Willow Wealth, formerly Yieldstreet, announced its rebrand on October 22, 2025 and changed its name in November 2025. The platform provides access to alternative investments including real estate, private credit, and art. Reporting by CNBC documented at least $208 million in investor losses across the real estate and marine finance offerings it examined, noted that nine of the 30 real estate deals it reviewed were in default by December 2025, and reported that public historical performance information was removed from the website around the time of the rebrand. For investors exploring fractional real estate investing opportunities, understanding these details, and understanding how far the underlying evidence does and does not reach, is useful context.
This analysis breaks down what the documented record shows about Willow Wealth, how fee structures and liquidity terms affect investor returns, and what factors matter when evaluating alternative investment platforms.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this guide is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice. Always consult with a licensed professional before making any financial or investment decisions.
Key Takeaways
- CNBC reported at least $208 million in investor losses across the real estate and marine finance offerings it examined. The total comprises $78 million tied to four real estate losses reported in August 2025, $89 million in marine finance losses disclosed in September, and approximately $41 million in additional real estate losses reported in December 2025. This figure was constructed from CNBC's reporting and reviewed investor communications. It is not an audited platform-wide loss statement or a regulatory adjudication.
- Nine of the 30 real estate deals CNBC reviewed were in default by December 2025. That is a 30% rate within CNBC's selected sample. Yieldstreet told CNBC it had offered at least 55 projects in the relevant period and 149 real estate deals since inception, so the sample rate should not be read as the platform's historical real estate default rate.
- Short Term Notes were excluded from the headline IRR by the metric's own definition. AltStreet's EDGAR-based analysis estimates that Short Term Notes represented 59% of the Regulation D capital in its Form D dataset. Yieldstreet's published methodology defined its IRR as the net realized IRR of matured investments, excluding the Short Term Notes and Structured Notes programs.
- Public historical performance information was removed around the rebrand. CNBC reported that a removed public chart had shown approximately negative 2% annualized real estate returns for 2015 to 2025, compared with 9.4% displayed two years earlier.
- The SEC brought a settled enforcement action concerning a specific 2019 offering. In September 2023 the SEC ordered approximately $1.939 million in total financial remedies, including a $1 million civil penalty, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest. A separate class action settlement received final approval on February 21, 2025, consisting of $6.2 million in cash plus up to $2.75 million in waived fees, a maximum nominal value of $8.95 million.
- The Alternative Income Fund transaction is proposed, not completed. On March 19, 2026, Willow and Mount Logan announced definitive agreements for a proposed reorganization. As of late July 2026, shareholder approval was still being solicited.
- Costs can stack across layers. Willow 360 currently discloses a 1.25% advisory fee and approximately 0.175% in stated portfolio expenses, and CNBC estimated that certain underlying third-party funds could produce all-in annual costs of roughly 3.3% to 6.7% per fund depending on the fund and share class.
Understanding Fractional Real Estate Investment Platforms and Their Fees
Fee transparency is one of the clearest signals of how closely a platform's economics track investor outcomes. When evaluating any fractional ownership platform, what matters is not only the headline fee but the total cost of ownership.
Willow Wealth's fee structure has multiple layers, and the specifics vary by legal structure and offering. According to Willow's Form ADV Part 2A:
- Equity issuer funds generally disclose management fees of 1% to 3%
- ALTNOTE funds generally disclose 1% to 2.5%
- The adviser does not receive a management fee for managing the ST NOTE Fund in that capacity
- Commitment fees, incentive allocations, access fees, brokerage, custodial, servicing, and other offering-specific expenses may apply, as also described in Willow's fee help center article
- Willow 360 managed portfolios currently disclose a 1.25% advisory fee and approximately 0.175% in stated expenses, with additional indirect underlying product expenses possible
CNBC reported that Willow's newer managed portfolios carried roughly 1.4% in Willow advisory and stated expenses, while underlying Goldman Sachs, Carlyle, and StepStone products could produce all-in annual costs of approximately 3.3% to 6.7% per fund based on provider documents. That range is tied to particular underlying funds and share classes. It is not the fee on every Willow investment.
