Cross-Border Private Credit Set to Surge: How Operational Excellence Separates Winners From Laggards in a $1.5 Trillion Asset Class

The geographic diversification of private credit deployment represents a defining feature of this growth trajectory. While the United States has historically dominated global private credit originations—accounting for approximately 70% of growth in certain substrategies—European markets have experienced equally impressive expansion, driven by bank retrenchment, regulatory reforms facilitating non-bank lending, and rising demand from institutional investors seeking attractive risk-adjusted returns[4][11][12]. The addressable market for private credit across diverse asset classes now exceeds $30 trillion globally, encompassing not only traditional direct corporate lending but also asset-based finance, fund finance, infrastructure financing, real estate lending, and emerging asset classes such as technology and healthcare securitizations[29][44][47]. This market broadening reflects a fundamental evolution in private credit’s role within the capital structure, transitioning from a purely counter-cyclical, high-yield instrument deployed during periods of bank retrenchment to a core financing tool offering structural advantages in speed, flexibility, and customization that appeal to borrowers and lenders alike, regardless of economic cycle dynamics[9][29].

The composition of private credit deployment has also shifted meaningfully, with direct corporate lending—traditionally the largest component—now representing a declining share of total private credit originations, while specialized segments including asset-based finance, opportunistic capital, real estate financing, and infrastructure lending experience accelerated growth[9][29][44]. This diversification reflects both supply-side pressures (intensifying competition in commoditized direct lending segments) and demand-side opportunities (banks’ reduced appetite for certain asset classes, institutional investors’ desire for differentiation, and the emergence of previously underserved borrower populations)[29][30]. Notably, smaller, more complex deals have become increasingly attractive for sophisticated lenders who recognize that the highest-quality risk-adjusted returns often emerge from non-commoditized, founder-led transactions in sectors with durable business models and tangible asset backing[30]. These structural shifts have profound implications for managers’ business model evolution, fund positioning, and the infrastructure investments required to maintain competitive advantage in an increasingly specialized and operationally intensive asset class[4][16].

The GP-LP Disconnect: Divergent Assessments of Cross-Border Readiness and Operational Capability

Recent research by CSC, the leading provider of business administration and compliance solutions to alternative asset managers, has surfaced a striking misalignment between general partners’ confidence in cross-border expansion and limited partners’ caution regarding operational readiness[1][3][7]. Among general partners surveyed across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, 79% expect significant cross-border private credit deal volume growth over the next three years, with more than half (51%) forecasting rapid acceleration in international originations[1][3]. This managerial optimism reflects multiple reinforcing factors: abundant dry powder seeking deployment, strong institutional demand for yield and diversification, the relative scarcity of prime deal opportunities in domestic markets, and the belief that established managers possess sufficient operational sophistication to execute multi-jurisdictional transactions at scale[1][4][11]. Yet this sanguine outlook stands in sharp contrast to limited partners’ behavior and sentiment. Forty percent of LPs reported actively turning down multiple fund or investment opportunities during 2024 specifically due to operational concerns including inconsistent reporting standards, unclear risk frameworks, and doubts about managers’ ability to deliver reliable transparency across multiple jurisdictions[1][3][7]. This 39-percentage-point gap—between GP growth expectations and LP capital deployment decisions—represents not merely a communication gap but rather a fundamental uncertainty regarding operational readiness that threatens to constrain capital flows into cross-border strategies despite robust investor interest in the underlying credit opportunities[1][3].

The sources of LP caution are multifaceted and substantive, rooted in genuine operational and governance challenges rather than misplaced anxiety. Limited partners have elevated their expectations for transparency, data granularity, and reporting consistency in response to the asset class’s maturation, the growing sophistication of institutional allocators, and heightened regulatory scrutiny of non-bank financial intermediaries[1][2][26]. Specifically, LPs now prioritize real-time access to loan-level performance data, consistent borrower credit quality assessments across jurisdictions, granular covenant monitoring, and clear visibility into liquidity and portfolio risk metrics—capabilities that many GPs have struggled to deliver reliably, particularly in cross-border contexts where disparate legal regimes, accounting standards, and data infrastructure create friction and opacity[1][4][16]. An overwhelming 92% of LPs express concern about the operational complexity inherent in cross-border private credit transactions, acknowledging the difficulty of monitoring and managing exposures across multiple regulatory jurisdictions, AML regimes, and legal systems[1][3][10]. This widespread anxiety reflects not skepticism about the underlying economics of international lending opportunities but rather legitimate doubts about whether managers possess adequate operational infrastructure, compliance frameworks, and technology platforms to deliver the transparency and governance that institutional investors increasingly demand[1][3][4].

