By Moshon Reuveni
As major investors move from public equities to private debt, the distinction between American “hard money” and European “bridging finance” reveals a profound philosophical divide in risk, regulation, and enforcement.
The Macroeconomic Shift to Private Debt
The recalibration of global interest rates has fundamentally altered the yield environment. With traditional fixed-income markets offering stabilized but often uninspiring real returns, institutional and sophisticated private capital is moving toward asset-backed private debt. This sector, historically viewed as an alternative fringe, has matured into a key part of portfolio diversification.
The Transatlantic Strategic Divide
For the global investor, this asset class—colloquially known as “hard money” in the United States and “bridging finance” in Europe—offers a compelling proposition: short durations, tangible real estate collateral, and yields that historically outperform public market debt.¹
But treating this asset class as a monolith is a strategic error. For investors deploying significant capital, the Atlantic Ocean represents more than a geographical divide; it marks a split in legal philosophy and market mechanics. The US market operates as a high-velocity, standardized instrument of liquidity, while the European market remains a fragmented scene defined by regulatory caution and consumer protection.
Understanding this difference is critical for the cross-border allocation of capital.
The Philosophies of Liquidity: Speed vs. Protection
The structural differences between the two markets stem from their regulatory origins. American hard money lending evolved as an entrepreneurial necessity to bypass the inefficiencies of the traditional banking system, mainly to fuel the “fix-and-flip” renovation market. It is an asset-centric model: if the collateral holds value, liquidity is provided.
In contrast, European bridging finance retains roots closer to traditional merchant banking. While asset-backed, it operates under the shadow of the Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD), an EU framework designed to prevent the over-leveraging of borrowers.² As a result, European underwriting scrutinizes the exit strategy with the same rigor as the asset itself, creating a more conservative, albeit slower, capital deployment environment.
The United States: Standardization and Velocity
The US hard money market is characterized by its homogeneity. Whether funding projects in Texas or Georgia, the loan structures are remarkably standardized, allowing for rapid scalability.
The “Business Purpose” Distinction
The liquidity of the US market relies heavily on the “Business Purpose” exemption. Lenders providing capital to corporate entities (such as LLCs) for non-owner-occupied properties can bypass many stringent consumer protection laws, such as Dodd-Frank. This regulatory split allows for execution speeds that are virtually impossible in Europe, with capital often deploying in under two weeks.
Valuation Methodologies: The ARV Model
Perhaps the most significant differentiator is the valuation metric. US lenders aggressively use the After Repair Value (ARV)—the projected value of the asset post-renovation.
It is standard practice to underwrite loans at 70% to 75% of ARV. This allows borrowers to achieve high leverage relative to the purchase price, effectively funding the acquisition and renovation costs. For the investor, this model offers higher yields (typically 9%–13%) to compensate for the execution risk inherent in speculative renovation projects.³
Enforcement: The Non-Judicial Advantage
The US model is underpinned by strong creditor rights. Many primary investment jurisdictions (including Texas and California) operate under “Non-Judicial Foreclosure” statutes. In the event of default, lenders can seize collateral through a trustee sale in as little as 30 to 60 days without court intervention. This swift enforcement mechanism reduces the risk premium associated with default, creating a highly liquid market.
Europe: The Fragmented Regulatory Environment
Crossing the Atlantic, the concept of a single “European market” dissolves. Investors face a collection of sovereign jurisdictions, each with unique property laws and enforcement protocols.
Valuation Conservatism: The OMV Standard
Unlike their American counterparts, European lenders rarely lend on speculative future value. The dominant metric is Open Market Value (OMV)—the value of the property in its current state.
Loans are typically capped at the lower of the purchase price or 60%–65% of OMV. While this limits the borrower’s leverage, it provides the lender with a substantial, immediate equity buffer. The trade-off is a compression in yield compared to the US, though this gap has narrowed amidst recent ECB rate hikes.
The Judicial Bottleneck
The primary risk for capital in Europe is not asset devaluation, but legal duration. Most European jurisdictions require judicial foreclosure processes. In borrower-friendly nations like France or Spain, recovering collateral can become a multi-year litigation process, particularly if the property is tenanted. This means private capital tends to concentrate in Northern European hubs (UK, Netherlands, Germany) where creditor rights are more clearly defined, or demands significantly higher risk premiums to enter Southern European markets.
Comparative Case Analysis
To illustrate the risk-adjusted return profiles, consider two hypothetical deployments of $1 million.
- Scenario A: The US “Value-Add” Loan. Capital is deployed into a renovation project in a non-judicial state. The loan is written at 70% of the future value (ARV), but potentially 100% of the current cost. The annualized yield approaches 12%. The risk is execution: if the renovation stalls, the lender inherits an incomplete asset. But the ability to foreclose in 45 days mitigates the carrying costs of a non-performing asset.
- Scenario B: The German “Bridge” Loan. Capital is deployed to refinance a stabilized apartment complex in Berlin. The loan is written at 55% of the current value (OMV). The yield is approximately 9%. The risk is not the asset quality, but the liquidity event. If the borrower defaults, the German judicial auction process (Zwangsversteigerung) guarantees eventual capital recovery, but the timeline may extend beyond 18 months.
Strategic Implications for Investors
For the institutional or private investor, the choice between these markets is a function of risk appetite and operational capability.
- Data Aggregation is Critical: Due to the fragmentation of these markets, identifying credible counterparties is the primary barrier to entry. In the US, the market is commoditized, but in Europe, it is bespoke. Tools that aggregate lender data—Lendersa.com is one example—have become useful for investors to benchmark rates and identify active originators across different jurisdictions, fixing the information asymmetry that often plagues private debt.
- Tax Efficiency Structures: Cross-border lending requires sophisticated tax structuring. The US “Portfolio Interest Exemption” allows many foreign investors to bypass withholding taxes. In contrast, lending into the UK or EU often requires specific treaty-based structures or the use of “Blocker Corporations” (e.g., in Luxembourg or Delaware) to convert interest income into tax-efficient dividends.⁴
- The Enforcement Reality: Investors seeking maximum velocity and yield are naturally drawn to the US ARV model. Yet, those prioritizing capital preservation and asset coverage may find the conservative LTVs of the European OMV model more aligned with a defensive strategy, provided they avoid jurisdictions with prohibitive foreclosure timelines.
Conclusion
The private debt market has evolved from a niche alternative to a systemic provider of liquidity. Yet, the Atlantic divide remains stark. The US offers a standardized, high-speed engine of capital efficiency, while Europe offers a conservative, equity-rich fortress guarded by regulatory complexity.
Success in this asset class requires more than just capital; it demands a deep understanding of the legal and cultural architectures that underpin these loans. The sophisticated investor does not choose one geography over the other arbitrarily but matches their portfolio with the specific risk mechanics of the jurisdiction.
About the Author
Moshon Reuveni is a real estate finance veteran with nearly five decades of experience in private equity and complex transactions. Based in Los Angeles, he serves as President of Lendersa, focusing on the intersection of AI and alternative financing. He is the author of AI Enters Hard Money Lending.
References
1. Preqin Global Private Debt Report (2024). Trends in Alternative Assets and Private Capital.
2. European Banking Authority. Directive 2014/17/EU on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property.
3. S&P Global Market Intelligence. The Evolution of Private Credit in North American Real Estate.
4. Deloitte Tax Perspectives. Cross-Border Withholding Tax Implications for Private Debt Funds.
Disclaimer: This article contains sponsored marketing content. It is intended for promotional purposes and should not be considered as an endorsement or recommendation by our website. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and exercise their own judgment before making any decisions based on the information provided in this article.
