UBS’s 15% private‑credit default tail scenario implies losses and second‑round effects large enough to reshape institutional portfolios and force regulators to recalibrate how they monitor and backstop non‑bank credit risk.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo +1 It would not look like a classic bank‑centric crisis, but rather a slow‑moving squeeze running through insurers, pensions, BDCs, CLOs and bank facilities that finance private credit, amplifying the need for enhanced systemic‑risk surveillance.

The analysis below is structured in four parts:

• Size and mechanics of the UBS scenario
• Portfolio‑allocation consequences for key institutional holders
• Macro‑financial spillovers and credit availability
• Implications for systemic‑risk monitoring and policy design

---

1. What UBS’s 15% default scenario actually entails

UBS’s tail‑risk scenario is defined as a “rapid, severe AI disruption” in which defaults rise simultaneously across high yield, leveraged loans and private credit.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo +1

• UBS estimates that in this tail case, U.S. default rates could rise to:

  • $3–6\%$ for high‑yield bonds
  • $8–10\%$ for leveraged loans
  • $14–15\%$ for private creditAI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo

• Across these markets, defaults and losses would total roughly $420 billion of defaulted debt and $300 billion of losses, implying loss‑given‑default of about $\frac{300}{420}\approx 71\%$.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo

• UBS stresses this is not its baseline, but a tail event used to frame risk where private credit now represents about 6% of U.S. GDP and defaults are currently 3–5% with leverage in some segments at 7.5–8x and pressured interest coverage ratios.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo +1

• UBS explicitly ties the catalyst to AI‑driven disruption of software and services, noting that technology borrowers are particularly vulnerable and that credit availability would “tighten materially,” with private credit and loan issuance potentially falling 50–75% year‑over‑year in the tail case.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo

These parameters already contain a macro‑financial story:

1. Severity: 14–15% private‑credit defaults would be higher than historical peaks for broadly syndicated loans in the GFC (≈12.1% default rate).@zerohedge Oh the fear! During the GFC leveraged loan defaults peaked at 12.1% (write downs were much smaller). At a 20% markdown, $OBDC is currently embedding the greatest default in leveraged loan history. Meanwhile, defaults were around 1% last year and $obdc & Ares reported a decline QoQ in non-accruals. In other words, y' all are smoking dope!x
2. Loss severity: The implied ~70% loss rate is directionally consistent with Federal Reserve evidence that direct private loans have post‑default values around 33% of par, versus 52% for syndicated loans and 39% for high‑yield bonds.The Fed - Private Credit: Characteristics and Risksfederalreserve
3. Concentration: Private credit is disproportionately exposed to software/tech and AI‑sensitive business services, with software alone accounting for ~20% of BDC portfolios and ~16–17% of the broadly syndicated loan market.Tech, Software, and BDCs: Navigating Volatility and AI Disruption in ...jpmorgan

The key macro‑financial question is how these losses propagate through the main institutional holders and into the broader credit channel and monitoring frameworks.

---

2. Portfolio‑allocation consequences for core institutional holders

2.1 Insurers: capital strain, illiquidity and spread widening

Life insurers are now the single most important institutional holder of private credit risk.

• Commentators estimate U.S. life insurers have about $1 trillion tied up in private credit, much of it in AI‑linked infrastructure and other below‑investment‑grade exposures.🦔Insurance companies are paying small rating agencies to upgrade their risky investments to "investment grade" so they can use more leverage, and one firm operating out of a four-bedroom house rated 3,000 deals last year. US insurers are using smaller credit rating agencies to rate their private credit holdings as investment grade, even though those same holdings were rated significantly lower by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. NAIC found that ratings from private letter agencies averaged 2.74 notches higher than their own Securities Valuation Office, with small agencies giving ratings 3 notches higher. When securities migrated from NAIC ratings to private letter ratings in 2023, 80% received upgrades, just 4% were downgraded. The eight instances where a rating moved six or more notches were all from smaller firms. One small rating agency, Egan-Jones, operates out of a four-bedroom house outside Philadelphia with 20 analysts and rated more than 3,000 private credit deals in 2024. Global Atlantic, owned by KKR, has a quarter of its $100 billion bond portfolio carrying private letter ratings. My Take Here's what's happening in plain terms. Insurance companies make loans and invest in debt. Regulators require them to hold cash reserves as a safety cushion based on how risky those investments are. The safer the investment, the less cash they need to set aside, which means they can use more leverage and make more money. So insurers have a strong incentive to get their investments rated as "investment grade" rather than "junk." The government agency that rates these investments, the NAIC, wasn't giving insurers the ratings they wanted. So insurers started paying smaller private rating agencies for second opinions. When they did this, 80% of the time the investment got upgraded to a better rating. Sometimes the upgrade was six notches higher, which is massive. One of these rating agencies operates out of a four-bedroom house with 20 analysts and somehow rated 3,000 deals in a year. That's not careful analysis, that's a rating factory. This matters because life insurers have $1 trillion tied up in private credit, a lot of it connected to AI infrastructure loans. If those assets are labeled "investment grade" by friendly rating agencies but are actually much riskier, the insurers are holding way less capital than they should be for the risk they've taken on. When loans start defaulting, the losses will be bigger than anyone expects because the ratings were inflated. This is the exact same game that happened before 2008 with mortgage-backed securities. Bad assets get good ratings, everyone uses more leverage thinking they're safe, and when things go wrong, the whole system takes the hit at once. Hedgie🤗x +1
• One analysis argues life insurers now have more exposure to below‑investment‑grade debt than they had to subprime mortgage bonds in late 2007, and describes private credit (~$3 trillion) as “a core pillar” for pensions and insurers.🚨 WARNING: SOMETHING BIG IS COMING! The Fed published a research note that nobody read. I found something EXTREMELY BAD. Life insurers now have MORE exposure to below investment grade debt than they had to subprime mortgage bonds in late 2007. Read that again. WORSE than 2007. PRIVATE CREDIT: ~$3 TRILLION. This isn't a small corner, it's a core pillar for pensions, insurers, and big money, and it's already cracking. Default rate is ~5.8% and moving higher. Only 7 of 46 publicly traded private credit funds trade at or above their stated value. That one fact explains a lot, because if the books were clean, those funds wouldn't trade at a discount. PIMCO's head of alternatives said it clearly: "Is the industry built for extended redemptions? My answer is no." THIS IS NOT GOOD AT ALL. And this isn't the only fault line, it's one of many, and they're all flashing at the same time. Treasury basis trade: ~$1.4 TRILLION, about 2x what it was when the bond market froze in March 2020. Hedge fund leverage just hit the highest level ever recorded. Institutional cash just hit the lowest. Margin debt just printed its 7th straight all time high. Now connect the dots. When leverage is this high and cash is this low, there's no buffer, so any shock spreads fast and forces selling. And insiders are already acting like they know what's next. CEOs and CFOs are selling stock at the fastest pace in the dataset's history. Buy/sell ratio: 0.24, about 30% below the 10 year median. Central banks are doing the same thing, just bigger. They're buying gold at the fastest pace in history, and gold's share of reserves just passed Treasuries for the first time since 1996. They're telling you what they think about the system they run. Insiders are voting with their own money, institutions are voting with other people's money, and the gap between them has NEVER been wider. One side is going to get destroyed. I'm mapping the fault lines and the trigger path now, and I'll post the next part soon. I've studied macro for 10 years and I called almost every major market top, including the October BTC ATH. Follow and turn notifications on. I'll post the warning BEFORE it hits the headlines.x
• Another source notes 10 insurers hold 43% of all U.S. insurer‑held illiquid private‑credit assets, underscoring concentration risk.83% of private equity leveraged buyouts (LBO) are financed by private credit Insurers dominate as the largest investors in private credit 10 insurers hold 43% of all U.S. insurer-held illiquid private credit assets https://t.co/TZBJnIucqbx

