Contrary to marketing narratives, Acadian Asset Management's analysis finds no evidence that private credit generates higher risk-adjusted returns than public credit. Analysis of private issuers within public indices shows they are simply riskier firms with higher yields to compensate, not a source of alpha.
Related Insights
A flood of capital into private credit has dramatically increased competition, causing the yield spread over public markets to shrink from 3-4% to less than 1%. This compression raises serious questions about whether investors are still being adequately compensated for illiquidity risk.
The term "middle market" is too broad for risk assessment. KKR's analysis indicates that default risk and performance dispersion are not uniform. Instead, they will be most pronounced in the lower, smaller end of the middle market, while the larger companies in the upper-middle market remain more resilient.
The yield premium for private credit has shrunk, meaning investors are no longer adequately compensated for the additional illiquidity, concentration, and credit risk they assume. Publicly traded high-yield bonds and bank loans now offer comparable returns with better diversification and liquidity, questioning the rationale for allocating to private credit.
The 5% default rate in private credit, compared to 3% in syndicated loans, is a function of its target market: smaller companies. Just as the Russell 2000 is more volatile than the Dow Jones, smaller businesses are inherently riskier. Applying leverage to a more volatile asset pool naturally results in more defaults.
As private credit funds absorb riskier, smaller deals, the public high-yield market is left with larger, more stable companies. This migration has improved the overall quality and lowered default rates for public high-yield bonds, creating a performance divergence.
While the US private credit market is saturated, Europe's middle-market offers higher spreads (north of 600 basis points) and lower leverage. This opportunity is most pronounced in non-sponsor deals, a segment where large banks and public markets are less active, creating a lucrative niche.
Historically, lower-quality credit cycles involved periods of high returns followed by giving all the gains back in a downturn. Post-GFC, the absence of a sustained recession has allowed private credit to outperform high-quality bonds by 7% annually without the typical "give it all back" phase, masking latent risks.
Despite headlines blaming private credit for failures like First Brands, the vast majority (over 95%) of the exposure lies with banks and in the liquid credit markets. This narrative overlooks the structural advantages and deeper diligence inherent in private deals.
Jeff Gundlach argues private credit's attractive Sharpe ratio is misleading. Assets aren't priced daily, hiding risk. When an asset is finally marked, it can go from a valuation of 100 to zero in weeks, exposing the “low volatility” as a dangerous fallacy.
Investors are drawn to PE's smooth, bond-like volatility reporting. However, the underlying assets are small, highly indebted companies, which are inherently much riskier than public equities. This mismatch between perceived risk (low) and actual risk (high) creates a major portfolio allocation error.
