Despite investor fears, private credit is far from a meltdown because not all risks are the same.
The cracks in the private credit market appear to be widening.
Private credit is a significant alternative to syndicated bank loans as a source of corporate capital provided predominantly by private equity (PE) firms. The market is heavily involved in financing data center capacity, which is burgeoning along with the demand for artificial intelligence. Investors fear that the artificial intelligence capital spending boom poses a threat to the software industry and may be creating a market bubble that leaves private credit funds overly exposed.
Yet there are reasons to believe the potential damage to the private credit market remains manageable and contained.
This article appears in the May 2026 issue of Global Finance Magazine. .
To be sure, when auto parts seller First Brands announced its bankruptcy late last year, which was financed by a credit fund sponsored by investment bank Jefferies Group, it raised alarms in some quarters. Underscoring the opacity of private credit, which is largely unregulated, were allegations that First Brands had borrowed against the same receivables more than once. Meanwhile, defaults elsewhere in the credit sector hit a record high in 2025, according to Fitch Ratings, reaching a 9.2% rate, more than double the 3.6% recorded in 2023. Default rates this January continued upward, reaching 9.4% before slightly easing in February to 5.4%.
As the First Brands financing reveals, banks as well as PE firms are involved in private credit, either by financing investment funds sponsored by Ares Capital, Antares, Apollo, Blackstone, Blue Owl, and the like, or via funds of their own. With pension funds, insurance companies, and increasingly, individuals investing in private credit, law firm Quinn Emanuel warned in a March client memo that the trend may pose systemic risk, even though private credit is still a relatively small part of the overall loan market.
“The result is a transmission chain that runs from the technology companies, through private credit originators, to the regulated banks that lend to them, to the insurers and pension funds that invest alongside them, and potentially to the retirement accounts of ordinary Americans,” the memo’s authors warned.
Only a minority of small corporate borrowers are in trouble, and companies with EBITDA of $25 million or less experienced significantly higher default rates—15.8%—than larger companies in 2025. Healthcare and consumer companies have higher default rates. Fitch also notes that realized losses for first-lien lenders have been limited, with most cases resulting in full or high-percentage recoveries.
Notably, private credit default rates historically tend to run higher than those on broadly syndicated loans, a trend some observers attribute to more customized, and sometimes distressed, lending terms. The January uptick was largely driven by “distressed” exchanges and payment-in-kind (PIK) interest, according to Fitch.
Concerns are growing about PE funds exposed to software. Investors worry that AI will disrupt the software industry, leading to defaults within portfolios of private-credit loans to the sector. But most such funds are diversified, and even those that aren’t may not be as vulnerable to disruption by AI as investors fear. That’s because the large language models underpinning AI require application program interfaces to operate, so software may still be needed to facilitate the technology’s use.
“Implementing AI still requires significant effort to get it to work in a particular environment,” Alen Lin, senior director of North America corporates, technology, at Fitch Ratings, told audiences at a recent webinar held by the firm.
Of course, much depends on the type of application involved. As Fitch notes, companies producing software that is either deeply embedded in enterprise technology systems, leverages proprietary data, or operates in more regulated industries like health care and financial services could benefit from the development of AI. By contrast, those producing software for applications that aren’t so embedded, such as digital content creation or certain types of analytics and visualization tools, are more exposed to AI disruption.
Even if the AI bubble bursts, that risk is unlikely to evaporate, Lyle Margolis, senior director in Fitch’s corporates group, where he manages its private credit business, said in an interview with Global Finance. “AI is here to stay and is going to be disruptive to certain segments of the software market,” he says.
Yet the risks may be overstated. Whether measured by leverage, interest coverage, or EBITDA, “the trends in the software sector have actually been somewhat positive,” he noted. Refinancing risk for the sector is relatively benign. And data-center build-out provides one of several “significant tailwinds” for private credit in the software sector, added Dafina Dunmore, Fitch’s senior director of North American non-bank financial institutions.
Another mitigating factor: Redemption risk, which can see large outflows of capital. However, it is limited largely to business development companies (BDCs), a more liquid, retail-oriented variety of private-credit investment vehicle. Blue Owl, for example, recently blocked redemptions at one of its BDCs and liquidated some others. And the $33 billion Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund, the largest US private-credit interval received redemption requests on 14%.
