After Citibank accidentally sent $900 million to Revlon's lenders, a new clause called the "erroneous payment deal term" emerged. This term is now in 90% of credit deals, illustrating how a single, high-profile operational failure can rapidly create a new, non-negotiable market standard for risk mitigation.
Related Insights
The European middle-market's preference for sole-lender deals contrasts with the syndicated US market. This allows lenders to design their own tight credit agreements, preventing value leakage and prioritizing downside protection—the most critical factor for a capped-return loan product.
The prevalence of specific, quantifiable deal terms offers a unique window into the market's mood. Rising structural protections for lenders or increased flexibility for borrowers act as an early warning system, reflecting anxieties and optimism before they appear in traditional economic data.
A massive quarterly jump in "lien subordination" protections (to 84% of deals) signals a strategic shift among lenders. Instead of focusing on terms that prevent default, they are obsessed with securing their place in the payment line during bankruptcy, suggesting they view distress as increasingly likely.
When a system bug caused customers to be overcharged, Nubank proactively returned the money with an apology, even before customers noticed. This action demonstrates their core value of prioritizing long-term customer loyalty and trust over short-term financial gains, viewing it as the ultimate driver of company value.
The SVB crisis wasn't a traditional bank run caused by bad loans. It was the first instance where the speed of the internet and digital fund transfers outpaced regulatory reaction, turning a manageable asset-liability mismatch into a systemic crisis. This highlights a new type of technological 'tail risk' for modern banking.
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.
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.
In its rush to acquire fintech Frank, JPMorgan signed an agreement obligating it to pay the founder's legal fees—even for litigation related to her own fraud against JPM. This expensive oversight highlights how even sophisticated players can miss critical terms in fast-moving markets, with disastrous financial consequences.
The rise of Liability Management Exercises (LMEs) has fundamentally changed credit analysis. Performing credit teams must now embed legal and workout specialists in the *front-end* underwriting process. This proactive approach is essential for assessing documentation and potential bad actors before an investment is made, rather than reacting during a restructuring.
Lenders are demanding more structural protections (like "anti-pet smart terms") to lock down collateral, while borrowers are negotiating for more economic flexibility (like generous EBITDA add-backs) to weather potential storms. This "flight to fortification" on both sides signals deep-seated market uncertainty.