The divergence between GP confidence and LP caution has particularly acute implications for mid-sized and emerging managers attempting to scale internationally. Larger, established platforms such as Blackstone, Apollo Global Management, and Ares—which have invested substantially in global operational infrastructure, independent fund administration, and sophisticated compliance frameworks—have maintained relatively stable LP capital flows despite challenging fundraising conditions across the broader private capital industry[11]. Conversely, smaller platforms and emerging managers often lack the operational scale, geographic footprint, and compliance sophistication required to credibly execute cross-border strategies at the standardization and transparency levels that institutional LPs increasingly demand[1][4]. This operational divide has begun to manifest in fundraising dynamics, with LPs increasingly concentrating capital among managers demonstrating world-class operational capabilities while becoming more selective and demanding with mid-sized and emerging platforms[1][3][4]. Over time, this capital concentration trend may accelerate industry consolidation, strengthen the competitive moats of platforms with best-in-class operations, and further constrain fundraising opportunities for managers unable to meet evolving operational standards[4][11].

Operational Complexity as a Strategic Bottleneck: Regulatory, Legal, and Compliance Hurdles

The operational complexity of cross-border private credit transactions emanates from multiple sources, each presenting distinct challenges that individually are manageable but collectively create a daunting complexity matrix that continues to overwhelm many managers. Anti-money laundering (AML) compliance stands foremost among these challenges, requiring managers to implement Customer Identification Procedures (CIP), Know-Your-Customer (KYC) protocols, and ongoing transaction monitoring across distinct regulatory jurisdictions with varying standards, reporting requirements, and enforcement priorities[14][15][22]. While AML frameworks share certain foundational principles globally, the devil resides in implementation details: the United States’ Bank Secrecy Act enforces strict reporting thresholds and suspicious activity identification standards; the European Union operates within the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive and GDPR constraints that impose different data governance obligations; and jurisdictions such as Luxembourg, the UK, and Singapore maintain idiosyncratic requirements that create friction for managers attempting to implement standardized, scalable AML systems[14][22][26]. Compounding this complexity, regulators have escalated enforcement activities targeting inadequate AML compliance, with the SEC and FCA bringing enforcement actions against managers for failing to maintain reasonably designed AML programs—heightening institutional risk and incentivizing more conservative compliance postures that increase operational overhead[26][41][49].

Multijurisdictional reporting obligations represent a second major complexity driver, extending far beyond AML to encompass fund accounting, performance reporting, investor communication, and regulatory disclosures tailored to each relevant jurisdiction. A single cross-border private credit fund may operate under the oversight of multiple regulators (SEC, FCA, BaFin, AMF, CSSF, etc.), each imposing distinct reporting standards, performance calculation methodologies, and disclosure requirements that often conflict or require redundant data processing and reconciliation[1][4][26]. For example, U.S. fund administrators must comply with SEC Rules 13d-1 and 13f-1 for certain investors, Dodd-Frank position reporting requirements for structured products, and entity-level regulatory capital reporting if the fund is deemed a systemically important financial institution[26]. Simultaneously, EU-domiciled funds must comply with UCITS or AIFM Directive requirements, including SFDR Level 2 sustainability disclosures, MiFID II reporting standards, and increasingly, CSSF guidance on private credit risk management[2][22][26]. This regulatory multiplicity creates not merely administrative burden but genuine risk for managers: incomplete or inconsistent reporting can trigger regulatory sanctions, investor litigation, and reputational damage that extends far beyond the financial cost of remediation[1][4].

The enforcement of covenants and contractual rights across diverse legal systems presents a third dimension of cross-border complexity that directly impacts value realization and risk mitigation. A private credit loan documentation package executed under New York law may contain provisions regarding financial maintenance covenants, material adverse change clauses, and prepayment terms that differ substantially from market precedent in European transactions governed by English law or transactions involving borrowers in Asia-Pacific jurisdictions subject to local law constraints[15][27][50]. When a borrower approaches covenant breach or financial distress, the ability to enforce contractual remedies varies dramatically across jurisdictions: English law courts and New York courts generally recognize robust creditor remedies and provide relatively predictable enforcement outcomes; certain European jurisdictions impose mandatory negotiations or restructuring procedures that constrain lenders’ flexibility; and enforcement in developing-economy jurisdictions may be time-consuming, costly, and uncertain[15][27][50]. These enforcement disparities necessitate sophisticated cross-border transaction structuring, often involving offshore holding companies, multi-currency collateral arrangements, and complex intercreditor agreements that add transaction costs, extend closing timelines, and introduce legal risk that impacts return on invested capital[15].

