granular, and it is not flattering to the company. The page at housers.com/es/estadisticas-legacy publishes, vintage by vintage and product by product, capital financed, capital returned, capital restructured, capital past maturity, crystallised capital loss, amounts still in recovery, and delivered internal rate of return. Most competitors publish a single headline default figure and nothing else. Housers publishes the numbers that make the headline figure hard to defend, which is a genuine point in its favour even though what those numbers show is bad.

Things to Watch

• Roughly 60% of the money lent since 2023 is past its maturity date. Taking the platform’s own mortgage-backed vintage table: €28,961,500 was financed across the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 vintages, and €17,354,000 of that is recorded as “capital vencido”, meaning past maturity. That is 59.9%. Add €2,670,000 recorded as restructured and the figure is 69.1% of the recent book either overdue or renegotiated. These two percentages are CrowdIndex arithmetic on the platform’s published figures, not a number Housers publishes. The same table shows a delivered return of 0.00% on both the 2025 and the 2026 vintages. We cannot rule out that some “vencido” amounts have since been collected, but the table has a separate “capital devuelto” column, which implies they have not.

• The headline default rate does not describe the same book. The statistics page publishes “Tasa de impago 13,25%”, derived from €3,385,000 of arrears over €25,551,500 financed across 87 projects. That cohort is not reconciled anywhere on the site to the 131 or 133 mortgage-backed projects, the €41.5M mortgage-backed total, or the €28.96M financed since 2023. The 13.25% figure and the vintage table cannot both be a fair summary of the same lending. An investor reading only the dashboard sees 13.25%; an investor reading the table two clicks away sees a majority of recent lending overdue.

• We found no Article 20 disclosure, and by construction a quarter of the historical book could never be covered by one. Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 requires an authorised platform to publish, annually, the default rates of the projects it has offered over at least the preceding 36 months, calculated by the method in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2115. We searched the statistics pages, the legacy statistics page, the investor information pages, the fee brochure and the footer document list, and found nothing that references Article 20, the delegated regulation, a 36-month reference period, or any stated methodology. Separately, Article 20 applies to loan-based offers. Housers’ legacy equity book (€19.65M, 2015 to 2017) and participative loan book (€21.30M, 2017 to 2019) sit outside its scope by definition. That is €40.95M of about €148.6M of crowd capital, or roughly 28% of everything ever raised on the platform - again our arithmetic - that no default-rate disclosure obligation would ever reach. Almost all of the €40.2M still sitting in “recovery” is in exactly those two legacy books.

• Two CNMV fines, and only one of them was overturned - on a technicality, not on the facts. In September 2019 the CNMV published three penalties totalling €215,000 (BOE-A-2019-13701, 26 September 2019): €90,000 for a serious and repeated breach of the duty of neutrality and of acting in the client’s best interest in how returns, fees, risks and warnings were presented; €75,000 for carrying on activities not covered by its authorisation; and €50,000 for publishing a project that did not meet the statutory conditions. We could not establish whether that sanction was ever challenged in court, and we do not claim it was. In November 2021 the CNMV published a second, single fine of €130,000 for a very serious breach concerning activities outside the authorisation together with the neutrality and conflict-of-interest rules (BOE-A-2021-18970, 18 November 2021). That second fine was annulled by the Audiencia Nacional, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Third Section, on 7 February 2024 (recurso 2044/2021). The reason matters: Ley 18/2022 repealed the part of Ley 5/2015 the charges rested on, and the court applied the more favourable later regime retroactively, holding the conduct was no longer punishable. The court expressly did not review whether the conduct occurred. We could not confirm whether the CNMV took it to the Tribunal Supremo.

• Italy’s regulator fined the platform and won on appeal. CONSOB, Italy’s securities regulator, suspended Housers’ offer to Italian residents in December 2017 (delibera 20242), banned it in March 2018 (delibera 20345, recording 775 Italian investors and €1,308,727 collected across 30 projects), and in November 2019 fined the company €100,000 (delibera 21156) both for a public offer made without a prospectus between July 2017 and March 2019 and for continuing it in defiance of CONSOB’s own suspension order for fifteen months. Housers challenged it. The company’s own audited FY2024 accounts record that the Corte d’Appello di Roma rejected the challenge and confirmed the sanction, with interest and costs. This is the one enforcement action against Housers that has been through a court and survived.

• An operator that says in its own accounts it depends on shareholder support to continue. The FY2024 accounts published by the company show revenue of €878,902, a loss for the year of €1,181,526, accumulated losses of €10,159,869, equity of €110,502 and cash of €92,013, with negative working capital. Note 2.3 states that the accounts are prepared on a going-concern basis relying on the support received from the parent’s shareholders, which the directors call “imprescindible” (indispensable) for the company to carry on normally. The €1.18M loss exceeded the €728,687 injected that year. The same accounts disclose a €117,000 loan from the platform to its own parent at 3%, made by a subsidiary holding €92,013 in cash. The type of audit opinion on those FY2024 accounts is one of our open items and should not be assumed to be clean.

• Investors are in court, and the company discloses it. The FY2024 accounts list, among others: DP 1935/2021 before Investigating Court no. 50 of Madrid, brought by eight investors alleging fraud, still open, with co-founder Antonio Brusola Valls questioned on 17 December 2024; DP 189/2023, brought by twenty-seven investors alleging unlawful association, fraud, documentary falsification and falsification of annual accounts, which was archived with a final dismissal; and PV 1903/2023, an investor claim for breach of the duty to inform, which the accounts record as decided in the investor’s favour. Separately, an association of affected investors registered with the Spanish national associations register has been active since 2020, and named Spanish outlets including idealista and El Confidencial Digital reported criminal complaints filed in 2020 over projects including Santa Eulalia and La Boladilla Village. Those 2020 filings are investor allegations whose outcomes we could not trace beyond July 2020, and every Spanish criminal matter with a traceable ending so far has ended in dismissal. The company’s stated position is that the developers, not the platform, are answerable for the loans.

• No open deals, no liquidity, and a monthly fee for waiting. On 2 September 2026 the opportunities page returned zero projects in funding or coming soon, against 77 funded, 54 closed and 2 not funded. The secondary market, a credit-rights assignment mechanism, recorded €2,084 of volume in 2023 and €0 in 2024, 2025 and 2026; there is no public marketplace page and no instructions for selling. Meanwhile a €2.50 monthly fee applies to accounts that hold a balance without investing recently, and the fee schedule permits a formalisation charge of up to 10% of the amount invested and a recovery charge of up to 20% of sums pursued from a defaulting developer. Housers’ own dashboard reports an average final duration of 18 months against 12 months planned.

How It Works

1. Register and pass the appropriateness test. As an authorised crowdfunding provider, the platform must assess whether the product suits you, warn you if you invest more than €1,000 or 5% of your net worth, and give you a four-day reflection period before your commitment binds.
2. Fund your account. Bank transfer, with card payments capped at €5,000. Money is held in segregated wallets at Lemonway, a French payment institution, not by the platform itself.
3. Choose a project - when there are any. The current product is a fixed-rate loan to a developer secured by a first-ranking mortgage at under 70% loan-to-value, scored by the external valuer Gloval, with a €300 minimum. There is no auto-invest. As of 2 September 2026 there were no projects open.
4. Receive quarterly interest, if the developer pays. Interest is quarterly and capital is due at maturity, typically 12 to 36 months. Fees are deducted from what you receive, not charged up front.
5. Wait, because there is no practical exit. The credit-rights assignment mechanism has recorded no volume since 2023. The platform states plainly that recovery of your investment before the end of the loan contract is not guaranteed. If a developer misses maturity, recovery runs through the mortgage and a recovery agent who takes a cut of what is collected.

Who Housers Is For

On the evidence we have gathered, we do not think there is a retail investor profile for whom this platform is currently the right choice, and we are not going to invent one. There are no open deals to invest in, so the immediate question does not even arise. If and when new deals open under the Crowpire relaunch, the case for waiting is straightforward: the platform’s own vintage table shows a majority of recent lending past maturity, the operator’s own accounts describe a going-concern dependency on shareholder money, and the promised relaunch is being run by a chief executive appointed in February 2026 who, according to the reporting at the time, was not yet a shareholder. None of those things is unfixable, and all of them are checkable in six or twelve months.

The people who most need this page are the ones already holding positions. For you, the practical points are these. The name change to Crowpire is a name change: the same legal person, the same register number, the same obligations, so your contracts are unaffected. Your capital’s fate depends on individual developers, not on the brand. The vintage table is the honest picture of where the book stands; the 13.25% headline is not. Keep every document. If you believe a specific project was mis-sold, note that the company’s own accounts record one investor claim on breach of the duty to inform decided in the investor’s favour, and consider taking Spanish legal advice on your own facts rather than acting on forum consensus.

Compared to Alternatives

Housers vs. Maclear. The interesting thing here is that the regulatory comparison runs the opposite way to the risk comparison. Housers holds a full CNMV authorisation under the EU crowdfunding regulation and is supervised directly by a national securities regulator. Maclear operates under Swiss self-regulatory organisation membership, which covers anti-money-laundering compliance and is a much narrower thing; it carries no investor compensation scheme, and its collateral recovery process has not been tested in a real default. On paper Housers has the stronger licence. In practice Housers has the documented sanction history, an Italian fine upheld on appeal, a majority-overdue recent book and an operator running on shareholder transfusions. The lesson is one worth carrying into every other card on this site: a licence tells you who is watching, not whether the loans are being repaid.

Housers vs. Mintos. Mintos is the scale benchmark: a decade of operation, a MiFID II investment firm licence with investor compensation up to €20,000, dozens of independent loan originators, and a working secondary market with real daily volume. Housers has none of those four. The single sharpest difference is liquidity. On Mintos you can normally sell a position; on Housers the assignment mechanism has recorded no volume since 2023 and the platform tells you outright that early recovery is not guaranteed. The second sharpest is diversification: Mintos spreads across originators and countries, while Housers concentrates in Spanish property development, where the whole book moves with one market.

