Private credit, also called direct lending, refers to loans made by non-bank institutions directly to companies. The practice has existed for decades but remained relatively niche until the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when new banking regulations made it more costly for traditional banks to hold riskier corporate loans on their balance sheets. This caused banks to become more risk-averse, making it harder for mid-sized companies to access credit. Private credit funds moved into that space, offering companies direct lending relationships while giving investors yields that public markets struggled to match in a low interest rate environment.
Venture debt is a subset of this broader market. All venture debt is private credit but most private credit has nothing to do with venture debt. The distinction matters because the borrower profiles, risk structures, pricing mechanics and exit dynamics are fundamentally different, even though both sit outside the traditional banking system.
The growth numbers
The scale of growth over the past decade is significant by any measure. The market reached $3.4 trillion in 2025 with projections pointing toward $4.9 trillion by 2029. A parallel retail-facing product emerged alongside the institutional market. By year-end 2025, assets under management of funds with exposure to private assets and limited liquidity had grown to over $534 billion, adding roughly $100 billion over twelve months.
The asset managers who built these businesses became extraordinarily valuable as listed companies during the peak years. From early summer 2023 to January 2025, the share prices of the major alternative asset managers surged dramatically, with Blackstone delivering total shareholder returns of 58.2% and KKR leading at 103.4% over that eighteen month period. These figures represent equity market returns on the management company stocks, not returns earned by investors inside the credit funds themselves. Markets were pricing in years of continued fee income growth as private credit expanded into retail portfolios and institutional allocations grew.
The actual returns that investors in private credit funds receive are considerably more modest and more stable by design. A typical direct lending fund targeting middle market companies aims to return 8 to 12% net annualised IRR to investors over the life of the fund, after fees and credit losses, compared to gross loan yields that may run somewhat higher before those deductions. Senior secured strategies at the lower risk end might target 7 to 9%. More aggressive unitranche or subordinated strategies might target 12 to 15%. The IRR is measured over the full life of the fund, typically five to seven years, meaning it only gets confirmed and crystallised at the end rather than being observable year by year the way a public bond yield is. The nature of credit as an asset class also means the upside is structurally capped: the best outcome for a lender is full repayment of principal plus all interest, with no equivalent of the equity upside that drives the management company share price returns described above.
How these funds are structured
Most private credit capital sits in traditional closed-end structures held by institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies with long-term liabilities. These investors understand and accept illiquidity as part of the return proposition. For institutional investors in closed-end structures the exit is straightforward in principle. The fund has a fixed life, typically seven to ten years, and returns capital as loans mature or are sold.
A newer and faster growing category is the semi-liquid fund, designed to give retail and wealth management investors access to private credit with periodic redemption windows rather than fully locked capital. There are now hundreds of semi-liquid funds in the US, more than half launched in the past three years, raising hundreds of billions annually from the wealth sector. For retail investors the exit mechanism is the periodic redemption window, usually monthly or quarterly, with caps on how much of the fund can be redeemed in any given period. These caps exist precisely because the underlying assets cannot be liquidated quickly. The fundamental design of these products asks retail investors to accept an illiquidity premium in exchange for higher returns, a trade that works well when investors remain patient and badly when a large number decide to leave at the same time.
What the funds lend against and who the borrowers are
The large established managers concentrate lending on hard assets producing durable cash flows, real estate projects, infrastructure, aircraft, rail cars, where the underlying asset provides security against the loan. Middle market direct lending focuses on loans to companies with revenues typically between $10 million and $1 billion that lack easy access to public bond markets. The typical mainstream borrower has revenues, EBITDA, existing assets and a track record. The lender underwrites against demonstrated ability to service debt from operating cash flows.
Venture debt lends to an entirely different type of borrower. Startups and early stage companies that are typically not yet profitable and in many cases not yet generating meaningful revenue. The business is burning cash by design, deploying capital to grow faster than organic revenues would allow. The lender cannot underwrite against cash flow because there is none.
Software became one of the largest sector exposures in mainstream direct lending, estimated at around 26% according to Morgan Stanley. This made sense during a period when SaaS business models were generating predictable recurring revenues and commanding premium valuations.
