Odd Lots - This Is the Impact of Billions Flowing Into Private Credit

Episode Date: January 8, 2024

Private credit is now so big that it's rivaling more traditional forms of lending and fueling a debate about whether this relatively new asset class poses risks to the economy. And yet, it feels like a new private credit fund is being launched daily. And even banks (the very things private credit is displacing) are getting in on the act and creating their own private credit offerings for investors. In this episode, we speak with Ben Emons, senior portfolio manager at Newedge Wealth, about the macro impact of this new form of lending. He talks about where private credit's alpha actually comes from, how it stacks up against bank lending, and what to watch out for in terms of the risks it might pose to the broader system.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thanks for listening to Odd Lots. Follow the show on Amazon Music for more future episodes or just ask, Alexa, play the Odd Lots podcast on Amazon Music. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. And I'm Joe Wisenthall. Joe, it's a new year. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. This is our first podcast recording of the year. And I think it's fair to say that we are going into a different environment in terms of sentiment than we were going into 2020. Definitely. So this time last year, everything was very pessimistic. Lots of people were expecting recession. The hills were alive with the sounds of inverted yield curves and things like that.

And this year feels a little bit better. Stocks are up. Lots of talk about a soft landing. Of course, the irony is that if there is going to be a recession and, you know, 100% chance there will be a recession in the future, it's closer than ever. And yet we feel a lot better about it. Yeah, it is funny, the optimism that we really felt in December about soft landings and bull markets and rates coming down in normalization. Interestingly enough, we're recording this January 3rd. So far, I guess this is we're looking at, we've had a few down days, but you know, whatever, a few days here or there. It doesn't make a big difference. I call it profit-taking joke. But anyway, you know, a new year, new themes to discuss.

Are you taking profits, Tracy? I wish. But one of the things that still with us is this concern about whether or not the economy can escape the full force of these very dramatic interest rate hikes that we've seen over the past couple of years, whether or not there's still a shoe to drop, basically. Yeah, you know, it gets to the lags debate. We talked about it with Anna Wong at the end of 2023. The market expects rate cuts, obviously, some people think as soon as March, unclear when or if that will be. That theoretically is taking off some of the pressure from markets, particularly credit markets. But yeah, we had this really big rise in rates. Some people think that the lagged effect still has yet to come. And so

sort of trying to understand what's changed from when we were at ZERP to when we're at 5%. I think is still an important conversation to have. Absolutely. And in my mind, one of the big areas of concerns, and it also goes to the idea of what's changed over the past few years, has to be private credit. Right? We've seen this. absolute swelling of this particular asset class at a time when interest rates have been going up and there's still lots of concern over whether or not this new source of funding basically knows what it's doing, right? Like are these managers, are these investors like getting it right? But then the other thing I keep thinking about, and we've sort of talked a little bit about this,

but this idea of the macro impact of private credit, if you have a body of money that is now 1.3 trillion or 1.6 trillion outstanding, depending on which estimate you're looking at, that is more or equivalent to the size of the entire junk-crated corporate bond market. So there's basically this new pool of money in the economic system at a time when interest rates are going up, and we're not really sure what impact it's having. And I'll just add on to that. Part of the interest obviously is, okay, what does it mean for cycle, higher rates, et cetera. But this asset class that's exploded, it's not going to go away regardless. And the expectation is that it's going to over time continue to grow. So I think there's

just a lot of need and interest, but I would say need to sort of understand, as you say, the macro impacts from this space. I'm also curious about the source of excess returns. We talked about it a little bit, but it's always sort of important when thinking about an asset classes like, okay, what is it specifically that's being exploited here for above average returns, how correlated, uncorrelated is. I think it's still worth trying to untangle the impact and the role of this asset class. Absolutely. So we've done one episode on this topic previously. We spoke with Laura Holson from New Mountain, and she basically gave us the elevator pitch for why this asset class has been growing so dramatically in recent years. But in this particular episode, we're going to dig a little bit more

into the macro impact of private credit, how it competes with other types of funding, and per Joe's point, where the source of those excess returns is actually coming from. And I'm very pleased to say we have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Ben Emmons. He's a senior portfolio manager at New Edge Wealth. Some of you might remember that we spoke to him last year about the contraction in bank lending after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and a few others. He's had a very wide-ranging career. He was at Pimco for a long time. So really a great person to give us an overview of how private credit is interacting with the rest of the financial system and the economy. So Ben, thank you so much for coming back on all thoughts. Tracy, Joe, it's great to be back. Happy New Year.

