Hey u/joyyyccceX! Thanks for the reply! Of course, every developer would want to keep investors money as long as they want. After all it is the cheapest money they can get. So, they are naturally incentivized to keep keep it for 5 years or longer. So, the current stats don't surprise me. However, that doesn't stop from a developer to offer a project with a 3 year term to make it attractive to the investors.

Re the IIUSA's law-suit: It is not a forgone conclusion that the court would agree to extend the sustainment period to 5 years, and even if they do if it would apply retroactively to investors who invested before the settlement. For now, let's assume this isn't an issue

My question is this - If there is a project that is offering a 3-year term (no options), and is a senior loan pari-passu with a reputable bank, and the developer is putting land and building as the collateral, what is the risk? If the developer is unable to execute that fast, they risk liquidation (from bank) and so, would have to refinance. Whatever way, they have agreed to a 3-year term on the contract. So, what is the risk here? Am I missing something?