Although defaults are rising for these portfolios, redemption risk isn’t a problem for most credit funds, because investors are locked in until maturity. In addition, stress is concentrated in direct lending: corporate loans that fund working capital and growth.
To be sure, many such risks may be hidden, given private credit’s opacity. Blue Owl’s exposure to software loans, among the highest in the industry, is roughly twice as extensive as its public filings indicate, according to a recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal. The paper also found other PE firms whose credit funds exhibit software exposure exceeding what’s publicly disclosed include Blackstone, Ares, and Apollo.
Investor worries may exacerbate Blue Owl’s redemption woes since its data center financing deals involve accounting practices that obscure the risk involved. The main source of concern is likely Blue Owl’s $27.3 billion financing of Meta’s Hyperion data center in Louisiana.
Yet, S&P rates the bond backing the deal, called Beignet, as Meta’s obligation, reflecting that it bears the risk of default. Indeed, investors seem to like that cash-rich Meta stands behind Beignet. The bond was recently spread over a bond financing the CoreWeave data center, which isn’t backed by the hyperscaler.
Still, some wonder if the risks are adequately priced into these issues.
Quinn Emanuel warns that the vagaries of Meta’s accounting treatment may lead to litigation between the parties over who bears the loss if AI fails to meet expectations and Meta chooses not to renew the lease. Blue Owl finances an Oracle data center in similar fashion, but that bond is trading at a discount to Meta’s, partly because Oracle doesn’t back it and partly because the ultimate tenant is less financially stable OpenAI.
“When we rate data centers, to some extent we look at the credit quality of the ultimate tenant,” says Victor Leung, vice president for project finance at ratings firm DBRS Morningstar.
This type of complexity led Quinn Emanuel to warn in its March 13 memo that, “the AI data center buildout—projected to require $5.2 trillion in infrastructure investment by decade’s end—has spawned complex financing structures that are generating significant litigation risk.”
Mark Koziel, CEO of the International Association of International Certified Professional Accountants and president-CEO of the American Institute of CPAs, says he would raise the issue of current accounting rules for such financing arrangements at an upcoming meeting with the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Also last month, the US Department of the Treasury said it would meet with industry and investor representatives to discuss private credit’s potential risk to the financial system.
Thus far, warnings of a private credit meltdown seem overstated.
Credit funds focused on asset-backed finance (ABF), which is based on the value of a borrower’s assets and is the fastest-growing sector in the market, are relatively immune to stress, thanks to their self-liquidating feature. In contrast to direct loans, principal on asset-backed financings is paid back during the life of the loan. As a result, ABF funds don’t face the same refinancing risk as direct lenders.
Sponsors of direct lending funds “don’t have the benefit of those cash flows directed to pay down the loans,” notes Fitch’s Margolies.
Apart from First Brands’ receivables deal with Jefferies, the ABF segment has yet to be fully tested. But a test may soon be underway: Beignet is also asset-backed. Or sort of.
Debt principal remains outstanding at each renewal point, so it isn’t completely self-amortizing. As a result, DBRS Morningstar’s Leung notes, “you face a risk that your facility will lose its source of revenue.” Hence, Meta’s guarantee that it will make up any loss facing investors if it fails to renew the lease and the facility’s residual value falls below a certain threshold.
That scenario is not far-fetched, Quinn Emanuel warns, noting that it’s expensive to convert an AI data center to general-purpose cloud computing or other uses: “If demand for AI computing contracts, these facilities may function as stranded assets with limited alternative use and depressed liquidation value.”
whitemay
Home 
Private Credit Suntera’s Von Bevern on the ‘Speed’ Advantage of Private Credit
Michael Von Bevern of Suntera breaks down how private credit lenders are faster and act more like business partners than banks in a tightening global market.
As traditional banks continue to retreat from risk, private credit is stepping in to provide the speed and execution that entrepreneurs desire. Global Finance spoke with Michael Von Bevern, Global Head of Funds at Suntera Global, about why this “unregulated” sector has become a permanent fixture in the funding landscape.