The basic lending structure and loan mechanics
When a private credit fund lends to a company, it is typically providing a term loan directly negotiated between the fund and the borrower, without going through a public market or syndication process. The fund does its own due diligence, sets its own terms, and holds the loan on its balance sheet for the duration. This direct relationship is one of the defining characteristics of the asset class and a genuine structural advantage over public debt markets, where pricing is set by the crowd and covenants have been progressively stripped out over the years.
Loans are typically senior secured, meaning the lender has first claim on the borrower's assets in a default scenario. Unitranche structures, which became common during the growth years, combine senior and junior debt into a single facility with a blended interest rate, simplifying the capital structure for the borrower while giving the lender a slightly higher yield in exchange for absorbing more of the risk.
Private credit loans to established businesses can range from tens of millions to several billion dollars for larger transactions. Middle market direct lending typically sits in the $20 million to $500 million range per transaction. Loans carry three to seven year maturities with scheduled amortisation or a bullet repayment at maturity funded by refinancing or a sale of the business.
Venture debt loans are considerably smaller, typically $1 million to $30 million for early stage companies, scaling up to $50 million or more for later stage growth companies approaching profitability or IPO. The loan is usually sized as a fraction of the most recent equity round, commonly 20 to 35% of the round amount. Venture debt is shorter in tenor, typically 24 to 48 months, often with an initial interest-only period of six to twelve months followed by amortisation. The repayment assumption is not that the business generates enough cash flow to repay from operations. The assumption is that the business raises another equity round, gets acquired, or reaches profitability before the loan matures. Venture debt is explicitly a bridge instrument.
What actually backs venture debt
Since venture debt cannot be underwritten against cash flows, the underwriting logic rests on three things instead.
The first is the equity cushion. The startup has raised venture capital, which sits below the debt in the capital structure. That equity absorbs losses before the lender is touched. The larger and more recent the equity raise, the more comfortable the lender can be.
The second is the investor base. If a company is backed by Sequoia or Andreessen Horowitz or a credible tier one fund, the implicit assumption is that if the company hits trouble, the existing investors have both the means and the incentive to bridge it rather than let it default and lose their equity position. Venture debt lenders are not just lending to the company, they are lending to the quality of the cap table behind it.
The third is warrants. Venture debt lenders almost always take warrant coverage, meaning the right to purchase equity in the borrower at a fixed price. This gives the lender upside participation if the company succeeds, partially compensating for the higher risk of lending to a pre-profit business. Warrant coverage typically ranges from 5% to 20% of the loan amount expressed as equity value.
How interest rates are set
Private credit loans are almost universally floating rate, meaning the interest charge moves with a reference rate. Until 2023 this was LIBOR. It is now SOFR in the US and SONIA in the UK. The borrower pays SOFR plus a credit spread, with the spread reflecting the perceived risk of that specific borrower. A reasonably healthy middle market company might pay SOFR plus 500 to 600 basis points, putting total interest cost in the 10 to 12% range in the current rate environment.
Venture debt typically prices higher, in the 12 to 16% range depending on stage, investor quality and runway, plus the warrant coverage layered on top. The all-in cost of capital for the borrower is therefore meaningfully higher than the headline interest rate suggests once warrants are factored in. The borrower accepts this because the alternative is raising more equity, which is dilutive. Venture debt allows a startup to extend its runway or reach the next milestone without issuing new shares at what may be an unfavourable valuation. It is fundamentally a dilution management tool as much as it is a financing tool.
This floating rate structure was considered a protection for lenders during the low rate years because it meant yields would rise automatically if rates went up. When the Fed raised rates aggressively from 2022 onward, lenders did benefit from higher income. The problem was the mirror image effect on borrowers, whose interest bills rose sharply on existing loans without any change in their underlying business performance. Companies that had borrowed at total rates of 6 or 7% suddenly found themselves paying 11 or 12% on the same debt. For leveraged borrowers already operating with thin interest coverage, this created real stress.