Thank you for having me. Happy New Year. Thank you for coming back. Yeah. So maybe to begin with, tell us what's your particular interest in private credit. You know, sitting at New Edge, you're a portfolio manager, what is the offering posed by private credit? Yeah, it's driven much by client interest and demand for this asset class, you know, in part maybe because the type of clients at New Edge, in this case, services, are working in the private credit industry themselves, ironically. So they're interested in investing in other private credit strategies. But it's also, I think, born out of clients who have connection with the companies

that these private credit lenders are lending to or have some sort of involvement in that and are interested in allocating therefore to this asset class as opposed to, you know, let's say the retail approach of like, well, okay, I heard about private credit, there may be an ETF on it, like, you know, so let's buy this ETF and now I go to a wealth management firm like New Etchen and they will help me with that. That's far less so. The investors that we talk to are very involved in private credit themselves. So it gives you a, an interesting angle on it because once you are starting to talk to these clients, you know, you have to really learn about what this asset class truly is about. You know, it's far less

an asset class about the way we're trading public markets. You know, if you look at treasury bonds, that's not what private credit is really, how it is traded or how it is functioning. So I find it a really interesting different alternative way of investing as something I had not looked at in my career previously, you know, until I really started to get into the registered investment advisory business and so interesting to watch this to see this unfold so what is it for an investor when you think about an overall portfolio people have some equity and they have some maybe risk-free government debt etc and whatever it is what is it about private credit what does it deliver for a portfolio so it is truly diversification and now and it is an asset class that's

traditionally non-correlated to equity or or fixed income, even though, you know, all the loans that are in the credit funds are off based of the secured overnight funding rate, the sofa rate, right? So there is obviously a connection with interest rates. Okay. But it has been long-term uncorrelated based upon how the returns have behaved relative to returns and equities and fixed income. I think what the tracks people is that the loans that are being issued by those private

lenders, you know, they have been an extreme low default rate. for a really long period of time. Now, I always talk to the private credit managers with a bit of a caution here because coming from a world of total return and fixed income trading, you take immediately a setback like, well, okay, low defaults, really? I mean, so...

Yeah, it's sort of true of every new asset class, right? The history is limited, so there aren't many defaults. Exactly. So that's exactly a very good point, Patricia. That's one reason. On the other hand, it's about, you know, The individual companies that they lend to have had a good credit history so far, at least in many of the funds we looked at, that's been the case, very little impairments that have happened. Second, the private landers are in control.

So they set the covenants. It's not like a bank involved or another intermediary that is controlling the contract. It's really blue owl, blackstone, KKR, those companies, they set the terms. and they also are very good in enforcing those terms and think that gives clients a confidence that these loans are staying current and we're not getting any major impairments of anything. Now, what I think otherwise is I think of attraction to clients is that, you know, it is an asset class that is not out on the screen. It is privately managed and traded.

The private credit funds are nothing like a mutual fund or an ETF or a hedge fund manager. They are very selective in how they pick their different companies to lend to. I think all of those things play a role in why investors are interested in this asset class. So a lot of this reminds me of the debate around Covelight in sort of like the middle 2010s when there was an explosion in Covelight bonds or a dramatic deterioration in the amount of protections that investors were demanding in order to lend to companies. And I remember at that time, there was an argument sort of for and against. So, you know, some people were arguing, this is terrible.

This is the result of the search for yield. It basically means people will lend money to anywhere they can get a return and they're not going to ask for any protections because they're just desperate to get any sort of yield. But then the offsetting argument was that, well, actually, it sounds bad. Covlight sounds bad. The idea of investors giving up protection sounds bad, but if something were to happen, if there were a recession, then it could end up being a good thing because it means companies have more flexibility to refinance. They don't have as many restrictions around what they can do. So I always remember there were sort of pros and cons to the Covelight argument and it feels similar in private credit. Maybe to an extent, Tracey, but I would say the managers that we've spoken with, and we, you know, we talked to overhaul. a hundred managers in that space.

What we've read for most of those governance, they're not light. They're actually stricter. I think it is because of the personal relationships that these private lenders have with the companies that they're lending to. And they told us that. We've actually got an example.

They've shown also a presentation of the different companies that are actually in the fund, who are basically, let's say, long-term standing relationship between, say, A, Blackstone and that company itself. So, I'm trying to get us that the covenants are sort of maybe like customized covenants. They certainly don't lead to us as light.

You know, there's a very strict control on payments of interest. And it's about trying to, you know, really help the company move ahead. So there's much of a, I think also a private equity aspect to this. And that's typical in private credit anyway, where you have a sponsor that's involved in the structure of a private credit fund, by having that private equity approach gives these companies like sort of, let's say empower those companies to do the right thing with that money, and invest in the right way. And therefore, the governance, although they look really strict, are not necessarily going to be at some moment like, okay, you can't pay off those loans.

We're going to really put the screws on this company. We're going to take the keys, right, and literally, and therefore the company becomes totally impaired. is functional, that doesn't seem to be the case so far, even though from where I read those covenants, there are strict, compared to, say, CLOs, where that covenant light showed up in the mid-22ndes for now. The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all.

Hi, I'm David Gurra. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Ruffini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis and big information. interviews, all the stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world. That on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to

prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg television. Listen. on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg this weekend. Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7 a.m. Eastern. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg television, radio, and wherever you get your podcasts. So what would cause a company to decide to go the private route versus, you know, either issue a bond or take out a loan from a bank in the public market? So I did announcers on the B-Credit fund, for example, from Blackstone. And all those companies are in there are non-listed.

All of those companies, from our conversations with them, have no interest in going public at all. And thirdly, what I did find, and I did say that to Blackstone, about 10% or so of that pool, there's very little information I can find on these companies. I go online, I don't see much of any kind of information. So some of our really, really private, private type companies. You talk about literally like services companies at Car Wash or some technology services company that you've never heard of before. And so these companies, I think, are also not in the position

to just go to the public markets unless there's a bank that is really that easy in terms of his lending standards that is willing to give these companies money or allow them to come to market. On the other hand, I mean, some of these companies, maybe in a position where they get better and better revenues, you get more traction, get more attention to their business model. And at some point, some big investor comes like, hey, look, you know, we can help you go public and raise equity.

We've not found those examples in these pools so far. How much of the rise of this asset class, in your view, is simply about scale and capacity within the banks, or maybe lack thereof? Because if the story is, all right, the companies are not listed, they're not particularly well known. So like, you know, you're sort of starting from scratch on due diligence or familiarity, perhaps. The covenants are bespoke in many cases, as you've described, they're tailored. So that obviously takes legwork on the part of whoever is making lending decisions. So is this like a story of like essentially in a post-Dodd-Frank world where like banks are constrained,

etc. That essentially it just makes more sense for, in many cases, for third parties who have the capacity and scale to specialize and find in creating that relationship. That's spot on, Joe. I think the other part of that story is that as banks have scaled back in the syndicated market, that created a void. And I think that was part of the story, too, of these companies automatically getting towards a private lender as opposed to going to a, let's say, midsize or smaller bank, trying to get a loan or business loan.