Housers vs. EstateGuru. This is the closest and most useful comparison, because both are long-running property lenders that ran into the same wall. EstateGuru is authorised under the EU crowdfunding regulation by Estonia’s regulator, has lent around €939M since 2014, and has a large share of its portfolio in recovery rather than performing. Housers is smaller, at roughly €148.6M of crowd capital since 2015, and is in a comparable state: about €40.2M still in recovery and roughly 60% of the 2023 to 2025 book past maturity by our arithmetic. Where they differ is enforcement history and corporate footing. EstateGuru has not been fined by two national regulators; Housers has, and lost the Italian one on appeal. EstateGuru’s operator is not filing accounts that describe shareholder support as indispensable to continuing; Housers’ is. Both are cautionary; Housers is the more cautionary of the two.

Bottom line on competitors. Housers sits at the bottom of the CrowdIndex table not because it lacks a licence, but because it has one and the numbers underneath it are still poor. Everything in the paragraphs above is drawn either from a regulator’s register, a court record, a published BOE penalty notice, the company’s own audited accounts, or the company’s own loan book tables.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Housers still authorised, and is it still operating? Yes to the first, partly to the second. We checked the CNMV register on 2 September 2026: CROWPIRE, S.L., NIF B87269999, is listed as crowdfunding service provider number 13, effective 10 November 2023, and the authorisation has not been withdrawn or suspended. The public platform at housers.com works and its loan book data is current. But there were no projects open for investment on that date: 77 funded, 54 closed, 2 not funded, and zero in funding or coming soon.

Is Crowpire a different company from Housers? No. It is the same legal person with a new name. Same tax number (B87269999), same Madrid address, same Registro Mercantil entry, same CNMV register number 13. The name change was registered on 22 December 2025 and the relaunch announced in February 2026. Nothing about the change resets obligations to existing investors, and nothing about it erases the record described above.

Has Housers been sanctioned by regulators? Yes, in two countries. Spain’s CNMV published penalties of €215,000 in September 2019 and a further €130,000 in November 2021, both in the official state gazette. The 2021 fine was annulled by the Audiencia Nacional on 7 February 2024, but on the ground that a later law had removed the offence and the more favourable regime applied retroactively - the court did not rule on whether the conduct happened. Italy’s CONSOB suspended, then banned, the offer to Italian residents in 2017 and 2018 and fined the company €100,000 in November 2019, and that fine was confirmed on appeal by the Corte d’Appello di Roma.

Are investors suing, and has anyone won? Both. The company’s own audited FY2024 accounts disclose an open criminal file brought by eight investors alleging fraud before Investigating Court no. 50 of Madrid, a second file brought by twenty-seven investors that was archived with a final dismissal, and a civil claim for breach of the duty to inform that was decided in the investor’s favour. Beyond those, named Spanish media reported further criminal complaints filed in 2020 by an investors’ association; those are allegations by investors, and we could not trace their outcomes past July 2020.

What does Housers publish about defaults and losses? A headline “tasa de impago” of 13.25% on its statistics page, and a much more detailed vintage-by-vintage table on its legacy statistics page. The two do not agree: the detailed table shows roughly 60% of the money lent since 2023 past its maturity date, by our own calculation from its figures. We found no disclosure meeting Article 20 of the EU crowdfunding regulation, which requires an annual default-rate publication covering at least 36 months using a prescribed method. Note also that Article 20 covers loan-based offers, so the platform’s legacy equity and participative-loan books, about 28% of everything it ever raised, would fall outside such a disclosure in any case.

Bottom Line

Housers is the rare case where the licence checks out and almost nothing else does. The CNMV authorisation is current and directly supervised, and the platform publishes a loan book more detailed than most of its competitors. What that loan book shows is that roughly 60% of the money lent since 2023 is past maturity, that the 2025 and 2026 vintages have delivered nothing, and that about €40.2M remains in recovery. Around it sit two CNMV penalty files, an Italian fine confirmed on appeal, an open criminal case brought by eight investors, an operator whose own accounts call shareholder support indispensable, no open deals, and no working exit. The rebrand to Crowpire changes the name on the door and nothing behind it. Our view is to wait: let the relaunch produce a full year of new lending, an Article 20 disclosure, and a set of FY2025 and FY2026 accounts that stand on their own, and reassess then.

Check the current authorisation yourself in the CNMV register of crowdfunding service providers before acting on anything on this page.

Affiliate disclosure. CrowdIndex earns a commission when readers sign up to some platforms through links on this page. We have no commercial relationship with Housers or Crowpire and earn nothing from this page. Housers’ ranking on CrowdIndex is based on the editorial criteria documented on our Methodology page. Capital at risk. Nothing here is investment advice.