Crowdinvesting gewinnt an Bedeutung, da der Zugang zu Schweizer Immobilien schwieriger geworden ist

Switzerland’s real estate market has long been regarded as a source of stability, supported by consistent demand, modest vacancy rates and limited exposure to the volatility seen in broader European markets. Yet access to this market has become increasingly restricted. Property prices have risen steadily for more than two decades, bank lending standards are stricter than in the past and the capital requirements for both purchases and renovations have increased. According to UBS, only 15 percent of Swiss households can afford to buy a home today. Twenty years ago this share was closer to 60 percent. The structural change in affordability has occurred despite favourable interest rates and has altered how both investors and property owners operate in the market. As traditional paths to ownership narrow, alternative forms of participation gain importance. Among them, crowdfunding has evolved from a niche concept to a functional mechanism that responds to specific Swiss market conditions.

When ownership becomes the exception

The decline in homeownership is not a temporary phenomenon. Switzerland’s homeownership rate remains around 36 percent, one of the lowest in Europe. Urban centres such as Zurich, Geneva and Lausanne record even lower rates because of high land prices, limited supply and strict construction planning. The Federal Statistical Office reports that population growth continues in these regions, driven by migration, demographic ageing and the rise in single-person households, which today account for more than one third of all households. These developments exert pressure on the housing market. Vacancies remain below 1.2 percent at the national level and significantly lower in metropolitan areas.

At the same time, banks apply stringent affordability rules. Buyers must demonstrate that they could carry the mortgage at a theoretical interest rate of five percent, regardless of actual rates. Renovation and energy standards imposed under the Energy Strategy 2050 further increase the capital required from property owners. As a result, many households are unable to accumulate sufficient equity, while existing owners face significant funding requirements when buildings reach renovation cycles. This combination of rising costs and limited lending flexibility explains why access to real estate has become structurally constrained.

Why crowd investing (co-financing) emerges now

Against this backdrop, crowdfunding has emerged as a practical response rather than a speculative alternative. It lowers the capital threshold needed to participate in the Swiss real estate market by enabling investors to acquire partial ownership or to provide financing for specific projects. The model reflects economic logic rather than technological novelty. Investors become co-owners recorded in the land registry or lenders to a defined project with clear collateral. Property owners receive equity-like capital that allows them to refinance, renovate or hold properties that would otherwise have to be sold.

This approach aligns well with Switzerland’s tightly supplied market. High-quality properties are rarely available for direct purchase, and those that do often demand substantial equity. Crowdinvesting breaks these thresholds by allowing participation in smaller increments without removing the asset from the private market. At the same time, the mechanism mirrors long-standing Swiss traditions such as cooperative ownership and collective investment in tangible assets. What changes is the scale and accessibility.

What motivates investors

Crowdinvesting appeals to investors for several reasons linked to the characteristics of the Swiss market. Direct real estate has historically shown low correlation with equities and bonds, which supports diversification. Residential rental income has remained stable for decades, supported by demographic growth and sustained demand for rental housing. These features remain intact and are central to investor decision making.

Furthermore, crowdfunding grants access to segments and regions that would otherwise be out of reach. A single investor may not be able to purchase an apartment building in Zurich or Geneva, but through fractional participation it becomes possible to gain exposure to the rental income generated there. Diversification also increases because investors can distribute their capital across different properties, locations and tenant structures. The risk of vacancy, for example, becomes less pronounced when rental income stems from multiple units rather than one. In addition, many crowdfunding structures include equity buffers or specific collateral arrangements that provide an extra layer of protection for smaller investors.

The broader appeal comes from the ability to construct a tailored allocation. Investors can combine lower-risk exposures such as residential income streams with higher-yielding project financings in development, renovation or refinancing. The result is an allocation profile similar to that of a direct investor but with greater flexibility in terms of capital and risk.

Why property owners seek alternative financing

Property owners face different challenges. The tightening of credit conditions under Basel III and domestic mortgage guidelines has limited the flexibility of traditional banks. Owners of older buildings often require significant capital for energy renovations, façade upgrades or technical replacements. Selling the property is sometimes undesirable due to property gains tax implications or long-term strategic considerations. Crowdinvesting can provide a partial solution by offering access to additional capital without the need to sell the asset. It enables owners to refinance part of the equity, modernise their buildings or stabilise their financial structure.

