The absence of daily pricing in private credit removes an essential discipline. Mark-to-market in public markets acts as an honest, early warning system that forces managers to scrutinize underperforming assets, a mechanism private lenders lack.

Related Insights

The catalyst for a private credit crisis will be publicly traded, daily NAV funds. These vehicles promise investors daily liquidity while holding assets that are completely illiquid. This mismatch creates the perfect conditions for a "run on the bank" scenario during a market downturn.

Private equity and venture capital funds create an illusion of stability by avoiding daily mark-to-market pricing. This "laundering of volatility" is a core reason companies stay private longer. It reveals a key, if artificial, benefit of private markets that new technologies like tokenization could disrupt.

Private equity giants like Blackstone, Apollo, and KKR are marking the same distressed private loan at widely different values (82, 70, and 91 cents on the dollar). This lack of a unified mark-to-market standard obscures true risk levels, echoing the opaque conditions that preceded the 2008 subprime crisis.

A consistent 2-5% of Europe's public high-yield market restructures annually. The conspicuous absence of a parallel event in private markets, which often finance similar companies, suggests that opacity and mark-to-model valuations may be concealing significant, unacknowledged credit risk in private portfolios.

For the sophisticated custom target-date funds that will be early adopters, private credit is the easiest first step. Unlike private equity, some private credit products can already be marked daily. This operational readiness, combined with liquidity from distributions, makes it the path of least resistance.

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.

While retail investors may demand daily pricing for private assets, this eliminates the "hidden benefit" of illiquidity that historically forced a long-term perspective. Constant valuation updates could encourage emotional, short-term trading, negating a core advantage of the asset class: staying the course.

Howard Marks argues that private credit's apparent low volatility during market downturns is not magic but an accounting feature. By not marking to market daily, it mimics the psychological trick of simply not looking at your public portfolio's value, creating a potentially false sense of security for investors.

The primary concern for private markets isn't an imminent wave of defaults. Instead, it's the potential for a liquidity mismatch where capital calls force institutional investors to sell their more liquid public assets, creating a negative feedback loop and weakness in public credit markets.

The primary risk in private markets isn't necessarily financial loss, but rather informational disadvantage ('opacity') and the inability to pivot quickly ('illiquidity'). In contrast, public markets' main risk is short-term price volatility that can impact performance metrics. This highlights that each market type requires a fundamentally different risk management approach.