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.
