Two friends want to buy an apartment to rent it out, but neither of them passes the bank’s filter alone. The application is rejected, not due to insufficient combined income, but because the bank assesses each borrower individually. This scenario is becoming increasingly common with mortgage rates stabilized around 3.1% in 2026 and loan durations exceeding 21 years on average.
Investing together in real estate has never made more sense, provided you choose the right legal and financial framework.
Collective real estate loan: the setup that banks do not spontaneously offer
When you walk into a bank branch with a plan to buy together, you are faced with two default options: joint ownership with a traditional loan, or the creation of a real estate company (SCI). Advisors rarely guide you towards a loan structured specifically for a group of unrelated investors.
The collective real estate loan works differently. It is based on a financial commitment calibrated to the capacity of each co-borrower, with defined shares established at the signing. Each person repays their share, and the bank has cross guarantees that secure the entire setup.
This type of financing exists, and it represents an alternative for investing together without having to create a company. It avoids setup fees, annual accounting obligations, and the administrative burden of an SCI, while providing a clear contractual framework between co-investors.
End of Pinel and LMNP reform: what changes for rental investment together
Competitors talk about financing as if the tax context were fixed. It is no longer. The end of the Pinel scheme and the reform of the LMNP status profoundly change the profitability equation of a collective rental project.
Without the Pinel, the tax reduction that compensated for low rental yield has disappeared. An investment together must now be justified by its actual rental income, not by a tax advantage. This is a complete shift in logic.
On the LMNP side, the reform limits the depreciation options that allowed for significant tax reductions on rents. For a group of investors, this means recalculating the net taxation before committing. Returns vary on this point depending on the location of the property and the tax regime chosen by each co-investor.
Concrete consequences on the financial setup
- The targeted gross yield must be higher than before to compensate for the absence of a tax advantage, which directs towards medium-sized cities or properties requiring renovation
- The distribution of expenses among co-investors must take into account each individual’s tax situation, not just the percentage of ownership
- The choice between joint ownership and SCI now depends more on the tax regime than on administrative simplicity
Borrowing capacity together: how banks assess your application
It is often assumed that buying as a group of three multiplies borrowing capacity by three. The banking reality is more nuanced. Each co-borrower is assessed based on their individual debt ratio, capped by the rules of the HCSF. If one of the three exceeds the threshold, the application can be weakened, even if the other two are highly solvent.
The Bank of France reports an average rate of 3.11% on new housing loans in April 2026. At this level, borrowing for more than 20 years remains the norm. For a group of investors, extending the duration allows for manageable monthly payments for each, but increases the total cost of the loan.
What the bank prioritizes
The first filter is income stability. A permanent contract remains the standard, but some banks accept mixed profiles (one employee and one self-employed) if the personal contribution compensates for the perceived risk. The group’s combined contribution weighs more heavily than the individual contribution in negotiating the rate.
The second filter concerns solidarity among co-borrowers. In joint ownership, each person is jointly liable for the entire debt. In an SCI, liability is limited to shares. This choice directly alters the level of risk the bank is willing to accept, and thus the loan conditions.
Agreement between co-investors: clauses not to overlook
Financing is only half the problem. The other half is what happens when a co-investor wants to exit the project, or when they can no longer pay their share.
Without a written agreement, the Civil Code applies by default. In joint ownership, any co-investor can trigger the sale of the property at any time. A joint ownership agreement signed before a notary blocks this forced exit for a defined period, usually five years renewable.
The points to secure in this agreement are specific:
- The right of preemption for other co-investors in case of resale of shares, with a timeframe and a method for calculating the price
- The distribution of current expenses (property tax, repairs, insurance) and the procedure in case of a member’s payment default
- The conditions for early exit, including the buyback of shares by remaining co-investors or by an approved third party
- The designation of a manager or representative for day-to-day decisions, to avoid unanimous blockage
SCI or joint ownership: a choice that depends on the project
For a rental purchase among friends or associates without family ties, the SCI offers better protection in case of conflict. For a purchase among family members with a long-term horizon, a conventional joint ownership is often sufficient and cheaper to set up.
The real decision criterion is the planned holding period and the number of co-investors. Beyond three people, managing joint ownership becomes cumbersome. An SCI with a designated manager simplifies day-to-day decisions and rental management.
Regardless of the setup chosen, drafting the agreement or statutes by a notary remains the only way to secure each party. The cost of this formalization represents a fraction of the property’s price, but protects against disputes that can cost much more.