A financial model where a pool of individuals receives better borrowing rates than diversified private credit companies raises a red flag. This discrepancy suggests the risk assessment is questionable and the source of the financing spread needs deeper investigation, as individuals are typically considered riskier bets.
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.
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 credit market appears healthy based on tight average spreads, but this is misleading. A strong top 90% of the market pulls the average down, while the bottom 10% faces severe distress, with loans "dropping like a stone." The weight of prolonged high borrowing costs is creating a clear divide between healthy and struggling companies.
Private credit generates a 200 basis point excess spread over public markets by eliminating intermediaries. This 'farm-to-table' model connects investor capital directly to borrowers, providing customized solutions while capturing value that would otherwise be lost to syndication fees.
Private credit allows investors to act like chefs—deeply involved from ingredient sourcing (diligence) to final creation (structuring). Liquid market investors are like food critics, limited to analyzing the finished product with restricted access to information, which increases risk.
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.
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.
Judging the credit market by its overall index spread is misleading. The significant gap between the tightest and widest spreads (high dispersion) reveals that the market is rewarding quality and punishing uncertainty. This makes individual credit selection far more important than a top-down market view.