Global Finance: What are the benefits of being a private credit borrower?
Michael Von Bevern: The big benefit is speed. It can be relatively simplistic, depending on what type of borrowing you’re going for. In a direct-lending situation, like a senior term loan, it is usually simple because your risk profile is clear. For anything less senior, such as mezzanine or subordinated debt, the advantage is that it provides capital without diluting ownership. That’s important for entrepreneurs. They just need cash flow to grow and don’t necessarily want to give up equity. And they don’t want to be taken to the cleaners for raising equity. In those cases, mezzanine or subordinated debt can be a really effective solution.
In our business, we see a lot of NAV (Net Asset Value) lending, where a fund’s assets serve as collateral. This helps borrowers boost returns and navigate tricky markets, especially when raising equity is difficult. I also see a lot of action in specialty finance, or the asset-based lending space. The borrower is unlocking liquidity at usually more favorable rates than going to banks.
GF: Are banks really that cumbersome?
Von Bevern: Well, they don’t take risks. That’s not what they do. They bet on sure things, whereas in our industry, we fill the gap for high-growth companies seeking custom, quick solutions. We have a lender at Suntera — Carlyle Group. They’re extremely helpful. It’s like having a business partner.
GF: You wouldn’t get extra assistance with, say, JPMorgan Chase or Morgan Stanley?
Von Bevern: We bank with JPMorgan here in the U.S. Don’t get me wrong — I love JPMorgan. But, they’re not the risk-takers. If you need speed, if you need execution quickly, banks aren’t known for that. Specialty lenders — whether focused on a particular sector or type of credit — can move much faster than a bank. That speed can make the difference in whether a deal gets done. There’s a lot of competition out there, especially with the IPO market drying up. Finding ways to create liquidity and still grow your company is critical. At the end of the day, banks are regulated. These lenders aren’t, so they just view credit differently than your average fund lender.
GF: Is the unregulated party going to end soon?
Von Bevern: I don’t think so.
GF: Why not?
Von Bevern: I’ve been doing this for 20 years, and people have been talking about regulating private credit the whole time. I just don’t see it happening. If you did regulate it, you’d basically be regulating private equity and venture capital, too. What makes it work is that there are highly skilled, disciplined people in this industry who can lend responsibly while helping companies achieve their goals — whether it’s M&A, expansion, or growth. I can’t see regulation coming in and dampening that.
GF: How do you pay back a private credit lender like Ares, Blackstone, KKR, or Carlyle?
Von Bevern: I can’t speak to the Carlyle loan specifically, but in general, we see lots of different loan agreements as a fund admin and loan agent. The key thing is flexibility—these agreements are designed for repayment, but they give you options: payment-in-kind (PIK) interest option, rollovers, and adjustable-to-fixed contracts. They’re structured to support your growth while giving you room to navigate the business.
GF: So, with Suntera and Carlyle, is there someone on the ground at Suntera who can offer expertise or perspective, given how sector-specific it is?
Von Bevern: I can’t speak to Suntera and Carlyle, but large private credit lenders work across multiple industries and verticals. That means when you’re in a specific sector and need liquidity, they bring a wealth of experience from similar companies. They can act almost like a business partner — advising on how you use the proceeds, what your expected returns might be, and even on covenants in loan agreements.
Over the years, I’ve seen lenders in areas like recycling, renewables, and reusability not only provide capital but also offer extensive guidance about the business itself. It’s similar to what private equity would provide — but without the dilution.
GF: Wouldn’t these companies get money from a traditional bank if they could? And are these companies already a credit risk?
Von Bevern: There’s some risk in every loan. The less risky borrowers are usually the ones banks handle. Banks set strict guardrails and count on repayment. Private credit, on the other hand, often funds the next level down or borrowers that need speed of execution that banks can’t offer. The risk depends on the loan structure — whether it’s collateralized or uncollateralized, senior or mezzanine — and is managed through interest rates, covenants, and other terms.