Regulatory capital mechanics

Risk‑based capital (RBC) regimes tie required capital to asset risk. Riskier assets and downgrades raise required capital, compressing RBC ratios:

• U.S. insurers must submit corrective action plans if their RBC ratio drops below 150% (with negative trend) or 100%, and can be placed under regulatory control if the RBC ratio falls below 50%.The impact of COVID-19 on insurersvoxeu
• The median U.S. insurer RBC ratio is above 400%, but stress scenarios with downgrades can push some firms close to or below action thresholds.The impact of COVID-19 on insurersvoxeu
• Morningstar DBRS notes regulators are tightening oversight of illiquid assets; in the U.S., the NAIC is revising capital charges for structured credit and from 2026 can override public and private ratings that differ from its own by more than three notches for capital purposes.Morningstar: US life insurers ramp up illiquid asset bets as NAIC tightens oversight | Insurance Businessinsurancebusinessmag

If private‑credit defaults reach 15% and loss severities are high, life insurers face three overlapping pressures:

1. Real capital hits from write‑downs and defaults on private loans and securitized exposures (CLO tranches, AI‑data‑center financing, etc.).AI Bubble Fears Are Creating New Derivativesyahoo +1
2. Capital requirement inflation from downgrades and rating challenges under NAIC’s expanded authority.Morningstar: US life insurers ramp up illiquid asset bets as NAIC tightens oversight | Insurance Businessinsurancebusinessmag
3. Market discipline via widening insurer credit spreads, as already hinted by rising spreads at Athene and peers amid private‑credit stress.U.S life insurers spreads start to widen in the wave of private credit crash. Here Athene (Apollo owned) spreads (also true for NY life or Global Atlantic). Question is: how much private debt (with PE sponsor being Apollo) are in their books? https://t.co/oUQV2DLiYUx

Historical and case evidence show how regulators react when asset valuations collapse:

• A Utah enforcement action barred Sentinel Security Life from writing new business after examiners, using third‑party valuations of high‑risk loans, restated capital and surplus from a positive $130 million to negative $143 million, rendering the company insolvent on a statutory basis.Utah issues order for A-Cap insurers to stop doing business due to reserving concerns - Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNetinsurancenewsnet
• The same order noted more than 10% of investments in a single entity, a “disproportionately large number of high‑risk investments,” and multiple problem loans as drivers of the capital collapse.Utah issues order for A-Cap insurers to stop doing business due to reserving concerns - Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNetinsurancenewsnet

In aggregate, the likely portfolio‑allocation response among insurers under a 15% private‑credit default shock includes:

• Rotating out of the riskiest illiquid credit into more liquid, higher‑quality bonds to rebuild RBC ratios—mirroring historical post‑crisis shifts where institutional allocations move toward investment‑grade fixed income.[PDF] Asset Allocation by Institutional Investors after the Recent Financial ...pa-pers
• Curbing new private‑credit commitments, particularly in AI‑sensitive sectors and subordinated structures.
• Potentially selling secondary positions (e.g., CLO mezzanine, unrated tranches, bespoke private notes) if capital pressure is acute—although fire sales are constrained by the fact that selling crystallizes losses and further erodes capital, which historically has discouraged indiscriminate dumping of downgraded bonds.The impact of COVID-19 on insurersvoxeu

Because insurers hold “permanent capital,” some argue fire‑sale risk is limited absent a clear causal chain from statutory breach to forced liquidation.Private credit forced selling Insurers hold permanent capital. What specifically forces fire sales? The causal chain that you would need (something like statutory breach→downgrade→liquidity need→forced sale) is never explained. 4/x But as the Utah case and solvency frameworks show, regulatory intervention can de facto force de‑risking by restricting new business, demanding capital injections, or pushing restructuring, all of which influence asset‑mix decisions.The impact of COVID-19 on insurersvoxeu +1

2.2 Pension funds and the denominator‑effect inversion

Pensions—especially defined‑benefit plans and large endowments—have heavily increased allocations to private markets (equity, credit, real assets) over the past decade.

• One article notes many institutions have invested up to 40% of assets in private markets, including private credit, to meet return targets.The Trillion-Dollar Private Credit Market Faces Its First Big Test | Institutional Investorinstitutionalinvestor
• Private credit has been a major new destination for pension capital, as sponsors seek tax‑efficient, relatively high‑yield debt exposures that are not subject to unrelated business income tax in the way some hedge or venture strategies are.Adam Talks | Private Credit Funds EXPLAINED: Why Demand Is Soaring in 2024youtube

The denominator effect—where changes in the total portfolio value distort the measured weight of illiquid assets—is central to how defaults impact pension allocation:

• The denominator effect is defined as a situation where strong performance in one asset class (e.g., public equities) raises total portfolio value, making other allocations (e.g., private equity/credit) appear smaller in percentage terms even if nominal exposure is unchanged.What is the Denominator Effect? - Gratagrata
• Conversely, when illiquid assets underperform or are marked down slowly, LPs may become over‑allocated to privates relative to policy targets, especially when distributions drop.What is the Denominator Effect? - Gratagrata
• A Capstone survey cited in Grata’s overview found 72% of LPs reported lower private‑equity distributions in 2023, which constrained their ability to rebalance and fund new commitments.What is the Denominator Effect? - Gratagrata

