Identifying flawed investments, especially in opaque markets like private credit, is rarely about one decisive discovery. It involves assembling a 'mosaic' from many small pieces of information and red flags. This gradual build-up of evidence is what allows for an early, profitable exit before negatives become obvious to all.
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.
Effective due diligence isn't a checklist, but the collection of many small data points—revenue, team retention, customer love, CVC interest. A strong investment is a "beam" where all points align positively. Any misalignment creates doubt and likely signals a "no," adhering to the "if it's not a hell yes, it's a no" rule.
Recent "canary in the coal mine" cases like First Brands, often blamed on private markets, were not PE-owned and were primarily financed in liquid markets. In fact, it was private credit firms pushing for deeper diligence that exposed the issues, strengthening the argument that private credit offers a safer way to access the asset class.
A crucial, yet unquantifiable, component of alpha is avoiding catastrophic losses. Jeff Aronson points to spending years analyzing companies his firm ultimately passed on. While this discipline doesn't appear as a positive return on a performance sheet, the act of rigorously saying "no" is a real, though invisible, driver of long-term success.
Recent credit failures and frauds are not 'systemic' risks that threaten the entire financial system's structure. Instead, they are 'systematic'—a regularly recurring behavioral phenomenon. Good times predictably lead to imprudent lending, creating clusters of defaults. The problem is human behavior, not a fundamental flaw in the market itself.
Moving from science to investing requires a critical mindset shift. Science seeks objective, repeatable truths, while investing involves making judgments about an unknowable future. Successful investors must use quantitative models as guides for judgment, not as sources of definitive answers.
Marks emphasizes that he correctly identified the dot-com and subprime mortgage bubbles without being an expert in the underlying assets. His value came from observing the "folly" in investor behavior and the erosion of risk aversion, suggesting market psychology is more critical than domain knowledge for spotting bubbles.
Instead of labeling a potential issue like negative cash flow as a definitive "red flag," which can be misleading, view it as a "flammable item." By itself, it may be harmless. The real danger only materializes when a "spark"—a catalyst like a new competitor or rising interest rates—is introduced.
A credit investor's true edge lies not in understanding a company's operations, but in mastering the right-hand side of the balance sheet. This includes legal structures, credit agreements, and bankruptcy processes. Private equity investors, who are owners, will always have superior knowledge of the business itself (the left-hand side).
A simple framework for assessing financial products involves checking for three warning signs. If it's too complex to explain to a 12-year-old, seems too good to be true, or lacks proper auditing, it's a major red flag. This heuristic helps investors cut through hype and avoid potential blow-ups like MicroStrategy's.