Home / Compliance / Private space to public face

Private space to public face


Though no longer a new theme, non-bank lending requires a refresher. Everyone is by now aware of the limitations of bank finance and therefore the provision of alternative capital. The reality of this shift in credit to the private sector is that investors will wear the losses that banks used to do, but with a very different attitude towards managing that risk.

  • Domestic funds aimed at private wealth have also came to the fore in recent years and investors are now confronted with a sector that potentially has an excess of funds looking for the magical low-risk return above traditional fixed income.

    Notwithstanding these provisos, the portfolio role of private credit is widely acknowledged, if built on a robust assessment of the investment fund.

    There is a case to regroup and consider a set of questions to initiate a review.

    • Firstly, why does the industry or sector need private capital and at what cost? This may appear as a simple issue, yet spells out the risk that others cannot or will not take.
    • Secondly, what is there about the assets supported by the lending that is attractive? If one does not think that the business or asset backing has merit, it makes no sense to lend to these parties.
    • How competitive is this sector, and is there an informational advantage that a fund manager can gain? The lender has a clear interest to look for the lowest, most flexible rate and low-covenant deal. Often the argument boils down to relationships. That’s great when they do make sense; but potentially terrible if they are about compromise and failure in appropriate arms-length judgement.
    • Finally, does the illiquidity warrant the risk? The longer the time frame, the greater the possible change in circumstances. Term premia is a well-known concept, but the degree of uplift is likely to be underestimated in private lending and credit.

    There is a distinction between private credit, as a deal directly between the lender and the business, and loan markets which have a bank as an intermediary. The fixed versus floating rate nature of the structures is another criterion.

    Yet for many investors these are the same; the notional return is well above traditional fixed income.

    Domestically, property of all stripes remains a high weight in many fund structures.  The go-to measure is the loan-to-value ratio, though it would be over-simplistic to rely on this alone. In SMEs, the relatively small scale of business is another leap into the specific conditions that affect each entity. Equipment and leasing finance is typically an ongoing source of funding, while growth or transactional credit has a different risk.

    Many investors are frightened by any reference to CDOs or CLOs given the financial crisis. The structure was not at fault, it was the extent of mortgage sub-prime and the ratings that implied low risk. Today these same collateralised structures continue to play a large role in US credit markets but in practice, senior, subordinated, mezzanine and distressed debt represent the bulk of activity.

    Outside of the inevitable views on the repercussion of COVID, the global debates in private credit are concentrated on the interaction between private equity and credit and the growth in ‘covenant-lite’ lending.  There is a natural resistance for credit extension to private equity within the same organisational structure even with allowing for independent teams. Reduced covenants are increasingly widespread in private credit, as competition of deals increases and the time frame to complete transactions narrows. One only needs to see how much hot air is created about the definition of EBITDA to sense tension between various investment managers.

    As with other asset segments, the key does lie with manager selection. This is made harder by the absence of a list of participants. Comparisons are far from easy. As more come to attention, the level of information improves and it is worth casting one’s net widely to hone-in on options that pass the test.  

    Giselle Roux

    Giselle Roux is one of Australia's most well-known and highly regarded investment strategists, having held the role of Chief Investment Officer at both Escala Partners and JB Were. She has also held a number of senior equities analyst and investment banking roles including with Citigroup, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and McIntosh Securities. Giselle is a host of Inside Network events, a member of the Advisory Committee and regular contributor to the Inside Adviser and Investor publications.

    Print Article

    Advisers shift out of one-man shops as more ‘Micro-AFSLs’ close doors in 2024

    After the Hayne Royal Commission many advisers decided to steer away from large dealer groups in favour of becoming self-licensed. In the last six months, however, that trend has taken an abrupt turn.

    Tahn Sharpe | 24th Apr 2024 | More
    Savvy market moves pitch Complii as ‘new asset class’ in financial services for 2024

    The moves made by Complii across 2023 should position the firm well for a rebound in advice industry numbers, which is entirely foreseeable given the proposals stemming from the government’s Quality of Advice review.

    Staff Writer | 31st Jan 2024 | More
    Advice compliance measures need to add up: Mintegrity

    Advisers should take a proactive approach to compliance, which can enhance the reputation of their firm and reduce the risk of regulatory enforcement action according to Mintegrity.

    Amanda Mark | 6th Dec 2023 | More
  • Popular posts: