deepen

Banks and Private Credit Deepen Ties Amid Rising Risks

Banks are joining private equity funds in issuing private credit to corporate borrowers—despite regulators’ concerns about unseen risks.

As private equity becomes an increasingly dominant force in backing corporate transactions, banks are taking an “If you can’t beat ’em, join’em” approach to the business of debt-capital financing.

Standing to benefit are corporate borrowers that otherwise cannot get traditional bank financing. But the intertwining of largely unregulated private credit and regulated bank lending—with the attendant risk of government bailouts of providers of both if their loans go bad—raises questions about threats to the financial system.

What once would have been considered an unlikely partnership is nevertheless liable to deepen, since the forces behind it have been building for some time.

The global industry of private credit, supplied mainly through closed-end credit funds sponsored by the same PE firms that back equity vehicles, has grown dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis. It boasts $2.8 trillion in assets under management (AUM) at last count, up from $200 billion in the early 2000s, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Correspondingly, bank lending fell from 44% of all US corporate borrowing in 2020 to 35% in 2023, an analysis by global consultancy Deloitte of Federal Reserve data found.


“Some private credit funds may have a degree of liquidity mismatch between their investments and the redemption terms of their investors.”

Lee Foulger, Bank of England


Use of private credit is expanding dramatically elsewhere as well. The BIS estimates that total outstanding private credit loan volumes have increased globally from around $100 billion in 2010 to over $1.2 trillion today, with more than 87% of the total originating in the US. Europe, excluding the UK, has accounted for about 6% of the total in recent years, and the UK about 3% to 4%, with Canada making up most of the rest. Assets in credit funds under management in Asia-Pacific total about $92.9 billion, up from $15.4 billion in 2014, according to research firm Preqin.

The appeal of private credit to corporate borrowers is clear: Many middle-market businesses, often backed by private equity sponsors, prefer private credit for its speed, flexibility, confidentiality, and reduced disclosure obligations compared to public bond markets available through broadly syndicated loans (BSLs). Those advantages are starting to attract larger, more creditworthy companies as well.

Banks, meanwhile, increasingly are lending to private credit funds for purposes of financing corporate borrowers, often those in the sponsors’ equity portfolios. Such lending often takes the form of so-called direct lending: commercial loans used by corporates for working capital or growth financing, that the industry contends traditional banks would not underwrite.

Bank lending to the private credit industry was estimated by the Federal Reserve in May 2023 at $200 billion, and the Fed acknowledged its estimate may have understated the actual amount. Fitch Ratings found that nine of the 10 banks with the largest loan balances to non-bank financial intermediaries of all kinds had $158 billion in loans to private credit funds or related vehicles at the end of last year. And the amount of outstanding loans extended by banks to private credit funds grew by 23% in the quarter ended June 30, compared with the previous quarter, versus only 1.4% for bank lending overall, Fitch reports.

The increasing importance of bank lending to private credit is well illustrated by Blackstone Private Credit Fund, one of the largest private credit funds in the world with over $50 billion in assets. Fully 98% of the $23.5 billion in secured credit commitment facilities arranged by its subsidiaries as of December 2022 were provided by 13 banks, the remaining amount from an insurance company. The outstanding amounts drawn on these facilities totaled some $14 billion, accounting for about 50% of the fund’s total debt liabilities.

A Deepening Collaboration

Of course, banks have long been involved in financing PE buyouts, such as Sycamore Partners buyout of Walgreens Boots Alliance. Two other PE firms, HPS Investment Partners and Ares Management, together provided $4.5 billion in direct lending for the deal while banks including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase put together financing proposals to work jointly with private credit, providing some access to the BSL market. Overall, the deal Sycamore completed in August is valued at $23.7 billion, with over $10 billion in committed financing coming from private credit funds and banks.

Increasingly, cooperation between banks and PE firms is taking the shape of direct lending to borrowers. PNC Financial and TCW Group, for instance, have partnered to create a lending platform for middle-market companies. And Citizens Financial Group has built out a unit focused on lending to PE funds.

Competition from banks is also growing. Standard Chartered and Goldman are readying their own units devoted to extending private credit while Morgan Stanley is launching funds to exploit private credit opportunities. The loans may not stay on banks’ balance sheets for long, as risk is transferred once investors’ capital is deployed. But just as the securitization market froze up in the inflationary post-Covid environment, so too may risk transfer when liquidity abruptly disappears.