But as I mentioned, the personal aspect that. found really fascinating of how personal relationships they've had. Now, any private banker has this, right? If you go to, I don't know, think of any of the major banks, there's a personal relationship. I think in this case, it's very driven by personal long-term relationships. So that void of the banks, not, you know, lending as much in that syndicated loan channel is one reason why there is a lot of demand

for private lending. On the other hand, it's really the personal. relationships, I think that's driving it. Tracy, it still strikes me as perverse that the banks that failed in 2023 were like the banks where they actually took like private relationships seriously. Like it sort of bothered me. It's like, oh, this is like what I think like banking should be like really getting to know the clients, bespoke offerings that isn't just like some generic website. Yeah, there's a difference between getting to know the clients and doing whatever they want you to do. I guess that's it. But it still feels like, man, like I think that's what banker should be doing.

But I guess apparently not. That's not what the market said. Well, I mean, just going back to the regulation, I mean, a lot of this was by design. Yeah, I remember when the leverage lending guidelines came out again in the mid-2010s. That was back when the market was going absolutely haywire, and the regulators came out and said, hold on, you guys have to like take a breath here and stop doing so many things that are risky. Basically forcing that activity into what we used to refer to as the shadow banking system. I don't see that term as much as I used to, but that is exactly what private.

credit is, of course. But just on this note, I remember there was a really interesting chart. I think I put it in one of the All Thoughts newsletters maybe a couple months back, but it showed commercial and industrial bank lending in the U.S. versus U.S. GDP. And for most of the history of that time series, they pretty much moved together. So if there are more commercial and industrial loans, then GDP tends to be growing. But over the past couple of years, they've kind of decoupled. And in my mind, it really raises the question of like, what is driving GDP growth if it isn't bank lending?

You know, maybe it's government funding. We've seen a lot of infrastructure spending and things like that. But maybe it is also the more than $1 trillion of private credit that now exists. I think that's right because, you know, the fact that it is $1.3 trillion, dollars going to literally companies that are making 25, 50, 100 million dollars of gross revenues a year. That's part of the really the small mid-sized backbone of America that's driving GDP. And again, doing research on these companies from the information that I found on this

is you can really tell. Like their business models have expanded very rapidly of the last several years. In part, I think, because of the infusion of private credit and the availability of private credit. Again, to that question of Joe, like if the availability is from private lenders, not from banks, it does, eventually do show up in GDP, maybe not because of the commercial and industrial loan contractions you're seeing there, but through the other channel of private credit extension. I think also that the impact in itself of leveraging gearing in the financial markets is actually none, right, from private credit. There has been one CLO now issues of Blackstone's B-Credit fund.

That was very, very recently. It was about a $500 million deal. They took the most, I think, the best loans that they had in their fund and bundled them together and sold them to investors at a very, I think, very tight spread compared to where high yield is and anything else.

So very conservative. But there's not much more of that as happening yet. So if you think of impact from private credit on the economy, we'd go through leverage and securitization as an example. So that may be an accent. stage in the future, as Blackstone sort of tipped the waters there and figured out, hey, there is investor demand, instead of direct into our fund we can securitize. If that were to pick up

that securitization, I would think you're going to get an even more compounded effect from this. And then maybe the fears about the risk of private credit will become more justified, right? Because I'm maybe jumping ahead of another question. No, that's fine. But, you know, the risk, if you think of macro impact on the economy and you think of risk, I would think the real risk of private credit is that the leverage that's in these funds, which tends to be about one-half, two times, sort of most of the funds that have that sort of leverage, that that gets compounded by securitization of the loans in the funds.

And we haven't gotten to that stage yet. So the actual leverage itself, I think relatively low if you compare that to the public markets, take investment grade leverage is still three, four times. Yeah. Earnings are supposed to one or two times. I've brought this up in a few different conversations, but it always blows my mind, so I keep asking the same question. But people like the fact that it's not on a screen.

You mentioned that. And so there's this attraction to prices that I guess you don't have to look at every day and if the market's red one day and the stock market's down 2%, but you look at your private credit. It's easy to be diversified if you're not traded. Yeah, and it's like, oh, hey, my credit exposure was totally fine, even though, like, implicitly, like, that's a lie. I mean, we all know. But, like, here's what I don't get about that. So, A, like, is that real, like, that premium that people pay for the appearance of non-diversification?