Covenants and lender protections
One structural feature that distinguishes well-underwritten private credit from the broadly syndicated loan market is the maintenance covenant. A maintenance covenant requires the borrower to meet a specific financial test, typically a maximum leverage ratio or minimum interest coverage ratio, at regular intervals, usually quarterly. If the borrower breaches the covenant, the lender has the right to renegotiate terms, demand additional security, or in extreme cases accelerate repayment.
Covenant-lite loans, which remove or significantly weaken these tests, became increasingly common during the competitive years of the boom as borrowers gained negotiating leverage. The practical consequence is that lenders in covenant-lite structures only have intervention rights when the borrower actually misses a payment, which typically happens much later in a deterioration cycle and leaves less time and less value to recover.
Payment-in-kind and amend-and-extend
Two mechanisms that have become more visible during the current stress period are worth understanding specifically.
Payment-in-kind, or PIK, allows a borrower to add unpaid interest to the outstanding loan balance rather than paying it in cash. The loan does not default. The lender's principal grows. The borrower preserves cash. This is a legitimate tool in situations where a business has genuine value but a temporary cash flow problem. It becomes a concern when it is used repeatedly across a portfolio to defer recognition of structural impairment rather than bridge a genuine short-term issue.
Amend-and-extend refers to a negotiated modification of loan terms, typically pushing the maturity date further out and adjusting covenants, in exchange for a fee or a higher spread. Again, legitimate in the right circumstances. The concern in the current environment is whether these tools are being used to manage the appearance of a portfolio rather than its underlying reality.
How valuation works
Public bonds are priced continuously by the market. A holder knows what their position is worth at any point. Private loans have no such mechanism. The fund manager, typically with the assistance of a third party valuation firm, determines the fair value of each loan on a quarterly basis. The methodology involves comparing the loan to observable market data where available, applying discounted cash flow analysis, and making judgments about the borrower's current financial health.
The structural challenge is that the fund manager has an inherent interest in stable valuations. Marks that decline too sharply trigger investor concern, redemption requests, and fundraising difficulty. Third party valuation firms are engaged by the manager and have a commercial relationship to maintain. These are not allegations of bad faith, they are structural incentives that independent analysts and regulators have consistently flagged as worth monitoring.
The Renovo situation in late 2025, where multiple lenders carried the debt at par until shortly before writing it to zero, illustrated what happens when these incentives delay recognition of deterioration that was likely visible in the borrower's financials for some time before the formal writedown.
How loans exit
Private credit loans exit in several ways. The most straightforward is repayment at maturity, where the borrower refinances or repays the loan from operating cash flows or a sale. This is how the majority of loans in a healthy portfolio resolve.
Loans can also be sold in the secondary market, where a growing number of buyers specialise in purchasing private credit positions at a discount to par. Secondary market activity has increased significantly as some managers need liquidity and others see opportunity in distressed or discounted positions. Secondary prices reflect real market sentiment about credit quality in a way that quarterly marks by managers do not, which is why secondary transaction data is closely watched as an independent signal.
In a default scenario, the lender exercises its security rights, taking control of the collateral or working through a restructuring process. Senior secured lenders in mainstream private credit typically recover a meaningful portion of their principal because there is an underlying business with real assets and value.
In venture debt, when a startup runs out of runway and cannot raise the next equity round, the recovery situation is very different. The assets are typically intellectual property, software, perhaps some equipment. Liquidation value is often a fraction of loan value. The lender's real protection was never the collateral, it was the probability of the company succeeding or being acquired before reaching that point. This is why venture debt lenders invest so much effort in portfolio monitoring and maintaining relationships with the VC investors behind their borrowers. Early warning and early intervention, either encouraging a bridge round or facilitating an acquisition, produces far better outcomes than a formal enforcement process against a failed startup.
The market participants
Mainstream private credit is dominated by large alternative asset managers including Ares, Apollo, Blackstone, Blue Owl and KKR alongside specialist direct lending funds. The institutional LP base is primarily pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds.
Venture debt has its own dedicated specialists. Silicon Valley Bank was the dominant player in the US for decades before its 2023 collapse, which created a significant gap in the market that dedicated venture debt funds and some commercial banks have been filling since. Hercules Capital and TriplePoint Capital are among the larger dedicated public BDCs in the venture lending space. In Europe the market is thinner, with Western Technology Investment, Kreos Capital and a small number of specialist funds covering the ground that SVB previously occupied.