For context on why layered costs matter: for a product with a hypothetical 5% annual total expense load and a 10% gross return, expenses would consume half of the gross return before compounding, taxes, and timing effects. This is an illustration rather than a demonstrated typical Willow charge. Actual Willow costs depend on the specific product and underlying fund.
Cost factors that shape net returns on any platform:
- The share of assets consumed by management fees each year
- Whether additional fees exist at the underlying investment level, and at which share class
- How total fees compare with stated target returns
- How fees are handled when an investment underperforms
Platforms with institutional pedigree typically offer clearer fee disclosure and structures designed for long-term alignment. The benefits of real estate can be substantial when fees do not consume a disproportionate share of returns.
Direct Property Ownership vs. Pooled Funds: The Role of an Investment Advisor
Willow Wealth uses several different structures rather than a single pooled fund model. Its Form ADV Part 2A identifies investment-specific SPVs, equity issuer funds, borrower-payment-dependent and other note issuer funds, a registered closed-end fund, access funds, managed portfolios, and third-party products. The platform's direct investing page still allows investors to select individual assets and funds, and its help center describes how offerings are structured. Some vehicles are pooled; others provide exposure to a specific investment or underlying loan. The degree of commingling and asset-level transparency depends on the individual offering.
Key structural differences:
| Structure Type | Investor Rights | Transparency | Risk Concentration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversified pooled funds and managed portfolios (one part of the Willow lineup) | Limited visibility into specific holdings | Generally fund-level or account-level reporting | Exposure to the manager's full portfolio |
| Deal-specific SPVs and note series (also offered by Willow) | Exposure to an identified investment or loan | Offering-specific documents and investor reporting | Exposure concentrated in that offering |
| Property-specific LLC ownership (fractional model) | Proportional economic and governance rights in one property | Individual deal transparency | Investor selects specific properties |
Reporting varies by product. Diversified funds and managed portfolios generally report at the fund or account level, while individual SPVs and note offerings provide investment-specific information to their investors. Willow 360 provides account-level NAV updates, monthly statements, and quarterly insights. The relevant question concerns the completeness and public availability of platform-wide reporting, not a claim that the entire platform reports only at the fund level.
The reporting question became consequential for investors in distressed deals. In CNBC's August 2025 review of 30 real estate projects, four deals had been declared total losses, 23 of the remaining 26 were on Willow's internal watchlist, and three were classified as active despite suspended payouts. Willow communicated deal-specific updates to affected investors, and CNBC reported that the confidential and product-specific nature of those communications made it harder for investors and prospective investors to assess distress across the broader platform.
Direct fractional ownership through a property-specific LLC structure offers a different transparency profile:
- Proportional governance rights tied to a specific property
- Monthly rental income distributions from actual rental payments, where a property is operational
- Potential pass-through tax items, including depreciation-related deductions, subject to structure and individual circumstances
- Clear line of sight into that property's underwriting and performance
Understanding how fractional investing works helps investors distinguish between platforms that provide entity-level interests tied to identified assets and those that offer exposure through intermediary structures that add complexity.
Evaluating Projected Returns and Risk Mitigation in Fractional Investing
One of the most important things to understand about Willow Wealth involves how the platform calculated and presented its headline performance metric.
Yieldstreet's published methodology defined its headline IRR as an average net realized IRR for matured investments, expressly excluding the Short Term Notes and Structured Notes programs. The exclusion was therefore disclosed in the definition of the metric rather than omitted from it. Short Term Notes are short-duration debt products with stated yields and maturities, and combining them automatically with longer-duration realized IRRs may be analytically inappropriate.
The narrower point is still meaningful: the headline figure, publicized by the company and cited in the 9.4% to 9.8% range at different calculation dates, did not represent the experience of all products or all capital invested through the platform. Any citation of the figure should identify the applicable calculation date.