Beyond these primary operational challenges, managers must navigate evolving regulatory scrutiny from banking regulators, securities regulators, and macroprudential authorities increasingly focused on non-bank financial intermediaries’ systemic importance. The Financial Stability Board and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors have explicitly identified private credit as a priority for enhanced monitoring, reflecting concerns about opacity, potential fire-sale risks, borrower leverage, and interconnectedness with the banking system[2][5][33][51]. This regulatory heightening has translated into new reporting demands, stress-testing requirements for certain manager categories, and supervisory guidance that effectively raises compliance standards across the industry[2][5]. Insurance regulators, in particular, have begun imposing new capital and liquidity requirements for insurer exposures to private credit funds, reflecting recognition that capital calls during periods of market stress or insurer liquidity pressure could trigger systemic instability—a concern that manifests in revised fund documentation, clearer capital call procedures, and enhanced transparency requirements[2][51].

The Transparency Imperative: LP Demands for Granular, Real-Time Data and Risk Visibility

Limited partners’ escalating demands for operational transparency and data granularity reflect a fundamental shift in private capital markets dynamics, driven by institutional allocators’ increasing sophistication, their experience with inadequate information flows during previous cycles, and the growing competition for LP capital among alternative asset managers[1][4][43]. Historically, private credit fund reporting operated on quarterly or semi-annual schedules, with LPs receiving portfolio-level performance summaries, asset allocation breakdowns, and audited financial statements that provided adequate visibility for most institutional investors’ governance purposes[1][16][19]. Contemporary institutional LPs, however—particularly large pension funds, insurance companies, and family offices managing multi-billion-dollar alternative portfolios—have invested substantially in internal infrastructure, analytical capabilities, and data systems that enable sophisticated real-time portfolio analysis and risk monitoring[1][4][43]. These sophisticated allocators now expect private credit managers to provide daily or weekly updated information on portfolio composition, loan-level performance, borrower credit quality, covenant compliance status, and emerging risks—with the expectation that this information will flow seamlessly into the LPs’ centralized portfolio management systems via APIs and standardized data feeds[1][4][16][19][43].

The specific metrics that LPs now prioritize in cross-border private credit evaluations reflect this data-driven, sophisticated approach. Loan-level returns and borrower payment trends remain foundational metrics, but LPs have increasingly elevated the importance of detailed borrower credit quality assessments, granular loan performance data across asset types and geographies, covenant compliance tracking, and forward-looking risk indicators such as borrower refinancing risk and industry-specific stress signals[1][4]. Simultaneously, LPs demand consistent, auditable methodologies for these calculations—a requirement that creates substantial complexity for managers operating across multiple jurisdictions with disparate accounting standards, legal regimes, and data infrastructure[1][4][16]. For example, calculating borrower EBITDA or leverage ratios requires consistent treatment of add-backs, pro forma adjustments, and one-time charges; yet European companies, U.S. sponsors, and Asian borrowers often utilize different accounting standards, creating genuine methodological challenges in developing consistent, comparable metrics across a cross-border portfolio[1][4]. LPs have become increasingly demanding on this front, requiring independent third-party verification of calculations, transparent documentation of methodologies, and audit trails demonstrating internal controls—escalating demands that many mid-sized managers struggle to satisfy cost-effectively[1][4][43].

The demand for real-time reporting and transparency extends beyond performance metrics to encompass operational and governance visibility. LPs increasingly expect to access detailed fund documentation, investment committee materials, officer and director information, and compliance certifications through secure investor portals, enabling LP staff and their advisors to monitor manager operations, compliance, and governance on an ongoing basis[1][4][16][19]. This transparency imperative reflects legitimate LP concerns about operational risk, governance quality, and the potential for manager conflicts of interest—concerns that have been amplified by high-profile private credit manager failures, including First Brands Group and Tricolor Holdings, which have intensified regulatory and investor scrutiny of fund operations, valuation practices, and governance frameworks[11][36][41][49]. In response, sophisticated LPs have begun imposing contractual transparency and governance requirements—including investor advisory committee participation, direct audit access, and periodic third-party operational audits—that further increase managers’ compliance burden while simultaneously enhancing LP confidence in cross-border operations[1][4][49].