The EIB and EIF have specific venture debt and venture loan instruments that function somewhat differently from commercial venture debt. EIB venture loans under InvestEU carry below market interest rates, longer maturities of up to ten years, and in some cases equity kickers rather than warrants. The underwriting logic relies heavily on the quality of equity investors behind the borrower, but the terms are more patient and the risk appetite is shaped by public policy objectives around innovation and strategic sectors rather than pure return maximisation. This makes EIB venture debt genuinely complementary to commercial venture debt rather than competitive with it, since the pricing and tenor serve a different part of the financing need.
What changed in late 2025
The first visible stress points emerged in late 2025 through the collapses of subprime auto lender Tricolor Holdings and auto parts supplier First Brands Group. These were not private credit failures specifically, they involved bank and syndicated debt, but they focused attention on leverage levels and underwriting standards across the broader non-bank lending market.
Separately, concerns about AI disrupting SaaS business models began affecting software company valuations. Fears that agentic AI could disrupt the SaaS model sent publicly listed SaaS stocks lower, raising questions about the credit quality of mid-sized software companies that had borrowed heavily during the growth years. DBRS Morningstar reported that in its coverage universe, downgrades on private credit were outpacing upgrades at a rate of three or four to one by early 2026.
The same market sentiment that had driven the management company share prices to extraordinary heights reversed sharply. From their peaks, Apollo fell 41%, Blackstone 46%, Ares and KKR 48% each, while Blue Owl dropped by two thirds. The selloff erased over $265 billion in combined market capitalisation across the major managers. This reflected the market revising its expectations for future fee income growth downward, not a collapse in the underlying credit fund returns, which remained largely intact by comparison.
The redemption dynamic
When retail investors in semi-liquid funds grew concerned and requested withdrawals, fund managers faced a structural challenge. The current wave of redemption requests represents the first real liquidity test for the asset class at scale.
Some managers had reduced their cash cushions during the growth years, moving reserves from short-term treasuries into syndicated debt that offered better yield. When those bonds dropped in value and needed to be sold to fund redemptions, proceeds came in below the original invested amount. To manage outflows, asset managers typically face two choices: sell assets or borrow against credit lines. Taking on additional leverage affects the economics for investors who remain in the fund. Several major funds moved to cap redemptions to manage this process in an orderly way.
The banking system connection
Bank loans to non-depository financial institutions reached $1.14 trillion in 2025. JPMorgan disclosed that its lending to nonbank financial firms grew to around $160 billion in 2025 from roughly $50 billion in 2018. Banks became significant funders of the private credit ecosystem even as private credit was growing partly as an alternative to bank lending.
Where things stand as of March 2026
The chair of Partners Group has stated that private credit default rates could double from a current annual average of around 2.5%. Whether that plays out depends substantially on the broader economic environment, particularly interest rates and corporate earnings.
The institutional core of the market, long-term capital in closed-end structures lending against hard assets, is under less pressure. The large established managers have fundamentally different models built around assets producing durable cash flows with wide cushions above the interest paid to investors, with loans generally secured by underlying assets.
The area drawing the most scrutiny is the intersection of semi-liquid retail vehicles, software sector concentration, and covenant-lite loans made during the low rate years. Risks remain concentrated in highly leveraged, rate-sensitive borrowers, particularly among software companies and smaller borrowers.
The ECB and Bank of England have launched exploratory scenarios to map the connections between private credit and the broader banking system. Regulatory frameworks for the sector remain less developed than those governing traditional banks, and the current period is likely to accelerate that conversation.
The private credit market is going through a repricing and a learning process simultaneously. The institutional structures that supported the boom are still largely intact. The questions being asked now, about valuation transparency, liquidity matching, and underwriting discipline, are the questions a maturing market needs to work through.
--
Join Newnex - the exclusive platform for institutional VCs to syndicate, co-invest and follow-on privately without intermediaries. www.newnex.io