AltStreet's EDGAR-based reconstruction estimates that Short Term Notes represented 59% of the Regulation D capital included in its Form D dataset. That is not 59% of every dollar invested through Yieldstreet over its history, and it is an independent analyst's reconstruction rather than a figure published or audited by the SEC.
What the filings show, and where they do not reconcile:
- ALTNOTES I: $759.6 million reported, with 12,503 investor entries
- ALTNOTES II: $167.2 million reported, with 3,483 investor entries, per AltStreet's summary of the EDGAR filings
- Combined ALTNOTES I and II: $926.8 million
- YS ST NOTES LLC: approximately $179.6 million separately reported
AltStreet reports $926.8 million across ALTNOTES I and ALTNOTES II. It separately lists approximately $179.6 million for YS ST NOTES LLC, and its analysis does not clearly reconcile whether that entity overlaps with or is additional to the $926.8 million total. The three figures are best treated separately until the relationship among the entities is reconciled from the underlying filings.
Investor counts warrant the same care. The two Form D issuer counts total 15,986 investor entries. Form D counts are reported at the issuer and offering level, so the same individual can participate in more than one issuer or series. The filings do not establish 15,986 unique people.
Minimums also varied by series. AltStreet's summary indicates that ALTNOTES I's Form D reported no minimum investment, while ALTNOTES II reported a $5,000 minimum. Willow's current Short Term Notes materials state a $10,000 standard minimum, or $5,000 for a first Willow investment, and limit the product to accredited investors. A Form D minimum field does not establish that every investor could invest any amount in every series; offering-specific documentation controls.
The ALTNOTES I investor count nearly doubled in its final 12 months, from 6,406 to 12,503, during 2021 to 2022, the period in which a number of later-troubled real estate offerings were originated. Willow has described Short Term Notes as a liquidity-management product. Publicly available evidence does not trace which Short Term Notes proceeds funded which underlying deals, and public filings do not establish those investors' level of financial sophistication. The supportable point is that the Short Term Notes program reached a substantially larger reported investor population than individual SPVs, and that population's capital sat outside the headline IRR by definition.
Platforms that publish their methodology and describe explicit alignment mechanisms present a clearer picture. A useful lens is simply how much of the raised capital sits outside a headline performance metric, and on what basis.
Liquidity Challenges in Real Estate and Future Secondary Market Potential
Real estate investments are inherently less liquid than publicly traded securities. This is a feature rather than a flaw, since illiquidity often correlates with higher returns, which is one reason the importance of liquidity is worth understanding. Investors still benefit from realistic expectations about access to their capital.
Willow Wealth's liquidity terms vary by product:
- Most private SPV investments are illiquid with offering-specific target terms that can be extended. Willow's risk disclosures note that investors who cannot hold private placements for the long term, described in one disclosure as at least five to seven years, should not invest. Other products, including Short Term Notes, have much shorter target terms.
- Willow does not provide a generally available secondary market for private SPV positions. Transfers are generally restricted and, where permitted at all, depend on the applicable operating agreement, note documents, securities laws, and manager consent.
- The Alternative Income Fund's repurchase program was historically capped at 5% of outstanding shares per quarter and 20% in aggregate per calendar year, subject to board discretion and possible proration. It was never a discretionary 5% to 20% range per window.
- That repurchase program is currently suspended in connection with the proposed Mount Logan transaction, with no active tender offer or repurchase window.
Third-party review sites and independent commentators have published mixed assessments of the platform. Those sources are self-selected or subjective in nature rather than independently verified adjudications, and separate profiles maintained before and after the rebrand complicate comparisons over time.
Liquidity factors that shape outcomes on any fractional platform:
- The expected hold period, and whether it can be extended
- Whether a secondary market exists, and who operates it
- How share values are calculated where a secondary market exists
- What options exist if capital is needed during the hold period
The Role of Due Diligence and Property Selection in Wealth Management
The quality of a platform's underwriting process directly affects investor outcomes. CNBC's reporting documented performance problems in a substantial selection of 2021 to 2024 real estate offerings, particularly 2021 to 2022 equity deals affected by leverage, floating-rate debt, rising rates, and falling multifamily valuations.
