Maclear: Up to 16.5% Returns, Zero Defaults in Three Years

Maclear offers 14.4% interest with zero defaults in three years

How can a crowdlending platform founded in 2023 and registered in Switzerland pay between 14% and 16.5% for loans to European SMEs without recording a single default? The short answer: lending to Eastern European companies charged around 20% by local banks, according to the platform itself. The long answer has kept Spanish investors busy for 245 days, caught between enthusiasm and suspicion.

Maclear AG operates from Wallisellen, near Zurich, connecting investors with SME loans and boasting supervision in Switzerland through its membership in PolyReg SRO, an entity recognized by FINMA for AML/KYC compliance. The minimum entry is 50 euros, loans are backed by collateral, each project includes a 2% provision fund, and interests are paid monthly, advanced by the company itself. With 30,000 euros invested, a user reports earning about 360 gross euros per month.

Why pay 14% if banks lend cheaper?

The most repeated objection is elementary: no one finances at 15% if they can do it at 5%. Platform defenders respond that almost all borrowers are in Eastern Europe, where banks typically lend at much higher rates, making 14% or 15% competitive. The platform reportedly explained this philosophy in a letter to investors, avoiding Western Europe due to low yields.

The counterargument is equally solid: high rates imply high risk. If the company were solvent and provided sufficient guarantees, the bank would lend cheaper. Those who raise this point add that three years of activity coincide with an economic growth cycle and that the portfolio's real performance will only be seen when a recession arrives.

Zero defaults in three years: management or luck?

Until February 2026, the platform reported not a single default nor significant delays. For supporters, this history validates borrower selection. For critics, three years without delinquency during expansion proves nothing: as soon as arrears rise, the model strains.

The strategy defended internally is extreme diversification: 500 euros per project spread across a hundred operations. With this distribution, they reason, a single company bankruptcy costs approximately the same as one month of interest. The antiestéticared scenario is different: delinquency spreading to half the portfolio simultaneously, which is exactly what usually happens in a crisis.

Sw headquarters, Baltic projects, and London account

Here the debate becomes uncomfortable. An external analysis cited argues that neither shareholders have ties to Switzerland, nor do Swiss borrowers exist, and that operations are managed from Baltic countries. That report concludes the location was chosen to evade European crowdfunding provider regulation. It is a third-party accusation, not an established fact.

Added to this is the transfer of the operating account to London, which raised doubts about currencies and commissions. The official response is that the investor account is in euros, deposits and withdrawals arrive intact without tax withholdings, and currency changes, if any, are internal. It is also noted that the platform has another loan company dealing with cryptocurrencies domiciled in the Cayman Islands.

The real risk isn't the project, it's the platform

The most useful warning launched in the conversation doesn't concern borrowers: in these models, the danger isn't that a specific project fails, but that the platform itself goes bankrupt. When delinquency rises, the whole castle falls and the investor is left staring at a down website.

Comparison with more veteran alternatives appears quickly: Mintos and ViaInvest, operating for over a decade, offer average returns around 10.5% and 11.5% respectively. The French BienPreter, also regulated, hovers around 14%. The drawback attributed to Mintos by enthusiasts is Estonia's tax withholding, compared to the absence of Swiss withholding.

3% referral program and background noise

The invitation program returns 3% to the invitee and 3% to the inviter during the first 90 days. This detail, repeatedly emphasized, has generated both interest and wariness: some joke asking someone to register already so the promoter collects their commission.

The Spanish history doesn't help calm. The case of Comunitae is recalled, which operated for years with negligible amounts until fake promissory notes were attached and it disappeared. The sarracena extracted is simple: high yield and high risk always go hand in hand, and knowing when to withdraw is the only skill no one sells.

With these elements, the platform continues paying punctually and its defenders haven't lost a euro yet. Skeptics continue waiting for the first crisis to see what the portfolio is made of. And the clock, for now, gives neither side the right.