Looking ahead, we’re approaching a refinancing cycle that will make the embedded risk in today’s market clearer — probably by the end of 2027. Even so, defaults remain rare, and most borrowers are likely to refinance without issue. Of course, there will always be cases, like Blue Owl, that attract attention, but those don’t indicate a broad crisis.
GF: U.S. small business insolvency filings jumped 67% year over year. Many point to inflation, geopolitical instability, and tightening credit as key factors.
Von Bevern: A few years ago, when interest rates were historically low, it was easier to match lenders with portfolio companies in a way that worked for both sides. Today, with interest rates much higher, we’re entering a cyclical period that naturally creates stress for these businesses. Your stat isn’t surprising, but structurally, the market remains sound. It’s also hard to know how many of these insolvencies were directly due to loans or credit constraints.
GF: The European Central Bank’s fourth-quarter data shows euro-area banks are tightening credit standards. Are you seeing private credit growth globally as a result?
Von Bevern: The expansion of private credit is definitely a global trend. We operate in the U.K., the Channel Islands, the U.S., Singapore, Hong Kong, the Bahamas, and other markets, and the trends are similar across regions — interest rates have risen everywhere. Even with higher rates, defaults haven’t spiked as some might have expected. Lending today is often collateralized, not just unsecured, and large funds, like BlackRock’s $20 billion credit fund, are expanding the pool of borrowers, which naturally introduces a wider spectrum of risk — but that’s manageable. Competition among private lenders has increased significantly, thanks to abundant dry powder and a mature, experienced market. Looking ahead, the refinancing cycle over the next year or two will be interesting to watch, but I don’t see it as a systemic problem.
GF: Should ETFs, retirement accounts, and pension funds incorporate private credit companies?
Von Bevern: They already are. Private credit exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are definitely among the fastest-growing segments of the business. And they can be either directly with the lender or the stock of a company that does a lot of private credit lending. So it’s a sort of direct and indirect way to get into the ETF part of it.
GF: So you’re clearly bullish about private credit. Is there anything you’re bearish about?
Von Bevern: Going into 2026, I expected it to be a strong fundraising year. There’s a lot of dry powder, and many managers still have to fully invest the funds they raised in prior years before starting new ones. Overall, that made me bullish.
What concerns me is emerging managers. With so much dry powder flowing to established names, it’s harder for new managers to raise funds. It’s going to the sort of household names. Intense selectivity and abundant opportunities are making it harder for emerging managers in our space to gain attention. It’s not that they can’t be successful; there just won’t be that many of them. I’ve worked with hundreds of emerging managers over my career, and many struggle to get off the ground even with strong pedigrees.
Emerging managers often provide more specialized attention to portfolio companies, which can translate into better returns. If this segment struggles, it could constrain that part of the alternatives market. But hopefully this too will pass.
Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Private credit faces mounting stress from liquidity mismatches, fraud concerns, and macro pressures, even as bullish sentiment persists.
Private credit has avoided a “Lehman moment,” but pressure is building across liquidity, leverage, and transparency—raising doubts about how long the asset class can withstand its visible cracks.
Some investors have had enough. Consider the surge in redemption requests at firms like Morgan Stanley, Apollo Global Management, BlackRock and Blue Owl Capital. Each firm capped withdrawals at 5% per fund, and saw their stock prices plummet. At a glance, this exodus of money signals that an endgame could be near.
Larry Fink, the billionaire CEO of BlackRock, attempted to quell fears on an earnings call last week, insisting that institutional demand is accelerating. Meanwhile, financial regulators are raising red flags. Financial Stability Board Chair Andrew Bailey warned in an April letter to the G20 that geopolitical tensions, such as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, could reduce asset quality and further strain private credit funds.
The dichotomy has finance pros scratching their heads, wondering what to make of a key part of the $15 trillion private markets ecosystem. If data from U.K.-based data company Preqin is correct, private credit could exceed $30 trillion by 2030. Even with solid fundamentals, private credit’s mounting liquidity concerns, leverage risks and macroeconomic pressures are testing its resilience.
“This is not a single-firm story,” Former Nasdaq Vice Chairman David Weild told Global Finance. “It is sector-wide.”