What the reviewed sample showed:
- Nine of the 30 CNBC reviewed real estate deals were in default by December 2025, a 30% rate within that selected sample. CNBC reported that private market failure rates are difficult to determine because the market is opaque, with some industry participants estimating 2% to 8%. That estimate is not a standardized benchmark, and comparing it directly to the sample rate would require a consistent asset class, period, denominator, and default definition.
- In CNBC's August 2025 snapshot, four of the 30 deals had been declared total losses, 23 of the remaining 26 were on Willow's internal watchlist, and three were listed as active despite suspended payouts. Statuses changed between the August and December reports.
- Legal finance: AltStreet found no new legal finance entities in its Form D dataset after 2022. Willow continues to describe legal finance as a specialized asset class, and the public pages reviewed do not indicate whether a new legal finance offering is currently open.
The concentration of losses and watchlist designations among the reviewed 2021 to 2022 offerings raises questions about underwriting, leverage, interest-rate sensitivity, and sponsor selection during that vintage. It is not, by itself, a controlled analysis covering every asset class, vintage, or transaction.
Due diligence factors worth weighing on any platform:
- The share of reviewed deals that reach the platform
- Whether the platform invests its own capital in each offering
- The default and recovery data published, and the denominator behind it
- How problem deals are disclosed, and to whom
The risks of real estate crowdfunding are manageable with proper diligence when platforms prioritize quality over deal volume.
Accessibility and Entry Barriers: Comparing Investment Advisor Options
Willow Wealth positions itself as democratizing alternative investments, and its entry points vary by product:
- Willow 360 managed portfolios list a $25,000 minimum
- Direct deals have historically carried minimums commonly in the $5,000 to $10,000 range, though minimums are set offering by offering
- Short Term Notes currently require $10,000, or $5,000 for a first Willow investment, and are limited to accredited investors
- The Alternative Income Fund carried a $10,000 minimum before the proposed reorganization
Fractional real estate platforms vary significantly in accessibility:
- Some require accredited investor status for all offerings
- Others offer non-accredited access to specific products
- Minimum investments range widely across the market
- Fee structures can make small investments economically unviable
A useful consideration is whether a platform's entry point allows for meaningful diversification across multiple properties, or whether concentration limits the benefits of fractional ownership.
The Value of Institutional Pedigree and Credibility in Wealth Generation Platforms
Around the time of the rebrand, Willow removed a public historical performance chart containing roughly a decade of data. CNBC reported that the removed chart had shown approximately negative 2% annualized real estate returns for 2015 to 2025, compared with 9.4% displayed two years earlier.
What is established and what is commentary should be kept separate:
- Established: public historical portfolio snapshots and a long-term performance chart were removed, reducing prospective investors' ability to review platform-wide historical results. Existing investors retained account access to information concerning their own positions, including statements, tax records, and updates.
- Company explanation: CNBC cited a source saying the company no longer provided the historical data because of its pivot toward third-party funds.
- Commentary: a finance lecturer and former Federal Reserve Bank examiner told CNBC that removing historical statistics makes past performance harder to review. That is an attributed opinion rather than a demonstrated causal finding.
- Commentary: an independent analyst has published a low overall rating for the platform, noting that the rebrand complicates the picture for new investors. This is a subjective reviewer rating rather than a regulatory or performance determination.
The regulatory and legal record
In September 2023 the SEC ordered Yieldstreet entities to pay $1,939,220.41 in total financial remedies, consisting of $888,909.16 in disgorgement, $50,311.25 in prejudgment interest, and a $1,000,000 civil monetary penalty, with an offset related to a $601,650 fee receivable the firm agreed not to collect. Only the $1 million was a civil monetary penalty; the balance was disgorgement and prejudgment interest rather than a fine.
The order concerned material omissions associated with a specific September 2019, $14.5 million vessel deconstruction offering, and found that Yieldstreet Management failed to implement adequate written policies and procedures designed to prevent misleading collateral disclosures. That speaks to disclosure controls in that matter. It does not establish that every platform disclosure was deficient.