Indeed, regulators are concerned that banks’ involvement in private credit, whether through cooperation or competition with PE, poses hidden risks to the financial system. Researchers from the Bank of England (BoE), the BIS, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Federal Reserve, among others, have issued reports recently warning of the systemic financial risk these relationships may pose. Without greater visibility, the BoE, for one, has instructed banks to bolster their risk management in this arena.

“Some private credit funds may have a degree of liquidity mismatch between their investments and the redemption terms of their investors,” Lee Foulger, director of Financial Stability, Strategy, and Risk at the BoE, warned in a January 2024 speech to a middle-market finance conference sponsored by Deal Catalyst and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe.

Who’s More Creditworthy?

The industry counters such concerns by pointing out that credit funds are less likely to have loan defaults than in the BSL market as sponsors typically monitor borrowers’ performance more closely, use less leverage, adopt more conservative loan-to-value structures, and offer more flexible terms than banks, while locking up investors for long periods. In a recent report, “Understanding Private Credit,” Ares Management contends that its borrowers are more creditworthy than those in the public markets and are supported by more equity and that while the private credit market is still small in comparison, it is on its way to becoming even less leveraged while any funding mismatch will diminish as it grows.

Yet concerns remain, especially given the prospect of a challenging economic environment ahead.

Fitch, for instance, notes that the industry has yet to weather higher interest rates. As the ratings firm put it in a June report, “Sponsors and lenders had largely assumed a low base rate environment, as signaled by the Fed amid expectations of transitory inflation, when determining the optimal sizes of capital structures against revenue, EBITDA, and free cash-flow projections.”

As for liquidity risk, Fitch analyst Julie Solar notes that a growing number of credit funds are open-ended and subject to runs under difficult circumstances. Although she concedes that the number of such funds is still small, at least in the US, and many feature limits on redemptions, she adds that the issue bears watching. If many more open-end funds are created and rates rise significantly, she warns, “that is when you can start to have liquidity issues.”

In the eurozone, 42% of funds are open-ended, according to the ECB, although most of their investors are institutional and tend to have longer time horizons than retail investors.

Solar also raises concern about what she called “leverage upon leverage,” noting that business development companies—publicly traded vehicles that account for about half of private credit—as well as PE firms themselves are often significantly indebted to banks. Indeed, bank lending for buyouts may be an even greater risk, simply because it is so much larger than direct lending.

Banks’ involvement in credit funds is an added concern for regulators. A May 2024 financial stability report from the ECB pointed out, “Private markets still need to prove their resilience in an environment of higher interest rates as they have grown to a significant size only in the past decade.”

The industry counters that interest rates on many if not most of its loans float, eliminating the need for refinancing in a rising rate environment. But that’s likely to do nothing for the borrowers themselves.

“The floating-rate debt structure of private credit agreements makes them vulnerable to challenges around debt servicing and refinancing in a higher rate environment,” the BoE’s Foulger noted at the January 2024 conference.

A Federal Reserve Bank of Boston report in May acknowledged that banks’ losses could be mitigated in response to adverse conditions as most private credit debt is secured and among the funds’ most senior liabilities. Yet, the authors cautioned that “substantial losses could also occur in a less adverse scenario if the default correlation among the loans in [private credit] portfolios turned out to be higher than anticipated—that is, if a larger-than-expected number of [private credit] borrowers defaulted at the same time. Such tail risk may be underappreciated.”

Source link

How triggering snapback sanctions may deepen Iran nuclear crisis | Nuclear Energy News

Washington, DC – The decision by European countries to impose “snapback” sanctions against Iran may further exacerbate international tensions, experts say, as fears of a regional war loom over the Middle East.

On Thursday, Germany, France and the United Kingdom – Europe’s largest economies – triggered a 30-day process to reimpose sanctions over what they called “significant” violations of a 2015 agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear programme.

“What we’re heading toward is the snapback scenario where the sanctions come back and Iran is likely to retaliate in some way that’s unhelpful,” said Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).

And the tensions could escalate into renewed violence after the Israeli attacks on Iran earlier this year. “It’s another kind of domino falling on the way toward the June war reigniting,” Costello said.