Current private markets already display a “liquidity vacuum” dynamic:

• Allocators have been “selling public winners to fund private positions that aren’t paying,” as one practitioner bluntly describes the modern denominator effect.𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 “𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥. Most LP models were built on one assumption: ~25% DPI. Last year? ~9%. I just recorded an episode on The DPI Crisis with Alex Ambroz and the numbers are worse than most people realize. Here’s the stat that should stop you mid-scroll 👇 ~50% of 2020–2021 vintage funds have returned less than 0.1x DPI. On paper, portfolios look fine. NAVs are holding up. Marks haven’t collapsed. But cash isn’t coming back. This is the paradox: Private markets look healthy precisely because liquidity has disappeared. No exits → no distributions → no price discovery. So allocators sell public winners to fund private positions that aren’t paying. That’s the denominator effect in plain English. The real issue isn’t performance. It’s timing. LPs didn’t sign up for: • 10–14 year holds • continuation vehicles instead of cash • “paper wealth” replacing spending power They signed up for a cash-flowing model that no longer exists. The opportunity cost is massive. - Portfolios freeze. - Recommitments slow. - Risk concentrates silently. And yet most institutions are still running Swensen-era models in a completely different market. One practical takeaway: If private assets are staying illiquid longer, the illiquidity premium has to rise. Otherwise, IRRs mathematically decay. There’s no way around it. Either LPs demand to be paid for patience or they keep subsidizing the system with time. I break this down step-by-step — with data, not narratives — in the full episode of How I Invest. We’d like to thank @AlphaSenseInc for sponsoring this episode! #Investing #PrivateMarkets #Leadership #DecisionMaking #VentureCapital Link to Podcast in Comments Below 👇x
• Private markets look healthy partly because “no exits → no distributions → no price discovery”, with LPs sitting on “paper wealth” instead of cash flows.𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆: 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 “𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥. Most LP models were built on one assumption: ~25% DPI. Last year? ~9%. I just recorded an episode on The DPI Crisis with Alex Ambroz and the numbers are worse than most people realize. Here’s the stat that should stop you mid-scroll 👇 ~50% of 2020–2021 vintage funds have returned less than 0.1x DPI. On paper, portfolios look fine. NAVs are holding up. Marks haven’t collapsed. But cash isn’t coming back. This is the paradox: Private markets look healthy precisely because liquidity has disappeared. No exits → no distributions → no price discovery. So allocators sell public winners to fund private positions that aren’t paying. That’s the denominator effect in plain English. The real issue isn’t performance. It’s timing. LPs didn’t sign up for: • 10–14 year holds • continuation vehicles instead of cash • “paper wealth” replacing spending power They signed up for a cash-flowing model that no longer exists. The opportunity cost is massive. - Portfolios freeze. - Recommitments slow. - Risk concentrates silently. And yet most institutions are still running Swensen-era models in a completely different market. One practical takeaway: If private assets are staying illiquid longer, the illiquidity premium has to rise. Otherwise, IRRs mathematically decay. There’s no way around it. Either LPs demand to be paid for patience or they keep subsidizing the system with time. I break this down step-by-step — with data, not narratives — in the full episode of How I Invest. We’d like to thank @AlphaSenseInc for sponsoring this episode! #Investing #PrivateMarkets #Leadership #DecisionMaking #VentureCapital Link to Podcast in Comments Below 👇x

Under a 15% private‑credit default rate with ~70% LGD, three portfolio‑allocation consequences are likely:

1. Valuation hits and target breaches

   • Markdowns across private‑credit funds and BDC holdings would reduce NAVs and lift measured allocations to remaining private assets if public markets hold up, or create broad funding shortfalls if both public and private assets drop.The BDC Primer (Part 2) - JunkBondInvestorjunkbondinvestor
   • Historical evidence from 2008–09 shows institutions reduced equities from ~56–60% to ~47–48%, increased fixed income from low‑20s to mid‑30s, and grew alternatives from high‑single digits to mid‑teens, partly by not fully rebalancing into fallen assets.[PDF] Asset Allocation by Institutional Investors after the Recent Financial ...pa-pers

2. Pullback from new private‑credit funds and rise of secondaries

   • After the GFC, investors gravitated to more liquid fixed income and higher‑quality assets; similarly, a severe private‑credit shock would likely slow new commitments and accelerate use of private‑credit secondaries to raise cash.[PDF] Asset Allocation by Institutional Investors after the Recent Financial ...pa-pers +1
   • There is already a nascent private‑credit secondaries market buying fund stakes at discounts when LPs need liquidity.The Trillion-Dollar Private Credit Market Faces Its First Big Test | Institutional Investorinstitutionalinvestor

3. Liquidity‑driven selling of liquid assets

   • If private‑credit vehicles gate or heavily limit redemptions—as seen at Blue Owl’s retail BDC—pensions needing cash for benefits or capital calls may be forced to sell public equities and bonds, amplifying pressure in listed markets even if the initial shock is in unlisted credit.A private credit fund just froze redemptions. That sounds technical. It isn’t. When Blue Owl Capital halted quarterly withdrawals in one of its retail private credit funds, it exposed a structural tension that’s been building for years: Liquid promises built on illiquid assets. Private credit exploded because it offered higher yields than bonds — with the comfort of “periodic liquidity.” But loans to private companies aren’t traded minute-by-minute. When too many investors want out at once, the math breaks down. This isn’t about one fund. It’s about mismatch. Confidence depends on smooth liquidity. When liquidity hesitates, repricing begins. Arthur Hayes recently argued Bitcoin may be signaling tightening fiat liquidity beneath the surface. Whether you agree or not, the timing is hard to ignore. This isn’t collapse. It’s sensitivity. And sensitivity is where instability starts. Full breakdown 👇 https://t.co/ePYqnJlVTUx

Regulatory and fiduciary constraints reinforce these behaviors:

• ERISA imposes a prudence and diversification standard on pension fiduciaries and historically has pushed strategies toward more conservative risk posture after major losses.[PDF] The Impact of ERISA on the Growth of Retirement Fundsbostonfed
• Academic work finds that liquidity and capital requirements create a hump‑shaped relationship between liability duration and illiquid allocations; large mark‑to‑market shocks that erode capital or increase collateral needs generally reduce appetite for illiquid assets.Pension fund's illiquid assets allocation under liquidity and capital requirementsrepec

In a UBS‑style tail event, the baseline expectation is a structural re‑tilting of pension portfolios:

• Away from the most opaque, AI‑exposed private credit and toward better‑understood, higher‑quality fixed income and core real assets.
• Toward managers offering more robust liquidity terms, even at the cost of lower yields.