Technology and Outsourcing Solutions: The Emerging Competitive Battleground

Recognition of the operational complexity gap separating manager capabilities from LP expectations has catalyzed widespread adoption of technology solutions and strategic outsourcing arrangements among sophisticated private credit managers. Current data reveals that 82% of private credit GPs rely on third-party loan agents to streamline operations, with 66% engaged in regular engagement over the past year, and 88% expecting to increase utilization of specialized service providers[1][3][10]. This outsourcing trend reflects not merely cost optimization but rather a strategic reorientation toward focusing internal resources on credit selection, underwriting, and portfolio management while delegating operational infrastructure—loan administration, fund accounting, compliance monitoring, and investor reporting—to specialized external partners with scale, expertise, and technological sophistication[1][4][16][19]. This co-sourcing or hybrid outsourcing model enables managers to maintain direct control over credit strategy and underwriting while leveraging service providers’ infrastructure, compliance expertise, and technology platforms to deliver the operational excellence that LPs increasingly demand[1][4][43].

The technology infrastructure supporting next-generation fund administration and private credit operations has evolved substantially over the past two to three years, driven by AI advances, cloud computing scalability, and specialized software vendors’ capacity innovations. Modern fund administration platforms now incorporate artificial intelligence capabilities to automate data extraction from complex legal documents, streamline reconciliations across custodian and vendor feeds, detect accounting anomalies, and generate investor reporting dashboards with minimal manual intervention[16][19][40][43]. These AI-powered capabilities address one of private credit administration’s most labor-intensive and error-prone functions: the manual extraction of loan-level data from credit agreements, loan notices, and collateral files, followed by system entry and reconciliation[16][40]. Advanced platforms can now process loan documentation through machine learning algorithms trained on loan agreement language patterns, automatically extract key terms, calculate facility metrics, and populate fund administration systems with validated data, reducing manual work by an estimated 50% to 80% while simultaneously improving accuracy and audit compliance[16][40][43]. Similarly, AI-driven reconciliation engines can automatically match fund accounting transactions against custodial positions, bank statements, and portfolio company reports, flagging only genuine exceptions for human review rather than requiring line-by-line manual matching[16][19][40][43].

The adoption of real-time reporting and data transparency capabilities has accelerated substantially as fund administrators and technology vendors have invested in cloud-based platforms that enable continuous data refresh, immediate dashboards, and investor portal access to underlying fund data[4][16][19][43]. Rather than the traditional quarterly close cycle in which fund administrators spend weeks gathering data, reconciling positions, and finalizing investor statements, next-generation platforms enable near-real-time NAV production, continuous portfolio monitoring, and investor access to preliminary or estimated metrics well before formal quarterly reporting[16][19][43]. This capability to compress reporting cycles from quarterly to monthly to weekly or even daily dramatically reduces the information asymmetry between managers and LPs, enabling sophisticated institutional investors to monitor portfolio performance, risk concentrations, and emerging operational issues on an ongoing basis[1][4][16][43]. The adoption of standardized data schemas, APIs, and open integration architectures has further accelerated this transparency infrastructure development, enabling fund administrators to pull data from loan servicing platforms, collateral management systems, accounting software, and portfolio monitoring tools into centralized data warehouses that power dashboards and investor reporting without manual intervention[16][19][43].

LPs have responded positively to these technology and outsourcing trends, recognizing that managers’ willingness to invest in world-class operational infrastructure and partner with specialized service providers signals commitment to transparency and governance excellence. An overwhelming 92% of LPs believe that GPs who outsource to trusted specialists are better equipped to deliver enhanced reporting and risk transparency, especially in complex cross-border environments[1][3][10]. This LP endorsement of outsourcing and specialization reflects rational recognition that no single organization can maintain world-class capabilities across credit underwriting, loan administration, fund accounting, compliance, and investor relations simultaneously; managers focused on credit excellence while leveraging partners’ operational expertise likely deliver superior results compared to those attempting to maintain in-house capabilities across all functions[1][3][4]. This recognition has begun to reshape competitive dynamics within the private credit industry, with technology-enabled service providers and specialized fund administrators becoming increasingly critical to successful cross-border operations[1][4][16][19][43]. Managers that successfully integrate third-party partners into their operational infrastructure while maintaining clear control over credit strategy and underwriting decisions appear to be gaining disproportionate capital flows and outperforming less operationally sophisticated competitors[1][3][4].