The United States, which bombed three nuclear facilities in June as part of an Israeli assault on Iran, has welcomed the European countries’ move.

But the administration of US President Donald Trump has also kept the door open for talks with Iran.

“The United States remains available for direct engagement with Iran – in furtherance of a peaceful, enduring resolution to the Iran nuclear issue,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. “Snapback does not contradict our earnest readiness for diplomacy, it only enhances it.”

Costello, however, underscored that Iran was at the table before Israel launched its 12-day war.

A round of nuclear talks between US and Iranian officials was set to take place on June 15. But Israeli bombs started falling on Tehran two days before the scheduled negotiations, postponing them indefinitely.

Costello said that, in order to return to the nuclear discussions, the US and Europe first have to rebuild trust with Iran.

“The overwhelming sentiment in Iran is that those talks were all a ruse – that Israel was going to attack Iran with US support to some degree regardless of what they did at the negotiating table,” he told Al Jazeera. “So both the Europeans and the US have to reflect that reality.”

What is snapback?

The current crisis can be traced back to Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal during his first term in 2018.

The 2015 accord – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – compelled Iran to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

But to ensure that Iran can be penalised quickly if it violates the agreement, the deal included a “snapback” mechanism to reimpose a series of United Nations sanctions.

The mechanism gave any signatory to the agreement – the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia or China – the power to kickstart a process to revive six UN Security Council sanctions resolutions.

And the snapback is veto-proof, meaning Russia and China, both allies of Iran, cannot block the restoration of the sanctions.

In 2020, the US tried to activate the snapback clause of the JCPOA, but the effort failed because Washington was no longer a party in the agreement.

Since the US exit in 2018, Iran has been gradually escalating its nuclear programme, but Iranian officials insist that the country is not seeking a nuclear weapon.

Thursday’s decision to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran appears to be timed against the expiration of the snapback provision in October, which marks 10 years after the nuclear deal came into effect.

Experts say the governments in Paris, London and Berlin are essentially invoking a provision from a long-abandoned agreement to secure UN sanctions against Iran.

Sina Toossi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said the snapback was included in the JCPOA to ensure that all sides abide by the deal, but European powers are using it to further pressure Iran.

“The overall US and European approach to Iran has been just brute power – like might is right,” Toossi told Al Jazeera.

“Anything about legal contacts and history and international norms doesn’t matter. They just want to use this instrument to unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran.”

What does Europe want?

France, Germany and the UK, however, have outlined three conditions to delay the snapback sanctions by six months.

The demands are for Iran to resume direct talks with the US, restore full cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, and disclose the new location for its heavily enriched uranium after the US and Israeli strikes.

Some US reports have suggested that the uranium stockpiles are buried under the now-damaged nuclear facilities, but Iran may have also moved the material before the US bombed its nuclear sites.

Analysts say that, while the European conditions may seem reasonable on the surface, they are challenging for the Iranian leadership to agree to.

The European powers want Tehran to recommit to negotiations with Washington, without assurances from the US and Israel that they wouldn’t attack again.

Tehran had also suspended full cooperation with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the watchdog failed to condemn the US and Israeli attacks, which it said breached international law.

Earlier this month, Iran allowed some IAEA inspectors back into the country, but the UN agency still has not accessed or assessed the damage at Iran’s enrichment facilities.

As for the uranium, Iran fears that disclosing the location of the stockpiles will only invite Israel or the US to bomb them.

“If they make the location of that enriched uranium very clearly known to the wider world, including US and Israel, then it’s a blinking target for follow-up US or Israeli strikes on those facilities to set Iran’s programme back further,” Costello told Al Jazeera.

“So because that hasn’t been ruled out, it becomes very difficult for Iran to strike such an agreement.”

Impact of snapback

But the three European powers argued that the demands are necessary because Iran’s nuclear programme constitutes a “clear threat to international peace and security”.

“Today, Iran’s non-compliance with the JCPOA is clear and deliberate, and sites of major proliferation concern in Iran are outside of IAEA monitoring,” the countries said in a statement.

“Iran has no civilian justification for its high enriched uranium stockpile … which is also unaccounted for by the IAEA.”

Tehran has rejected that argument, saying that European powers had breached the 2015 agreement first by accepting the US’s 2018 decision to restore secondary sanctions on Iran’s economy.

Most countries and businesses around the world enforce US sanctions out of fear of being sanctioned themselves.

The Iranian economy is already reeling under heavy US sanctions with global implications.

But the UN sanctions – which include an arms embargo – could enable unilateral sanctions by other countries. They may also further undermine trust in the Iranian economy. Already, the Iranian rial fell sharply after Thursday’s announcement.

“There is more currency depreciation because of the snapback; it’s another psychological shock to the economy,” said Toossi.

Europe goes hawkish

Since the turn of the 21st century, European countries have been seen as a moderating influence on Washington’s hawkish impulses towards Iran.

Despite abiding by the US sanctions, European leaders had vocally opposed Trump’s exit from the JCPOA in 2018.

But since Trump returned to office in January, France, Germany and the UK appear to have taken a harder line against Tehran.

In June, European powers not only failed to condemn Israel’s unprovoked war on Iran, but they also seemed to endorse it. Chancellor Friedrich Merz even suggested Germany and the West are benefitting from the assault.

“This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us,” he said.

Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank that promotes diplomacy, said Europe’s new posture towards Iran is linked to its broader relationship with the US.

Iran has been accused of supplying Russia with drones to use in its war against Ukraine, so now Europe sees Tehran as a threat, Parsi said.

He also noted that nearly all trade between Europe and Iran has been destroyed by US sanctions.

“Iran simply does not matter that much for Europeans,” he told Al Jazeera in a TV interview.

“So doing something that endears Europe with the hardline elements in the Trump administration, I think, is something that is seen as valuable in Europe … given how tremendously strained the current transatlantic relationship is right now.”

For now, the nuclear tensions continue to grind on. The US continues to demand that Iran dismantle its nuclear programme, while Tehran insists on maintaining uranium enrichment domestically.

Toossi said there’s an irony in the whole affair: The three European powers are invoking a provision of the JCPOA that grants Iran the right to uranium enrichment, but they are using it to align with the US demand for no more enrichment.

“The hypocrisies and contradictions are just immense in all of this,” he said.

Source link

Gaza family’s battle for survival as hunger and heat deepen despair | Israel-Palestine conflict News

After they were forcibly displaced multiple times during Israel’s war on Gaza, the Sobh family has taken refuge in a coastal camp west of Gaza City.

Street vendor Fadi Sobh, 30, describes his tent as “unbearably hot during summer”. His 29-year-old wife, Abeer, collects seawater because clean water is in short supply.

The children bathe in turns, standing in a metal basin as their mother pours saltwater over them. Nine-month-old Hala cries when the salt irritates her eyes, while her siblings bear the discomfort without complaint.

Abeer feeds Hala water from a baby bottle. On good days, she has lentils to grind into powder and mix with the water. “One day feels like one hundred days, because of the summer heat, hunger and the distress,” she says.

Fadi travels to a nearby soup kitchen, sometimes with one of his children. “But food is rarely available there,” he said.

The kitchen operates roughly once a week, never meeting demand. Often, he waits an entire day only to return home with nothing “and the kids sleep hungry, without eating”.

Abeer sometimes goes to aid trucks near the Zikim crossing alone or with Youssef, one of her children. The crowds are mostly men – stronger and faster than she is. “Sometimes I manage to get food, and in many cases, I return empty-handed,” she said.

When unsuccessful, she begs those who secured supplies. “You survived death thanks to God, please give me anything,” she pleads. Many respond kindly, offering her a small bag of flour to bake for the children.

During the hottest hours of the day, the six children stay in or near the tent. Their parents encourage them to sleep through the heat, preventing them from using energy and becoming hungry and thirsty.

As temperatures drop, the children go outside. Some days, Abeer sends them to ask the neighbours for food. Other times, they search through Gaza’s ruined streets, sifting through rubble and rubbish for anything to fuel their makeshift stove.

After spending the day seeking life’s essentials – food, water, and cooking fuel – the family occasionally gathers enough for Abeer to prepare a meal, usually a thin lentil soup. More often, they have nothing and go to bed hungry.

Abeer says she is growing weaker, frequently feeling dizzy while searching for food. “I am tired. I am no longer able,” she said. “If the war goes on, I am thinking of taking my life. I no longer have any strength or power.”

Source link