2.3 BDCs, listed private‑credit vehicles and NAV discounts

Business Development Companies (BDCs) and publicly traded private‑credit funds provide a transparent window into how the market prices future loss expectations.

• Analysts note that only 7 of 46 publicly traded private‑credit funds currently trade at or above stated NAV, signaling widespread investor skepticism about book values.🚨 WARNING: SOMETHING BIG IS COMING! The Fed published a research note that nobody read. I found something EXTREMELY BAD. Life insurers now have MORE exposure to below investment grade debt than they had to subprime mortgage bonds in late 2007. Read that again. WORSE than 2007. PRIVATE CREDIT: ~$3 TRILLION. This isn't a small corner, it's a core pillar for pensions, insurers, and big money, and it's already cracking. Default rate is ~5.8% and moving higher. Only 7 of 46 publicly traded private credit funds trade at or above their stated value. That one fact explains a lot, because if the books were clean, those funds wouldn't trade at a discount. PIMCO's head of alternatives said it clearly: "Is the industry built for extended redemptions? My answer is no." THIS IS NOT GOOD AT ALL. And this isn't the only fault line, it's one of many, and they're all flashing at the same time. Treasury basis trade: ~$1.4 TRILLION, about 2x what it was when the bond market froze in March 2020. Hedge fund leverage just hit the highest level ever recorded. Institutional cash just hit the lowest. Margin debt just printed its 7th straight all time high. Now connect the dots. When leverage is this high and cash is this low, there's no buffer, so any shock spreads fast and forces selling. And insiders are already acting like they know what's next. CEOs and CFOs are selling stock at the fastest pace in the dataset's history. Buy/sell ratio: 0.24, about 30% below the 10 year median. Central banks are doing the same thing, just bigger. They're buying gold at the fastest pace in history, and gold's share of reserves just passed Treasuries for the first time since 1996. They're telling you what they think about the system they run. Insiders are voting with their own money, institutions are voting with other people's money, and the gap between them has NEVER been wider. One side is going to get destroyed. I'm mapping the fault lines and the trigger path now, and I'll post the next part soon. I've studied macro for 10 years and I called almost every major market top, including the October BTC ATH. Follow and turn notifications on. I'll post the warning BEFORE it hits the headlines.x
• Sector‑wide, BDCs have repriced to ≈20% discounts to NAV, levels historically seen only during the GFC and the 2020 COVID crash.BDCs are pricing in a credit crisis that isn't occurring (at least not yet). While bearish media articles fan the flames of panicked selling due to 40% LTV senior secured loans to sponsor-backed software companies (20% of industry exposure), the median BDC now trades at a >20% discount to NAV. So, current BDC prices roughly assume that all software loans go bad. Note that this also assumes the $0.5 trillion of subordinated private equity capital gets zeroed. Yet no one is talking about private equity exposure. Current BDC NAV discounts have only been wider during the Covid crash and the global financial crisis, in which the financial system almost failed and amid deep recessions. During those periods, private credit loan losses were nowhere near what is being priced in today.x
• The Cliffwater BDC Index fell about 6.6% in 2025 through late December, while the S&P 500 gained roughly 18.1%, highlighting the relative underperformance and repricing of private‑credit proxies.

Market commentary argues current discounts already imply very high default scenarios in software exposure:

• One practitioner observes that with median NAV discounts above 20%, BDC prices “roughly assume that all software loans go bad,” even though reported non‑accruals and defaults are still modest.BDCs are pricing in a credit crisis that isn't occurring (at least not yet). While bearish media articles fan the flames of panicked selling due to 40% LTV senior secured loans to sponsor-backed software companies (20% of industry exposure), the median BDC now trades at a >20% discount to NAV. So, current BDC prices roughly assume that all software loans go bad. Note that this also assumes the $0.5 trillion of subordinated private equity capital gets zeroed. Yet no one is talking about private equity exposure. Current BDC NAV discounts have only been wider during the Covid crash and the global financial crisis, in which the financial system almost failed and amid deep recessions. During those periods, private credit loan losses were nowhere near what is being priced in today.x
• Median non‑accruals across BDCs are around 1–1.2% of portfolio value, though a handful of weaker names already show 3–4% non‑accruals.We Analyzed All 44 BDCs. Here's Who Might Cut Dividendsyoutube

In a move toward 15% defaults, several portfolio‑allocation effects follow:

• Structural widening of discounts for marginal managers with poor underwriting, high PIK, and heavy AI‑exposed software books, as investors differentiate sharply by manager quality.Tech, Software, and BDCs: Navigating Volatility and AI Disruption in ...jpmorgan +1
• Re‑weighting by institutions out of weaker publicly listed funds and into stronger platforms, or out of BDCs altogether and into senior, less levered credit.
• For retail channels, gating and permanent redemption suspensions—as already occurred at Blue Owl’s OBDC II fund—would shift investor allocations back toward simpler, more liquid income vehicles.🚨BIG: THE FIRST MAJOR DOMINO HAS FALLEN. Today, Blue Owl Capital announced that it permanently halted redemptions for Blue Owl Capital Corp II (OBDC II), its $1.7 billion private credit fund aimed at retail investors. And this is not a small thing. Blue Owl Capital is a major alternative asset manager with $307.5 billion in AUM. The reason they are permanently halting redemptions for Blue Owl Capital Corp II (OBDC II) is to manage a "liquidity mismatch" caused by a surge in withdrawal requests. But isn't this issue related to Blue Owl only? Well, this is certainly not the case. Blue Owl’s move to permanently restrict redemptions is signalling broader stress in $3 trillion private credit market. Here are a few warning signs: Roughly 40% of direct lending companies are generating negative free operating cash flow. 30% of companies with debt maturing before 2027 have negative EBITDA, making them extremely difficult to refinance. Default rates for middle-market (MM) borrowers have reached 4.55% and are only rising . Downgrades have outpaced upgrades for seven consecutive quarters. If the stress continues in the private credit market, it'll first impact the small businesses for whom the private credit market is a critical funding source. Additionally, it'll cause refinancing costs to go up and will result in more defaults, which will create a vicious cycle. The only way to stop this is by lowering interest rates and providing liquidity. This is probably why the Fed pumped $18 billion into the economy overnight, as more entities are experiencing a liquidity crunch. But this amount is too small to stop stress in the private credit market. The Fed would have to go full dovish here, or the dominos will continue to fall.x

The NAV‑discount dynamic also shapes how systemic‑risk monitors interpret market signals, as discussed below.