Fink may be right; private credit offers compelling risk-adjusted returns, Weild, now an advisor at private-credit platform KoreInside, said. “However, if the claim is that you can deliver those returns inside a vehicle that promises quarterly or monthly liquidity to retail investors, one will inevitably discover that in times of market stress, the demand for liquidity will exceed the short-term supply of liquidity.”
Recent turmoil in private credit has raised questions about whether 2026 could bring a broader retrenchment. The industry faces growing scrutiny over fraud risks, regulatory pressure, and the impact of AI-driven disruption. Transparency concerns are also weighing on investor confidence, highlighted by automotive parts supplier First Brands Group, which has filed for bankruptcy protection and has allegedly concealed billions of dollars in debt from lenders, including exposure in private credit accounts held by BlackRock.
Software lending has come under particular focus, given its large share of private credit portfolios. AI-driven disruption is now raising concerns about future credit losses.
“The combination of AI-driven disruption in enterprise software valuations, tighter lending standards, and redemption pressure on the very BDC vehicles that would normally provide refinancing capacity creates a compounding problem,” Weild said. “Some private credit funds are already turning away software companies outright, given the impact of AI on that industry.”
Private credit bulls need to rethink “real structural challenges,” such as how capital is raised, how vehicles are structured, and what level of education advisors need going forward, said Prath Reddy, President of Percent Securities. A lack of accessible data, limited liquidity, and insufficient options for tailored exposure also give him pause.
“We are certainly in a stress scenario now,” said Reddy. “Leaving [these issues] unaddressed leaves a tremendous amount of capital on the table from wealth management channels.”
Private credit might be under the microscope, but some private equity players continue to cash in. Ares Management raised $9.8 billion for an opportunistic credit strategy, Adams Street Partners closed its $7.5 billion Private Credit III fund, and Carlyle Group raised $1.5 billion in initial funding for a new asset-backed finance vehicle.
“For private credit to keep working at this scale, liquidity structures, leverage levels, and repayment timelines all need to remain aligned as exits take longer and refinancing becomes more selective,” said Jun Li, EY’s Global and Americas Wealth & Asset Management Leader. Stress arises when those assumptions break down simultaneously.
“A true stress scenario would likely involve refinancing risk colliding with slower exits and shifting liquidity expectations, particularly if capital is locked up longer than anticipated and operating models are not built to absorb that pressure,” Li added.
Big banks—both competitors and partners to nonbank lenders—are trying to project calm.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, for example, downplayed concerns about the private credit sector on an April 14, 2026, earnings call. That’s in stark contrast to his take last year, when Dimon referred to the bankruptcy proceedings of First Brands and TriColor—two companies that relied on private credit—as “cockroaches.“
JPMorgan Chase is now tightening certain relationships with private credit funds to limit exposure amid volatility. Goldman Sachs and Barclays are taking a similar risk-management stance.
“On one side, fundamentals still look supportive with institutional capital stepping in as banks pull back,” Li said. On the other hand, pressures are building around liquidity, leverage, and refinancing, which naturally raises systemic questions.
As Li put it: “This doesn’t look like an endgame, but it does look like a decisive moment.”
From here, Li is predicting that private credit will separate into managers who can operate through longer cycles, tighter liquidity, and greater scrutiny, and those who cannot.
“Some strategies may struggle, but the broader market is still evolving rather than unwinding,” Li added. “The outcome will depend less on a single shock and more on how well firms adapt to a more demanding environment.”
Other observers are more bullish. Attorney Derek Ladgenski, a partner specializing in private credit at Katten Muchin Rosenman, argued that experienced market participants will ultimately work through the sector’s challenges.
“The Avengers are closer to an endgame than private credit,” said Ladgenski. “The tombstone for private credit has been written many times before.”
Ladgenski said that while cyclical pressures exist across all asset classes, the deeper challenge in private credit is liquidity mismatch—an outcome, in part, of significant investor inflows chasing its strong historical track record and forward-looking returns.
Still, any “stickiness” will ultimately strengthen the sector, he added. “And the current sound bites and headlines regarding any death knells will be forgotten soon enough.”
ICICI Bank beats on Q4 earnings after strong credit growth
Source link