Review of the CrowdStreet Platform:

Sponsor/Platform Review

Name*

2 Investment Dates: Investments were made at various times, starting in 2018 and with the last investment in 2023.

3 Asset Class Portfolio Breakdown:

• Multifamily: 41%

• Mixed Use: 34%

• Office: 25%

4 Projected Holding Period: 3-5 years

5 Communication Methods: The platform utilized a comprehensive approach, including:

• Quarterly Reports

• Monthly Reports

• Podcasts

• A dedicated website portal where reports were uploaded

• (All the above)

6. Effectiveness of Communication – ★★★★☆ (4 Stars)
Reports were clear and informative, particularly the balance sheets. However, there were instances of over-communication, where updates included excessive detail that didn't enhance decision-making.

7. Tax Reporting – ★★★☆☆ (3 Stars)
K-1s were delivered punctually in some years, while other years saw delays, reducing overall reliability.

8. Investment Plan Execution – ★★☆☆☆ (2 Stars)
Execution of the investment strategy was subpar. ROI failed to meet projections, and holding periods extended significantly beyond the original timeline. Based on performance, I would not reinvest with this sponsor.

9. Holding Period Execution – ★☆☆☆☆ (1 Star)
Holding periods were severely delayed, attributed to various operational and market-related issues. Results did not align with expectations or communication provided during the investment.

10. Return on Investment – ★★☆☆☆ (2 Stars)
Actual returns were well below projected outcomes, contributing to a negative overall experience.

Keep Reading for relevant information that was not covered above that would help create transparency

Back in 2018, when I made my first investment, CrowdStreet was one of the few platforms where accredited investors could access a wide range of opportunities. At the time, the platform marketed itself as a kind of “gatekeeper,” promising a rigorous vetting process for sponsors and deals. That created a strong expectation that investors could rely on the platform’s expertise, since it had far more information about the sponsors and investment structures than any individual investor typically could.

But when that gatekeeping process fails, it leaves investors exposed. There’s a real risk of moral hazard—where the platform benefits from attracting investors through claims of thorough due diligence, yet may not actually deliver on those promises. This is even more concerning when you consider that platforms like CrowdStreet collect fees from sponsors, potentially creating a conflict of interest.

One example of this disconnect was CrowdStreet’s “Enterprise” designation, which was supposed to represent their most highly vetted sponsors. I invested with two sponsors that held this title. One turned out to be fraudulent (Nightingale), and the other resulted in a small financial loss of $500.

Another deal I participated in was a senior housing project by a sponsor labeled as “Tenured”—CrowdStreet’s second-highest designation. That investment failed completely. The execution was poor, and though the sponsor blamed the property’s performance on COVID-related industry issues, the bondholders ultimately sold the asset and equity investors lost everything.

So far, I’ve had two investments fully exit—both at a combined capital loss of 51%. Of the eight other investments I’ve made, seven have already passed their projected holding periods with no liquidity event, and only one is currently on track. Interestingly, that one success came from a sponsor categorized as “Emerging,” which raises an important question: if the more “seasoned” sponsors were as strong as the platform suggested, why did they need to turn to CrowdStreet in the first place?

I’ll be breaking down each sponsor and deal in more detail in future reviews.