Separately, a federal court granted final approval on February 21, 2025 to a class action settlement consisting of $6.2 million in cash plus up to $2.75 million in forgiven fees, a maximum nominal value of $8.95 million. Attorneys' fees and expenses were paid from the cash fund.
Current platform status
Willow's product mix has shifted toward managed portfolios and third-party institutional funds from managers including Goldman Sachs, Carlyle, and StepStone. It continues to offer direct investments, Willow managed funds, and Willow-issued Short Term Notes, and it states that the same legal entity continues to operate and existing investments continue under their original terms. Public evidence does not establish that the company is in wind-down.
The fund transaction is likewise pending rather than closed. On March 19, 2026, Willow and Mount Logan announced definitive agreements for a proposed reorganization under which a Mount Logan managed fund would acquire the assets of the Yieldstreet Alternative Income Fund. The announcement stated that closing was expected in late Q2 or Q3 2026, subject to regulatory approvals, shareholder approval, and other conditions. A July 2026 SEC filing still solicited shareholder votes on the proposed reorganization, so the fund is best described as pending rather than sold.
Why mogul Offers a Stronger Alternative for Fractional Real Estate
Investors comparing fractional real estate options can look at what a differently structured platform provides. mogul is a fractional real estate platform club founded by former Goldman Sachs executives, built by real estate investors for real estate investors, with a focus on institutional-quality single-family rental properties across short-term and mid-term rental strategies. The details below come from mogul's published platform materials, and investors reviewing any offering benefit from reading the associated offering documents.
Published property and platform information: mogul publishes platform statistics, plus property-level underwriting, target returns, and investor dashboard reporting. mogul reports an 18.8% average annual return on its platform assets, the highest among the fractional platforms it benchmarks. In mogul's comparison of annual returns by asset class, that figure sits alongside 13.8% for single-family rentals, 9.8% for the S\&P 500, and 9.3% for REITs, drawing on NAREIT, US Federal Reserve, Case-Shiller Home Index, and Bloomberg data. mogul also reports more than 13,000 investors on the platform and over $40 million of assets invested through it, with 90% of its investors investing a second time, typically at three times their first investment.
Property-specific LLC structure: mogul creates an LLC for each property in the state where the property is located. Investors legally purchase interests in the investment-club LLC that owns the property, giving them proportional economic and governance rights associated with that specific asset rather than direct deeded title. mogul's own educational content notes that fractional investments commonly represent interests in an entity that owns the property, a structure distinct from a REIT. Major property decisions are subject to voting and supermajority rules.
Income and potential tax treatment: Operational properties make monthly rental income distributions based on actual rental payments rather than projected yields, alongside real-time appreciation. Investors may receive proportionate pass-through tax items, including depreciation-related deductions, subject to the property's results, offering structure, loss limitation rules, basis limitations, depreciation recapture, state taxes, and each investor's individual tax circumstances.
Property selection and co-investment: Fewer than 1% of reviewed properties pass mogul's diligence process. Its research analysts and institutional partners apply proprietary underwriting, nationwide data, inspections, and investment-committee review, and mogul invests in every property it offers. Properties are professionally vetted and managed, with boots-on-the-ground property management teams and in-house brokerage across its target markets. Co-investment gives the platform financial exposure alongside investors and aligns economic incentives.
Institutional background: mogul was founded by former Goldman Sachs executives, and its team brings more than $10 billion in collective real estate investing and deployment experience, including growing Goldman Sachs' single-family rental platform from $0 to $1 billion in under 12 months. That team applies institutional underwriting experience to property selection, including proprietary analysis and investment-committee review.
Transparency and member protections: mogul publishes its disclosures, terms of use, and privacy policy publicly. New members also have first $10k protection: if a new member's first seven days of investments are down by up to $10,000 after one year, mogul trues that amount back up using its own balance sheet capital, subject to the promotion disclaimer. Members can also refer a friend and receive $50 when that friend invests, under the referral program terms, and mogul Clubs distribute up to 2% in rewards to members.
Accessibility: Non-accredited investors can participate in mogul's fractional real estate offerings, subject to investor eligibility, offering documents, platform terms, and applicable law. mogul describes an average investment of approximately $10,000, with a typical portfolio allocation of $17,321 per property. Its investment property calculator is free and is designed to analyze U.S. property addresses, and current listings are available on the properties page.
For investors weighing how to choose a platform, the useful exercise is comparing disclosure quality, structure, fee layering, and liquidity terms side by side. mogul's approach is designed to make real estate investing more accessible and headache-free, bringing the traditional benefits of the asset class, appreciation, monthly income, and tax advantages, into one platform. Members who want to talk through the model can book a call with the team.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this guide is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice. Always consult with a licensed professional before making any financial or investment decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened to investors who had money in Yieldstreet's defaulted deals?
Investors in defaulted private deals generally face uncertain recovery timelines. In CNBC's August 2025 review, four of the 30 deals examined had been declared total losses and 23 of the remaining 26 were on Willow's internal watchlist; by December 2025, nine of the 30 were reported to be in default. Willow does not provide a broadly available secondary market for these positions, and transfers are generally restricted, depending on the applicable offering documents and required approvals.
Is Willow Wealth still accepting new investments?
Yes. Willow has shifted its product mix toward Willow 360 managed portfolios and third-party evergreen funds from managers such as Goldman Sachs, Carlyle, and StepStone, while continuing to offer direct investments and Willow-issued Short Term Notes. The proposed Mount Logan reorganization concerns one fund and, as of late July 2026, was still subject to shareholder approval. Public evidence does not support describing the company as being in wind-down. The current product mix differs materially from the proprietary deal vintages associated with the losses CNBC reported.
How should investors read a platform's claimed returns?
A claimed IRR is only as meaningful as its stated methodology. Cross-referencing a headline figure against SEC EDGAR filings and a platform's own published definition clarifies what is included and excluded, which products, vintages, and capital sit outside the metric, and whether the calculation is realized only, asset weighted, or investor weighted. Historical default and recovery data is most informative when paired with a stated denominator. Cross-platform default comparisons deserve caution: CNBC noted that private market failure rates are hard to determine and that estimates in the 2% to 8% range come from industry participants rather than a standardized dataset. Independent analyst ratings and customer reviews are similarly best read with attention to sample size, date, and methodology.
What regulatory oversight applies to fractional real estate platforms?
Regulatory structure varies by platform and product. Participants can include registered broker-dealers, registered investment advisers, Regulation Crowdfunding funding portals, registered investment companies, private fund advisers, and issuers relying on exemptions without the platform itself being an adviser. For Willow specifically, Willow Asset Management LLC is an SEC-registered investment adviser and Willow Wealth Markets LLC is a broker-dealer, per its Form ADV Part 2A. Many individual offerings rely on exemptions such as Regulation D Rule 506(c) and are reported on Form D rather than being registered under the Securities Act. Registration of an adviser, broker-dealer, or investment company imposes regulatory and disclosure obligations, but it does not constitute SEC approval of an investment or eliminate risk, and Willow's Form ADV notes that registration does not imply any particular level of skill or training. The SEC's 2023 order illustrates that registered firms can still fall short of disclosure obligations.
Are there tax advantages to fractional real estate investing?
Often, but treatment is not automatic. An LLC is a state-law entity, not a single federal tax classification; depending on elections, structure, underlying assets, debt allocation, and investor status, it can be treated as a disregarded entity, partnership, S corporation, or C corporation. A partnership-taxed real estate SPV may pass through income, losses, and depreciation and generally issues a Schedule K-1, and allocated items may still be limited or suspended by loss limitation rules, basis, or income level, with depreciation recapture on exit. Reporting also varies by product: Willow states that Willow 360 is expected to produce a single Form 1099-DIV and that Short Term Notes use Form 1099 reporting. Multi-state filing requirements may apply depending on property locations. For a broader overview, see the top tax benefits of real estate investing, and consult a tax professional for guidance specific to your situation.