These needs are particularly relevant in regions with older building stock. In Zurich and Basel, many multifamily houses date back to the mid-20th century and require substantial investment to meet energy efficiency standards. In the Lake Geneva region, where land scarcity and high density are structural features, owners face significant renovation costs that are not always compatible with bank lending conditions. In central Switzerland, mid-sized properties in cantons such as Aargau, Solothurn and Zug face similar pressures as rental demand remains strong but maintenance cycles intensify. Crowdfunding offers owners in these situations an additional financing instrument.

Two models with distinct horizons

Real estate crowdfunding in Switzerland generally follows two models. In the first, investors finance specific projects such as renovation, construction or refinancing and receive interest payments over a defined period. This model suits investors seeking predictable cash flows and shorter investment horizons. In the second model, investors acquire co-ownership in a fully rented income-producing property. They receive proportional rental income and participate in long-term value changes. Both models are grounded in the principle of direct, asset-backed investment. The minimum investment is considerably lower than for a traditional property purchase, which widens participation without changing the underlying nature of the asset.

Where crowd investing is particularly relevant

Regional characteristics shape the suitability of crowdfunding. Zurich represents the most prominent example. High entry prices prevent many private investors from purchasing entire properties, yet rental demand remains strong across districts such as Oerlikon, Wiedikon and Altstetten. Crowdfunding enables participation in these markets without the need for full ownership. Borrowers in Zurich also benefit from access to capital for renovation, as many buildings require upgrades to meet evolving energy standards.

Geneva and Lausanne show similar conditions. Demand for rental housing consistently exceeds supply, and land scarcity limits new construction. Partial ownership or partial refinancing can play a role where full property sales are financially or strategically unattractive. Basel’s distinct position as a life sciences hub ensures stable tenant demand and long-term occupancy. Property owners in this region often seek capital for property modernisation rather than expansion, which aligns with the financing logic of crowdfunding.

The central plateau, with its logistical corridors and mid-sized towns, offers opportunities for both models. Properties in Aargau, Solothurn or Zug combine stable demand with moderate entry prices, which appeals to investors looking for diversification beyond metropolitan areas. Eastern Switzerland presents another perspective. Regions around St. Gallen and Thurgau host a dense network of SMEs in machinery, textiles and automation. Their buildings often require incremental refurbishment rather than redevelopment, making them suitable for targeted financing. Ticino’s location along the north-south axis creates specific cases in which cross-border labour markets influence property demand, and crowdfunding can help owners adapt to cyclical pressures.

How diversification works in practice

Diversification is an essential aspect of real estate investing and one of the main reasons investors consider crowdfunding. The ability to distribute capital across multiple properties reduces exposure to individual market risks. A vacancy in one unit does not jeopardise the entire income stream when an investor holds shares in several buildings. Geographic diversification also matters. Market cycles differ between Zurich, Geneva, Basel and the central plateau. Crowdfunding allows investors to participate in multiple regions without the administrative burden of managing several properties. The combination of debt and equity exposures further refines risk and return characteristics, providing options that are normally reserved for larger institutional portfolios.

Where the limitations lie

Despite its advantages, crowdfunding is not without limitations. Liquidity is lower than in listed markets, and investors must expect holding periods aligned with project duration or rental cycles. Property-specific risks remain, including unforeseen renovation costs or tenant fluctuations. The quality of governance and due diligence varies between providers, which requires careful assessment. These considerations do not diminish the structural relevance of crowdfunding, but they underscore the need for clarity and transparency.

A mechanism for a changing market environment

Crowdfunding will not replace traditional ownership or established bank financing. It operates alongside them as a response to conditions that make direct access to Swiss real estate increasingly difficult. As long as affordability remains low, renovation requirements continue to rise and bank lending stays restrictive, crowdinvesting will remain a meaningful mechanism within the broader real estate market. It offers investors a way to participate in stable rental income with smaller commitments and gives property owners an avenue to access capital without relinquishing full control. In a market defined by long-term scarcity and persistent demand, this form of co-investment reflects the realities of Swiss real estate rather than an exception to it.