---

3. Macro‑financial spillovers and credit availability

3.1 Contraction in credit supply to SMEs and leveraged borrowers

Private credit has become a major substitute for banks in supplying credit to mid‑market and leveraged borrowers.

• In the euro area, non‑bank finance now accounts for 26–30% of credit to non‑financial corporates, up from ~15% pre‑GFC.Luis de Guindos: Towards a stronger non-bank financial sectoreuropa +1
• In the U.S., private credit has grown to around $1.3–3 trillion, roughly half of commercial bank lending by some measures and about 6% of GDP.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo +1
• The Federal Reserve notes private‑credit borrowers are on average lower quality than high‑yield issuers and that private credit has raised overall corporate leverage, increasing vulnerability to shocks.The Fed - Private Credit: Characteristics and Risksfederalreserve

UBS’s tail scenario explicitly envisions credit availability tightening materially, with private‑credit and loan issuance falling 50–75% year‑over‑year.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo

Macro‑financial implications:

1. SME and mid‑market borrowers that rely on private credit for growth or refinancing face a funding cliff, especially in sectors with concentrated AI risk (software, IT‑enabled business services, media, and certain healthcare IT).Tech, Software, and BDCs: Navigating Volatility and AI Disruption in ...jpmorgan +1
2. Maturity walls in software debt exacerbate this: roughly 46% of software leveraged loans mature within four years, with 25% due in 2028 alone.[PDF] Rate and Credit View - LPL Financiallpl UBS expects AI‑disruption risk to be increasingly reflected in 2026‑27 as these refinancings loom.
3. Historical macro evidence shows that private credit booms and subsequent contractions are strong precursors to financial instability and macro downturns.Vítor Constâncio: Completing the Odyssean journey of the European monetary unioneuropa +1

The transmission to growth operates via:

• Reduced investment and hiring at mid‑market firms with constrained refinancing options.
• Potential increases in bankruptcies among private firms and consumers—already showing up in rising U.S. bankruptcy data and pockets of consumer credit stress.US bankruptcies are rising: the "All" and "Private" lines on the 4-week moving average are hitting record highs for the 2021–2026 period. Y/y growth remains strongly positive; public companies near zero – the real pain is concentrated in private firms and consumers. Post-pandemic normalization, but momentum continues into 2026. 📈⚠️x +2

PineBridge notes that while public high yield looks structurally higher‑quality and is not expected to see a large default spike, private credit excesses may be “resolved through higher defaults in 2026,” with potential employment effects given many portfolio companies are substantial employers.

3.2 Feedback loops with the banking system

Private credit was often sold as a way to move risk out of the banking system, but linkages are now extensive:

• The New York Fed highlights that large U.S. banks have extended about $95–96 billion in loans and commitments to private‑credit vehicles, mostly revolving facilities.NBFIs in Focus: The Basics of Private Credit - The Teller Windownewyorkfed +1
• This exposure is only about 4% of banks’ total NBFI lending, and Fed stress tests suggest full drawdowns of these lines would cut aggregate CET1 ratios by only 2 basis points and LCRs by about 1 percentage point, indicating modest direct solvency risk in baseline stress calibrations.Private Credit and its Link Back to the Rest of the Financial System - iCapitalicapital +1

However, UBS’s tail scenario posits a much broader set of NFBI loans—$2.5 trillion including undrawn commitments—through which losses and funding pressure could hit banks.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo

Channels of contagion include:

• Drawdowns of subscription lines, NAV facilities and back‑leverage when funds can’t raise equity or face gating pressures, exactly when banks may already be tightening credit elsewhere.The Fed - Bank Lending to Private Credit: Size, Characteristics, and Financial Stability Implicationsfederalreserve +1
• SRT and credit‑linked note markets, where banks have transferred risk on loan pools (including private‑fund credit lines) to private‑fund investors; failures of those investors to perform under severe, correlated defaults would push losses back onto banks.The Fed’s Bank Capital Three-Card Monte: Undermines Tighter Rules by Allowing Synthetic Risk Transfers to Famed Hedge Fund Bad Actors Like Magnetar, Aresnakedcapitalism +1
• CLOs backed by private‑credit and software loans, where banks and insurers tend to hold senior tranches; significant equity and mezzanine losses could tighten overall CLO funding and raise spreads, feeding back into bank risk appetite.Update on CLOs – outlook for 2026 - flow – Deutsche Bankdb +2

The Boston Fed and iCapital both stress that while current quantitative exposures look manageable, the interconnectedness and opacity of private‑credit linkages mean that a sufficiently correlated default scenario could transmit tail risk back to banks, especially via liquidity lines and structured products.Private Credit and its Link Back to the Rest of the Financial System - iCapitalicapital +1

3.3 Liquidity mismatch, redemptions and “shadow runs”

Private‑credit funds were marketed as locked‑up vehicles relatively immune to runs, but the rise of semi‑liquid evergreen structures for retail and wealth investors has re‑introduced run dynamics:

• Many evergreen funds promise monthly or quarterly liquidity while holding loans that “take years to sell,” creating a structural mismatch.🦔Private credit hit $3 trillion in 2025, growing faster than almost any asset class in history. Banks tightened lending after 2008 regulations, and private lenders filled the gap. The problem is private credit now functions like a parallel banking system without the safety nets that prevent bank runs. How It Works Companies that can't get bank loans borrow from investment firms like Apollo and Blackstone. The loans don't trade publicly, so they get valued internally rather than by the market. When borrowers struggle to make payments, lenders let them defer interest through PIK loans, adding what they owe to the principal instead of taking cash. This hides distress until maturity when problems surface all at once. Where Regular People Are Exposed Insurance companies put over 35% of their assets into private credit. If you have life insurance or an annuity, your money is there. Retail investors are entering through "evergreen funds" that promise monthly liquidity but hold loans that take years to sell. That mismatch means if everyone wants out at once, the funds gate withdrawals, creating a private credit version of a bank run. My Take Here's what bothers me about this. The IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, and Moody's are all waving red flags, and these aren't people who cry wolf. When borrowers can't pay interest, lenders just let them add it to what they owe instead of calling it what it is: a company that can't afford its debt. The BIS says the valuations are "systematically optimistic," which is a polite way of saying the losses are bigger than anyone's admitting. Your insurance company is betting your retirement on loans graded by people the borrowers pay, held in funds that promise you can get your money out monthly but actually hold stuff that takes years to sell. That works great until it doesn't, and then everyone finds out the exit door is a lot smaller than they thought. Hedgie🤗x +1
• Blue Owl’s OBDC II fund, a $1.7 billion retail vehicle, permanently halted redemptions to address this mismatch after quarterly redemption requests hit ~6% of NAV and forced $1.4 billion of loan sales across three funds.🚨Private credit is flashing a warning sign last seen before the Great Financial Crisis: Blue Owl Capital permanently halted investor redemptions at its retail private credit fund, OBDC II, backtracking from an earlier plan to reopen withdrawals. The fund has been closed to redemptions since November 2025 after a failed merger that would have forced investors to take a -20% hit. Redemptions in Q3 2025 nearly DOUBLED to $60 million, or 6% of the net asset value, forcing the firm to sell -$1.4 billion in credit assets across 3 funds. The $1.4 billion portfolio sold spans 128 companies across 27 industries, with 13% of the loans concentrated in internet and software businesses, sectors increasingly vulnerable to AI disruption. This comes as scrutiny into private credit loan quality intensifies after a string of high-profile defaults. In August 2007, BNP Paribas freezing 3 funds due to "complete evaporation of liquidity" became the first domino of the Global Financial Crisis. Blue Owl is not BNP Paribas, and private credit is not subprime mortgages, but the pattern of locking investors out when redemptions surge is familiar. When a fund stops letting investors leave, it is no longer a liquidity issue. It is a solvency question.x

Liquidity‑risk specialists describe this as a textbook shadow‑bank run pattern:

• Redemptions surge, funds sell their most liquid/performing loans at discounts, depressing marks and raising concerns across the complex.A private credit fund just froze redemptions. That sounds technical. It isn’t. When Blue Owl Capital halted quarterly withdrawals in one of its retail private credit funds, it exposed a structural tension that’s been building for years: Liquid promises built on illiquid assets. Private credit exploded because it offered higher yields than bonds — with the comfort of “periodic liquidity.” But loans to private companies aren’t traded minute-by-minute. When too many investors want out at once, the math breaks down. This isn’t about one fund. It’s about mismatch. Confidence depends on smooth liquidity. When liquidity hesitates, repricing begins. Arthur Hayes recently argued Bitcoin may be signaling tightening fiat liquidity beneath the surface. Whether you agree or not, the timing is hard to ignore. This isn’t collapse. It’s sensitivity. And sensitivity is where instability starts. Full breakdown 👇 https://t.co/ePYqnJlVTUx +1
• Gating or permanent halts convert a “liquidity” issue into a perceived solvency question, as one observer put it.🚨Private credit is flashing a warning sign last seen before the Great Financial Crisis: Blue Owl Capital permanently halted investor redemptions at its retail private credit fund, OBDC II, backtracking from an earlier plan to reopen withdrawals. The fund has been closed to redemptions since November 2025 after a failed merger that would have forced investors to take a -20% hit. Redemptions in Q3 2025 nearly DOUBLED to $60 million, or 6% of the net asset value, forcing the firm to sell -$1.4 billion in credit assets across 3 funds. The $1.4 billion portfolio sold spans 128 companies across 27 industries, with 13% of the loans concentrated in internet and software businesses, sectors increasingly vulnerable to AI disruption. This comes as scrutiny into private credit loan quality intensifies after a string of high-profile defaults. In August 2007, BNP Paribas freezing 3 funds due to "complete evaporation of liquidity" became the first domino of the Global Financial Crisis. Blue Owl is not BNP Paribas, and private credit is not subprime mortgages, but the pattern of locking investors out when redemptions surge is familiar. When a fund stops letting investors leave, it is no longer a liquidity issue. It is a solvency question.x

In a 15% default scenario, redemption pressure and liquidity mismatch would strongly influence portfolio allocations:

• Retail and wealth investors would likely shift away from semi‑liquid private credit toward traditional bond funds, MMMFs and simpler income products.
• Institutional allocators would place a higher premium on structures with clear lock‑ups and limited liquidity promises, or on blended vehicles that include public‑credit sleeves to meet redemptions without forced loan sales.Private credit’s new frontier: innovation, liquidity, and resilience | Aberdeen Investmentsaberdeeninvestments

Macro‑financially, widespread gating episodes increase market‑wide risk aversion, pushing investors toward cash and high‑quality government bonds, amplifying credit‑spread widening.

---

4. Implications for systemic‑risk monitoring and policy design

A 15% default scenario, even if ultimately borne mainly by investors, would force a re‑architecture of systemic‑risk monitoring around four themes: data, metrics, interlinkages, and the lender‑of‑last‑resort perimeter.

4.1 Data gaps, transparency, and valuation lag

Multiple central‑bank and academic sources emphasize that data gaps and opacity around private credit are a core vulnerability:

• The Federal Reserve notes that scarcity of loan‑level data has made it challenging to assess risks, prompting it to construct a dataset of ~17,000 private‑credit loans.The Fed - Private Credit: Characteristics and Risksfederalreserve
• The Fed’s note also flags illiquidity and low recovery rates in private credit, as well as the danger that “dry powder” and competition can lead to weaker underwriting, more covenant‑lite structures and higher future defaults.The Fed - Private Credit: Characteristics and Risksfederalreserve
• An OECD assessment stresses that lack of visibility into private‑loan valuations and derivatives exposures means that in a severe shock, unrealized losses and margin calls could combine with redemptions to trigger fund failures, with limited ability for regulators to see the buildup ex ante.