And B, it seems to me that the people who should really, like, pay up for the privilege of not having to look at their quotes are, like, individual retail investors who are, like, prone to panic and selling at the worst time and buying at the top, et cetera. But for the sufficient, sophisticated investor, which I imagine most people who are like allocated to private credit, you know, they're not mom and pop. They're people with moving serious money and sophisticated. Like, they're pros at this. Shouldn't they like be able to bear to look at their portfolio on a day-to-day basis?

Why do they need to not have the screen? Yeah, and no, and that actually has happened because if you take a step back and go to the fourth quarter of 2022, there was suddenly this news out that institutional investors in Asia were taking the money out of B credit. And that was the first news of sort of this redemption starting. And that did spill over to the US and cause a little bit of a nerve, including with some of our clients, that we got redemption requests. And because it's a gated fund where they only pay out up to 5% of the total pool per quarter,

and it's on an auction-type basis. So you don't get the 5% is a pro-rata idea. You know, I did think made people wary of that. To your point, it's not on the screen, it's not marked the market, but there are marks, clearly. And if you follow the 10Q, 10K filing every quarter, you can see the change of the value. This is what I do obviously because I have to do this for my job. And yeah, there's some stresses have built in over the last year. And you can tell us from the spreads on those loans, they were when I started a new edge, somewhere in the three,

the 500 base points over Sofer, more than the 50% of the pools right now that I'm looking at are more like 500 to 700 base points over Sofer. So there has a change has happened. So I think the sophisticated investor looks at this similarly saying, I'm getting wider spreads than in high yields, almost double now currently. And the marks are indeed somewhat deteriorating. Now, the default rates stay low. That's, you know, because of the total pool, that's how they present it.

But if you break it out by different sectors and a lot, lot of these, by the way, these private credit pools are allocated significantly to software and healthcare. And that's where the weaknesses have been in the economy. So you can tell that those are only wider than they were a year ago. There's also, I think, from the marks on the loans from when I looked at different 10K filings, yeah, there's some default rate is picked up there. And there's some impairments have been reported that is also showing up. Again, to the covenant and the control, that seems to be quite tight and that I think why it hasn't been

a floodgates of redemptions coming out of these funds, but that it is ongoing is I think a sign of that people are looking at the S-class saying, we want more transparency, not so much opaqueness, I like to better understand what the liquidity truly is, and therefore I'm also reserved, cautious, so it's not all in private credit

and it's fantastic and you don't have to do anything. I think there are a lot of investors out that have caution. I'm Francine Lacquhar, an award-winning journalist, and I've got a new podcast, leaders with Francine Laqua from Bloomberg Podcasts. I've interviewed everyone from heads of state to fashion icons about the news of the moment. But I've always been curious, who are these people as leaders? I don't think there's one right way to be a leader. Make decisions. A poor decision is always better than no decision. Listen to new episodes every other Monday.

Follow leaders with Francine Laguan wherever you get your podcasts. What would be the proximate cause or catalyst for, this might be an unfair question, but like the doomsday scenario in private credit. Because I keep thinking like, okay, one of the strengths of the asset class is that in some respects, it's very illiquid and you don't have to mark to market on a daily basis. And so you can kind of withstand short-lived down cycles. But at the same time, you know, I imagine if those pressures were to build up enough, at some point you would have to crystallize losses.

At some point, you would have investors running for the gates, per your example. So what would be the sort of trigger for that to actually happen? Yeah, that's the burning question on the mind of every client I talk to about. And there's different ways to analyze that, I think, because on the one hand, As I described, there's some level of stress is building into these pools. And in a way, you would think that maybe just simply how the economy is evolving. It gets overtime softer and weaker and you get some impairments. There will be some companies that will be behind in payments.

On the other hand, it's about the liquidity aspect. Yes, people have tied it up their liquidity in that vehicle and won it out. And so that B-Credit example is one example of people trying to maneuver their liquidity out and and keep redeeming from it with the good news that there's all these funds I gated, so you don't get a run on those funds because that would be the normal financial trigger. Right. I have an hedge fund or an ETF out there and people, okay, this is wrong. I'm pulling all my money out and that effect on that it could have on broader markets.

It's not the case with private credit funds. But I think that what people will look at carefully is the realization that the loans that they've extended to these companies, if there are issues with fraud cases or other types of issues, that that will become a trigger of realization of, hey, there's actually been some deterioration of lending standards have actually taken place. And as a result, investors start to react. I just start to look at, okay, I'm going to start redeeming more from these funds.

Now, there's little evidence of this currently, I think really because of the state of the economy where we are, or there's not been much reported on this yet. I want to mention this because, as it's possible, As this podcast gets out there, the private credit fund manager will listen to this. One of the complaints I had was that the obfakeness of the funds is also expressing that some of of these companies, very little information available. So as investors, I would want to know, like if I put $1 in that fund and you're going to lend

that out to a company XYZ that I cannot find any information on, I at least want to know what that company is really about. So I've been kind of messaging this to different managers, but I think this is a concern expressed with other investors too, and probably is one of those which you say trigger ideas of like if it shows up more and more of like we're lending to companies that we can find little information on, that will be in concern, right? Yeah, and also there is clearly attention in that like part of the investment case of this asset class is the idea of lenders building really strong relationships.

with private companies, doing really good due diligence and very, like, customized deals. But then it's weird if none of that work actually shows up for the end investor. Like, if there's no way for you to actually check it out, and you're sort of buying into it on blind faith almost. Yeah, you're buying into a pool of loans that is presented as this is a low default vehicle. It's very steady in its yields and payout. And therefore, you don't need to worry about those new. and details and yet I think as investors you should worry about that because no in the end

the money that you put into that fund gets to those companies and so that due diligence should really matter and you know you get a lot of assurances that their due diligence process is watertight and the covenants are very strict and I have to say from what I read that's true but we know from subprime lending we know from other types of lending that it could not always work out that way right especially if you have a exuberance that we're dealing with So the private credit market is in an exuberance phase currently, you know, because everybody's focused on it and a lot of money has been allocated to it. And a lot of nowadays mutual fund companies, for example, are jumping to the opportunity

too, coming very late in that race. And that would be to be interested to watch too, right? And how, if they're starting to become private lenders, you know, what is their lending standards, practices compared to the experts in that space, say, you know, the well-established firms like Blackstone and KKR and Blue Owl, who have years of experience with lending to private companies. I guess on some level, this is every credit cycle, right? I mean, in the sense that at some point, people want to start lending money to people who

can't pay it back. And then some people will make a lot of money doing that, and then someone will lose a lot of money doing that. Can you talk a little bit more about the leverage and the fund structure? So company X launches a private credit fund. How much is it like sort of like equity investors in that fund? And then how much would they theoretically like borrow from some bank or someone else to like add leverage or sort of juice the fund? Like how does that work?

Yeah. So you have to sponsor at a private equity firm. Okay. That's the main, I'd say capital provider. Okay. And as a fund then gets launched, it literally is like, Yes, they use intermediaries, the fund, right? Because ultimately, you know, the companies who borrow from that private credit fund,

you know, they're facing essentially a bank. Yeah. Same idea. But the private credit fund itself gets capital backing from a private equity firm, but still has to use intermediaries to raise the funds for in order to land, right? So now, on the other hand, it's also about, I think, the combination of other types, the leverage. So what I've noticed was that a lot of these funds do partially invest that pool into CLOs. And that's obviously where the financial leverage to an extent comes from.

I found that interesting, even though it's a very small portion, it tends to be like 1% of the total pool. But it's another, I think, another source of there, their leverage of funding, if you call it. On the other hand, it's a very low leverage, though, I've compared to other lending vehicles that are out there. I mean, if you talk about, say, the total notion of the fund is level one to two times max. Most of them are more like one to one and a half. So they're not going crazy at this. No.

It's quite conservative. Got it. So that's, I think, why are kind of not so concerned about that leverage unwind idea of, like, what we've seen with SPVs during the financial crisis, right? Some off-balance sheet vehicle 50 times levered and it has to unwind and we get all the disaster that follows. That I think is not so much to worry. It's more that opaqueness and the issue about lending to companies that although strict

covenants turn out to be issues with those companies and we didn't know about that. And therefore, we're dealing with the deterioration of the pool and we have to reassess the risk. And as I mentioned, if you could tell from the change of the spreads on those loans over the past year, then there is some risk is creeped. So I think that's the bigger risk. But back to your original question, I think it's really the structure of having this sponsor company providing the majority of that capital. which is I think also maybe what gives a lot of clients a conference.

Like, I have a private equity company involved. You know, that's kind of like a chokehold on a particular company, right? Because private equity is very keen on we want our equity. So you're going to have to stick by these covenants that we set on these loans. And the moment that there's a change there will come in and make changes to make sure that you stay current. But there's been examples of that they actually have to take in what they call the keys of the company. The company can no longer do it and they have to take in the keys. I think that's when the unwind process happens and where the private equity manager then has to just divest.

And I think that's the other part of this risk of that those turning in keys becomes more problematic, wider, than this leverage unwounds. The leverage is quite low. Is there any way to short private credit? Because, well, if I think about, you know, like a corporate bond, there are all sorts of ways. you know, primarily using derivatives, but I could short like a CDX index or something like that. Or I could do, you know, an individual like CDS tied to that specific bond. Is there something similar for private credit? Well, you would have to be back to the financial engineering.

I think there's three ways to do it. One is to short the stock of the company itself, which is, you know, if you have shorter the stock of Blackstone, that would have not been a good trade. It was pretty bad. But there is a senior loan ETF out there. That's several of them. So those are actually loans that are very similar, if not coming out of private credit funds. You could technically short that.

There's I believe even a private credit ETF in there that has invested in different private credit funds and bundled it in an ETF. So I guess that's another way of shorting it. VPC. Right. That's the one. VP. The private credit. I believe that's the one.

But there's no derivatives on private credit or anything like that at this moment. But yeah, I think of those. I sense an opportunity. Yeah. Maybe just to bring it back to the macro impact. I mean, what does it mean for the functioning of the economy and the wider financial system if we now have this pool of money that really wasn't there before? Or, you know, if it was there, it was in a different form.

Like, what does that mean for the future? Well, and one hand it's positive because, you know, we found an avenue to fund small, mid-sized companies without having banks involved in a way that, you know, that could lead to more like subprime lending and financial stresses that could ultimately end up to the negative, the detriment of those companies. Those companies of the private credit market has created a competition too, you know, so the regional banks are in more competition now with those funds, which, lowers the cost of funding potentially.

And as I mentioned, the cost of funding, I mean, currently that seems quite high. If you think of the oil and yield on those loans, being anywhere from 8 to 11 to 15%, quite high. But I think the other positive of that is, though, is that as much as that's high interest, these companies have a stable source of funding and are not dealing with any other sort of restraints

other than their covenants on that loan. so therefore they can go back to that same source and keep tapping it as long as they continue to perform and return the loans, pay off the loans and make money as a company. So the macro impact I think is getting more significant, I think, in that sense. It would be interesting to understand better, though, of the different areas where this lending is taking place. We can think of a coastal areas as usual, just like with residential mortgages, you know, because as I mentioned, the big component in these pools is technology and software. So we know that that's obviously concentrated on east and west coast parts and maybe a little

bit down south. But what would be interesting is that if there's more expansion in industrial area, manufacturing area through private credit, that would be, I think, meaningful in terms of the economy. So it is very much a stable source of funding there for available credit to companies that may not be able to get that elsewhere. I think that's the macro impact. Yeah. All right, Ben, thank you so much for coming back on odd thoughts and talking to us,

not bank lending this time, but an alternate form of lending. Appreciate it. Thank you, Tracy. Joe, it's great to be on. Thanks for coming back. Joe, that was really interesting. There was so much to pick out there. One of the things I keep coming back to is this idea of like outsourcing the due diligence to a private equity company or a sponsor or something like that. And it's a bit of a cliche to reach for subprime.

But Ben did mention it. And it sounds a lot like the rating agencies, right? Like you're kind of relying on an entity to do that due diligence for you. And maybe it'll work out. Maybe it'll all be fine. But it seems like there's a big question mark there. Yeah. I mean, it kind of makes sense to me just intuitively that banks only have so much scale.

Right. And like obviously there's only so much balance sheet that banks can allocate, you know, how much they can lend out. But there's also, like, going to just be a constraint on how much due diligence and how many relationships they can build and the types of industries that the individual bankers at the banks, like, truly become familiar with enough to lend, and particularly for smaller companies that may not be, like, you know, mega fee generators or whatever. So I guess, like, intuitively, it makes sense that we sort of see, like, the sort of, like, breakup of the bank and that more and more of the credit extension part would essentially be from individual specialist

companies of various sorts. Well, and also going back to the regulation, I mean, again, by design. Yeah, by design, by design, exactly. Regulators decided they didn't want banks to take so many risks in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, and so they put in restrictions on various types of lending, and a lot of that activity got squeezed to private credit, business development companies, that type of thing. So it makes some sense. And to Ben's point, if we have basically established a way for small to medium-sized companies to get stable funding, this was always a concern in the public markets, right, that if you're a smaller or medium-sized company, you are probably not going to be issuing a massive leverage loan in the same way a mega corporation can do it. So if there is an alternative, that seems like a good thing. However, I still kind of wonder about that like cataclysmic trigger because it seems like the incentives are all really

well aligned for the time being. So if you're the lender, you can keep lending money because you don't want to crystallize a loss and take a default and you have that relationship with the company. But if that ever changes. And we're talking about companies that don't have access to alternative forms of funding. You know, they can't go to a bank and get a loan. And often that's why they're knocking at private credit store. I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't worry about the worst case scenario. No, I mean, I guess the way I would just sort of, like I said,

and I would maybe like sort of go down the middle on this question, which is that like the worst case scenario will happen. In other words, at some point because this is like, you know, there have been banking cycles and credit cycles and people wearing the rose-colored goggles probably since the first loan was made. None of us really know the timing. But we definitely know that there will be some point in which lenders basically lend to bad credits.

Make loans. Maybe the terms are too nice. Maybe the spreads are too narrow. Maybe the conditions at no big lex. I mean, we know this is a phenomenon, right? I mean, like maybe the terms and the conditions, the covenants are solid now. But it's only a matter of time before that deteriorates. The longer you go without.

defaults. This is how it's going to work. We don't know the timing, but it just seems like no matter what the lending category, at some point someone is going to come along and lend to bad borrowers at two favorable prices. Well, I guess the thing to watch out for is the leverage question, like whether or not you start to see leverage built on private credit, at which point it would become a systemic... And securitization, allowing end investors has been said, securitization, allowing them to sort of layer on to their own credit. This is a will happen, it will happen, we don't know when, it'll happen eventually because this is what humans do. Very philosophical start to the new year. It is true. All right, I am just going to say that we are

going to talk more about private credit and we actually have a really interesting guest lined up, something we've never done before. So that will hopefully. Yeah, hopefully that'll be out. Relatively soon after this one. But in the meantime, shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the Oddlots podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Jill Wisenthall. You can follow me at The Starwort.

Follow Ben Emmons. He's at Marco Madness 2. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez, at Carmen Armin, Dashel Bennett at Dashbot and Kale Brooks at Kail Brooks. And thank you to our producer, Moses, Ondom. For more Oddlots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash Odd Lots, where we have a blog, transcripts of all our episodes in the newsletter. and check out the Discord. Discord.G.g.Sash Oddlots chat with other listeners 24-7.

And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you want to hear Joe's philosophy of human behavior, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for listening. You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Amy Morris. And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on-demand news report, delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News Now is a short five-minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed.

Yes, there are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day. That's not what we do. We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now. And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes. So you're always getting the latest stories and developments. Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts we're all over the world.

Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News Now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.