Home agents are using a calculator to calculate the loan period each month for the customer.
getty
Private credit grew from a niche corner of the lending market into a multi-trillion-dollar asset class largely out of public view, funded by pension plans, endowments and insurers who understood exactly what they were buying: illiquid loans to mid-sized companies, priced at a premium to public debt, held to maturity by investors who would never need the money back early. The structure matched the asset. Long money funded long loans.
That match is now being dismantled, and it’s happening for the most understandable reason in finance. The institutional market is saturated, returns have compressed as capital flooded in, and the obvious source of new money is the enormous pool of individual investor assets that has never had access. Interval funds, non-traded business development companies, evergreen vehicles and tender-offer funds are all mechanisms for pointing retail capital at private loans. Distribution has expanded fast, and the industry has been explicit that individual investors are the next growth engine.
The CFA Institute published research in July examining exactly this shift, and its focus is telling: The report treats market structure, fund design and retail access as a single interlocking question rather than three separate ones. That’s the right frame, because the risk in retail private credit is not primarily about the underlying loans. It’s about the container they’re being sold in.
What Interval Funds Really Promise
Consider what an interval fund actually promises. Investors can redeem, but only during periodic windows and only up to a capped percentage of fund assets — typically 5% per quarter. In calm markets, that’s an academic detail. Redemptions run well below the cap, the manager meets them out of cash flow and new subscriptions, and the fund looks and feels like a mutual fund that happens to yield more.
In stressed markets, the arithmetic inverts. If 20% of investors want out in a quarter and the gate is 5%, the fund honors a quarter of each request and the rest queue. Anyone watching this happen concludes, correctly, that they should get in line immediately. The gate that was designed to protect the fund from forced selling becomes a reason to redeem, and the queue itself creates the run. This is not a hypothetical failure mode. It is a well-documented dynamic in every fund structure that has ever offered more liquidity than its assets provide, from open-ended property funds to certain credit vehicles in 2008 and 2020.
The Valuation Problem No One Talks About
Then there’s valuation. Private loans don’t trade, so they’re marked using models and manager judgment, generally reviewed by a third party but ultimately a matter of estimate rather than observation. That produces reported volatility far below the economic reality of the underlying risk — a smoothness that is genuinely appealing on a client statement and genuinely misleading in a risk model. A portfolio that shows a 3% annual standard deviation while holding leveraged loans to unrated middle-market borrowers is not a low-volatility portfolio. It’s a portfolio whose volatility isn’t being measured.
The underlying credit deserves scrutiny too. Rating agencies covering the space have flagged that the asset class faces a genuine test as the cycle matures, and the specific worry is not defaults in the aggregate but the practices that have grown up around avoiding them. Payment-in-kind arrangements, where a struggling borrower pays interest in more debt rather than cash, let a lender keep booking income from a company that has stopped generating any. Covenant amendments, maturity extensions and equity injections from the sponsor can all postpone a default without improving the business. Those tools are legitimate and often correct. They also make reported default rates a lagging and somewhat flattering indicator.
Macro Conditions Aren’t Helping
Add a labor market that has stopped creating jobs and a Federal Reserve that hasn’t committed to cutting, and the mid-sized leveraged borrower at the center of private credit is in a tighter spot than the reported numbers suggest. Floating rate debt was a gift when rates were rising and lenders passed the increase to borrowers. It’s a gift to lenders only if borrowers can actually pay.
None of this means private credit is a bad asset class. Practitioners make a reasonable case that the fundamentals remain sound and the spread premium is real, and direct lending has delivered genuine excess return over comparable public credit for a decade. Senior secured loans with real covenants to profitable companies at 400 basis points over base rates are a perfectly sensible thing to own. The question is whether the version being packaged for individual investors resembles that.
The Questions That Cut Through The Pitch
For anyone being pitched one of these funds, a handful of questions cut through most of the marketing.
- Redemption mechanics — What exactly is the redemption mechanism, and what happened to comparable funds during the last liquidity event? Not what the prospectus permits — what actually occurred.
- Valuation process — How are the assets valued, who does it and how often? Independent quarterly valuation is the floor. Manager marks reviewed annually are not adequate for a vehicle sold to individuals.
- PIK income share — What share of portfolio income is paid in kind rather than cash? This is disclosed, and it’s the single most informative number in the filing. A rising PIK percentage means borrowers are conserving cash, which is the earliest warning available.
- Total fee load — What are the total fees, including management fee, incentive fee, fund expenses and any distribution or servicing charge? Private credit gross returns are respectable. Net returns after a full retail fee stack are frequently not better than a public high‑yield fund with daily liquidity and a tenth of the cost.
- Portfolio role — And the question that matters most: What is this replacing in the portfolio? If it’s replacing bonds, understand that it carries equity‑like risk in a downturn and won’t provide the ballast bonds do. If it’s replacing equities, understand that the upside is capped at the coupon while the downside is not.
Illiquidity is a real risk that deserves a real premium. What retail investors should refuse to accept is illiquidity without the premium, wrapped in a structure that promises liquidity it cannot deliver.
Leave a comment