Harvard researchers argue that expanding the regulatory perimeter to include significant private‑credit funds, improving reporting, and conducting regular stress tests of their portfolios and interconnectedness should be priorities.Private Credit & Systemic Risk | Harvard Kennedy Schoolharvard The same paper calls for:

• Harmonized data‑reporting standards for private‑credit vehicles and borrowers.
• Scenario analyses that explicitly incorporate private‑credit shocks into central‑bank liquidity‑support frameworks.[PDF] Private Credit & Systemic Risk - Moody's Analyticseconomy

In a 15% default event, systemic‑risk monitors would be pushed to:

• Shorten the reporting lag on private‑fund positions, leverage, PIK usage and sectoral exposures.
• Develop NAV‑discount based indicators for BDCs and listed funds as early‑warning tools, recognizing that deep, persistent discounts often reflect skepticism about marks and future losses.BDCs are pricing in a credit crisis that isn't occurring (at least not yet). While bearish media articles fan the flames of panicked selling due to 40% LTV senior secured loans to sponsor-backed software companies (20% of industry exposure), the median BDC now trades at a >20% discount to NAV. So, current BDC prices roughly assume that all software loans go bad. Note that this also assumes the $0.5 trillion of subordinated private equity capital gets zeroed. Yet no one is talking about private equity exposure. Current BDC NAV discounts have only been wider during the Covid crash and the global financial crisis, in which the financial system almost failed and amid deep recessions. During those periods, private credit loan losses were nowhere near what is being priced in today.x +1
• Focus on “shadow non‑accrual” indicators—such as rising amendment activity and PIK incidence—that precede formal defaults.The BDC Primer (Part 2) - JunkBondInvestorjunkbondinvestor +1

4.2 Integrating private credit into macro‑prudential dashboards

Existing financial‑stability frameworks already highlight non‑bank leverage, liquidity mismatch, and interconnections as key vulnerabilities:

• The New York Fed’s framework groups vulnerabilities into price of risk, leverage, maturity/liquidity transformation, and interconnections across asset markets, banks, shadow banks, and the non‑financial sector.[PDF] A Framework to Monitor Systemic Risknewyorkfed
• ECB speeches emphasize that non‑bank finance assets in the euro area nearly doubled to €31–48 trillion post‑GFC, with non‑bank credit to corporates rising from ~15% to over 25%, and that liquidity mismatches and leverage in funds can amplify shocks.Luis de Guindos: Towards a stronger non-bank financial sectoreuropa +1

In a severe private‑credit default scenario, macro‑prudential authorities would likely:

• Elevate private credit to a core pillar of systemic‑risk monitoring, on par with housing finance or bank capital in their dashboards.
• Consider countercyclical capital buffers or sectoral tools that respond to rapid non‑bank credit growth, as suggested by Harvard’s policy note.Private Credit & Systemic Risk | Harvard Kennedy Schoolharvard
• Intensify cross‑sector stress testing, including:
  • Joint scenarios for private‑credit defaults, BDC NAV shocks, insurer capital hits and bank line drawdowns.The Fed - Bank Lending to Private Credit: Size, Characteristics, and Financial Stability Implicationsfederalreserve +1
  • Assessment of spillovers via CLOs, SRTs and NBFI funding markets.Recycling Risk: Synthetic Risk Transfersimf +1

The IMF and OECD already warn that as private‑credit interconnectivity grows, volatility and contagion risks rise, especially when retail investors gain a larger role and liquidity management tools are untested.Private credit outlook 2026 executive summary - Moody'smoodys

4.3 Lender‑of‑last‑resort perimeter and non‑bank interventions

Traditionally, central‑bank lender‑of‑last‑resort (LOLR) facilities have been confined to banks and certain market‑wide backstops. Educational and IMF materials underscore that:

• Central banks lend against high‑quality collateral to depository institutions to prevent crises from becoming systemic disasters, as in the 2007–09 GFC and immediately after 9/11.Segment 711: What Is a Lender of Last Resort?youtube
• During recent crises, central banks expanded the range of counterparties and collateral to support certain non‑bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs), but in carefully circumscribed ways.Addressing Market Dysfunction and Liquidity Stresses in Nonbank Financial Intermediariesimf

A private‑credit‑driven event raises uncomfortable LOLR questions:

• Private‑credit funds do not have direct access to central‑bank facilities.NBFIs in Focus: The Basics of Private Credit - The Teller Windownewyorkfed
• Yet central banks might feel compelled to stabilize bank funding markets, CLO debt or key NBFI funding segments if stresses threaten financial stability, as occurred with money‑market funds and corporate credit in 2020.Addressing Market Dysfunction and Liquidity Stresses in Nonbank Financial Intermediariesimf

The IMF recommends that NBFI liquidity backstops be:

• Clearly targeted at systemic‑risk mitigation, not investor bailouts.
• Supported by robust ex‑ante regulation and supervision to limit moral hazard.Addressing Market Dysfunction and Liquidity Stresses in Nonbank Financial Intermediariesimf

Under a 15% default shock, expect:

• Stronger calls to formalize frameworks for NBFI liquidity support, especially for markets where private credit and securitization are integral to corporate funding.
• Parallel moves to tighten prudential expectations on leverage and liquidity mismatch in funds that might benefit from any future interventions.Fabio Panetta: Stay safe at the intersection: the confluence of big techs and global stablecoinseuropa

4.4 Re‑weighting systemic‑risk priorities

Finally, a realized UBS‑style tail event would shift the hierarchy of systemic concerns:

• The Federal Reserve’s own survey already finds that “private credit stress” has become the number‑one risk cited by institutional investors, ahead of some traditional macro risks.SEVEN VECTORS. ONE QUARTER. ZERO PRECEDENT. The Federal Reserve just admitted on page 47 of a report no one reads that "private credit stress" is now the #1 risk cited by the institutional investors they survey. They printed it. Published it. Markets kept climbing. Here's what they buried: Office CMBS delinquency hit 11.76%—exceeding the 2008 crisis peak. Not approaching. Exceeded. Already. The Fed's $2.5 trillion RRP liquidity buffer? Collapsed to $342 billion. 86% gone. Oracle carries $109B in debt financing AI infrastructure through a $300B contract with OpenAI—which projects $100B in cumulative losses. Moody's used exactly these words: "significant counterparty risk." The yen carry trade that sent VIX to 65 in August 2024? BIS confirms it "only partly unwound." Regional banks hold 44% of CRE loans. 55% exceed the 300% concentration threshold that used to trigger immediate regulatory intervention. Tariff rates just hit 11.2%—highest since 1943—while constraining every Fed response option. Private credit's $2 trillion market reports 2% defaults while PIK income doubles. Translation: they're not paying interest. They're adding it to principal and calling the loan "performing." Seven stress vectors. All intensifying. All scheduled to collide Q1-Q2 2026. My prediction: By March 31, 2026, at least one regional bank with $25B+ assets requires FDIC intervention due to CRE losses. Bookmark this. The arithmetic doesn't care about your portfolio. It doesn't care about consensus. It doesn't negotiate. The seven seals are not metaphor. They're measurable, dateable, interconnected. The reckoning 2008 postponed is scheduled. Read the full article here - https://t.co/91YkrhdiUQx
• FSOC and other authorities are increasingly labeling opaque leverage and non‑bank intermediation as national‑security‑relevant systemic threats.🔥 LONDON HAS FALLEN 🔥 For decades, a small club of global banks - centered in places like the City of London - made money by: • Creating money from nothing • Lending it back to everyone with interest • Using regulation, taxes, and wars to guarantee repayment The 2025 FSOC Report + the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy together say: “Game over. That system is now a national security threat.” Not a policy tweak. A hard pivot. First: what was the old game? Imagine this like a rigged credit card for the whole world: • Banks print money digitally (fractional-reserve banking) • Governments borrow it • Families pay inflation + interest • Wars and crises justify more borrowing • Regulators protect the banks, not households Result: • Debt grows faster than real work • Middle class gets squeezed • Banks never lose That model only works if no one challenges it. Now here’s what changed in 2025 and why it matters • The FSOC Report says the quiet part out loud FSOC = America’s top financial risk referee. In 2025, FSOC officially declares: Uncontrolled leverage, opaque intermediaries, offshore financial centers, and debt-driven instability are systemic threats. Translation: • Too much fake money • Too much hidden risk • Too much power outside Treasury control This is the U.S. government publicly turning on the old banking model. The U.S. National Security Strategy connects money to survival This is the real hammer. The National Security Strategy (NSS) says: • Financial systems are weapons • Debt dependency = foreign leverage • Monetary sovereignty = national security Translation: “If another financial cartel can crash our economy, control our currency, or finance wars through debt - we are not free.” That is a death sentence for external banking empires. Why this hits the City of London hardest The City of London isn’t just a place - it’s: • Offshore banking • Shadow leverage • Regulatory arbitrage • War financing pipelines • Debt recycling machines The new U.S. stance says: • No more hidden intermediaries • No more unlimited leverage • No more foreign monetary control • No more war-for-profit finance structures Their advantage disappears when transparency, collateral, and real settlement are required. What replaces it? (This is the part that matters to families) Instead of: • Printed debt • Endless interest • Inflation taxes • Bailouts for banks The shift is toward: • Real-asset backing • Transparent settlement • Direct ownership • No middlemen skimming every transaction • Money that can’t be endlessly counterfeited When money has rules again: • Savings stop evaporating • Work regains value • Governments lose the ability to quietly steal via inflation • Wars become harder to finance Why this feels sudden (but isn’t) This didn’t happen overnight. • 2008 exposed the fraud • 2020 broke the system • 2022 showed currency weaponization • 2025 formalizes the reset FSOC = financial diagnosis NSS = enforcement authority Together they say: “The old debt-enslavement model is no longer compatible with a free nation.” The Bottom-line Truth If you strip away all politics and finance language: • You were never bad with money • The system was designed to drain you • That system is now officially labeled a threat • The rules are changing in favor of real work, real value, and real ownership This isn’t about left vs right. It’s families vs a rigged financial game. And for the first time since 1963, the rigged system is being exposed and ended by our 47th U.S. @POTUS. @realDonaldTrump @PrometheanActn @cityoflondon @BISgov @Ripple @federalreserve @GEdward_Griffinx

Post‑shock, systemic‑risk monitoring would likely:

• Down‑weight traditional bank‑centric metrics alone and adopt a more network‑centric approach quantifying:
  • Exposures of insurers, pensions, and funds to private‑credit assets and structures.
  • SRT, CLO, and other securitization channels recycling risk back to core institutions.FSB finds that the G20 financial regulatory reforms have enhanced the resilience of securitisation markets - Financial Stability Boardfsb +1
• Integrate sectoral AI‑disruption stress tests—specifically targeting software and services credits—into standard financial‑stability exercises, mirroring UBS’s own scenario design.AI disruption and private credit: what is the risk scenario?yahoo

---

5. Synthesis: The arch, not just the bricks

Putting the pieces together, UBS’s 15% private‑credit default scenario imposes macro‑financial consequences along two main axes:

1. Institutional portfolio allocation

   • Insurers: Capital erosion and downgrades would drive de‑risking, reallocation toward higher‑quality, more liquid bonds, and stricter internal limits on AI‑exposed private credit and highly structured instruments.The impact of COVID-19 on insurersvoxeu +1
   • Pensions and endowments: Denominator‑effect pressures, coupled with gating and reduced distributions, would push them to trim future private‑credit commitments, exploit secondaries, and sell public assets to meet near‑term liquidity needs.The Trillion-Dollar Private Credit Market Faces Its First Big Test | Institutional Investorinstitutionalinvestor +1
   • Listed private‑credit vehicles: Deepening NAV discounts and credit‑quality dispersion would cause institutions to rotate out of weaker BDCs, concentrate with top managers or shift up the capital structure, while retail flows retreat toward traditional income products.BDCs are pricing in a credit crisis that isn't occurring (at least not yet). While bearish media articles fan the flames of panicked selling due to 40% LTV senior secured loans to sponsor-backed software companies (20% of industry exposure), the median BDC now trades at a >20% discount to NAV. So, current BDC prices roughly assume that all software loans go bad. Note that this also assumes the $0.5 trillion of subordinated private equity capital gets zeroed. Yet no one is talking about private equity exposure. Current BDC NAV discounts have only been wider during the Covid crash and the global financial crisis, in which the financial system almost failed and amid deep recessions. During those periods, private credit loan losses were nowhere near what is being priced in today.x +1

2. Systemic‑risk monitoring and policy

   • Data and transparency: Authorities would accelerate efforts to close data gaps, standardize private‑credit reporting, and use market‑based indicators (NAV discounts, CLO spreads, SRT volumes) as systemic early‑warning signals.The Fed - Private Credit: Characteristics and Risksfederalreserve
   • Macro‑prudential tools: Private credit would become a central focus of countercyclical and sectoral tools, with stress tests explicitly modeling AI‑driven sectoral shocks and their propagation through insurers, pensions, banks and securitization chains.Could the Growth of Private Credit Pose a Risk to Financial System Stability? - Federal Reserve Bank of Bostonbostonfed +1
   • LOLR perimeter and NBFI backstops: Central banks would be pushed to clarify under what conditions and structures they support markets or NBFIs exposed to private‑credit assets, while tightening ex‑ante constraints on leverage and liquidity mismatch for any beneficiaries.NBFIs in Focus: The Basics of Private Credit - The Teller Windownewyorkfed +1

In short, a 15% default scenario would not primarily be about bank insolvency in the classic sense. It would be about forced repricing and reallocation across the institutional complex, combined with a step‑change in how regulators treat private credit: less like a niche alternative and more like a core, monitored component of the credit system whose distress needs to be explicitly integrated into macro‑financial stability frameworks.