Risk Management and Valuation Transparency: Emerging Regulatory and Investor Concerns

As the private credit market has matured and expanded, regulatory and investor scrutiny of credit quality, underwriting standards, and valuation practices has intensified substantially, reflecting both legitimate systemic risk concerns and heightened focus on potential fraud or mismanagement within non-bank financial intermediaries. The Financial Stability Board, International Association of Insurance Supervisors, Federal Reserve, and securities regulators globally have identified private credit as a priority sector for enhanced monitoring, stress-testing, and supervisory guidance development, reflecting recognition that the combination of rapid growth, potential leverage, illiquidity, and opacity creates potential financial stability risks if market stress coincides with widespread credit deterioration or funding disruptions[2][5][21][33][51]. Particular regulatory concern focuses on several dimensions: the potential for aggressive underwriting and deteriorating credit quality as competition intensifies and managers face pressure to deploy abundant dry powder; the prevalence of covenant-lite or covenant-loose transactions that reduce creditor protections relative to historical norms; and potential opacity or subjectivity in loan valuations that could mask deteriorating credit quality or create conflict-of-interest situations[33][41][49].

Valuation challenges and regulatory scrutiny of valuation practices have emerged as a particular area of concern for securities regulators and investor advocates, reflecting recognition that private credit valuations—unlike public bond or syndicated loan valuations—lack transparent market pricing and rely substantially on manager judgment informed by internal models and subjective assessments of borrower credit quality and recovery assumptions[41][49]. The recent bankruptcies of First Brands Group and Tricolor Holdings, both heavily backed by private credit providers, have heightened questions about valuation methodologies, the adequacy of internal controls over valuations, and the potential for managers to mask deteriorating credit quality through aggressive assumptions or accounting treatments[11][36][41][49]. Securities regulators have begun to scrutinize managers’ valuation policies more carefully, investigating whether internal controls over valuations are adequate, whether independent third-party valuations are obtained for illiquid investments, and whether conflicts of interest are properly identified and managed[26][41][49]. The SEC has brought enforcement actions against fund managers for inadequate valuation controls and misleading investor disclosures regarding valuation methodologies, signaling heightened regulatory expectations for managers to maintain rigorous, well-documented valuation processes with appropriate independent oversight[26][41][49].

The challenge of maintaining consistent, auditable credit quality assessments across cross-border portfolio

https://www.cscglobal.com/service/press/cross-border-private-credit-set-to-surge/, https://www.iais.org/2025/12/iais-global-insurance-market-report-2025-highlights-growth-of-investments-in-private-credit-geoeconomic-fragmentation-and-ai-adoption-as-key-supervisory-priorities/, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251204982051/en/Cross-Border-Private-Credit-Set-to-Surge-But-Operational-Complexity-Threatens-Momentum-CSC-Finds, https://www.cscglobal.com/service/resources/private-credit-2025/, https://www.fsb.org/2025/11/evolution-of-private-credit-markets-and-stablecoins-warrant-close-monitoring-says-fsb-chair/, https://www.alliancebernstein.com/corporate/en/insights/investment-insights/resilience-by-design-how-private-credit-handles-the-cycle.html, https://alternativecreditinvestor.com/2025/12/04/gps-bullish-on-private-credit-but-transparency-fears-hold-back-lps/, https://www.brookfield.com/views-news/insights/private-credit-opportunities-universe-keeps-expanding, https://www.morganstanley.com/im/en-ch/intermediary-investor/insights/articles/private-credit-outlook-2025-opportunity-growth.html, https://www.cscglobal.com/service/press/cross-border-private-credit-set-to-surge/, https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/articles/2025/11/private-credit-gains-ground-among-top-private-equity-managers-94290783, https://www.proskauer.com/uploads/trends-in-private-credit-2025, https://www.privatedebtinvestor.com/lps-concerned-about-cross-border-lending-complexity-report/, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/aml, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/3952116c/country-risk-in-unprecedented-times-a-precedent-for-cross-border-loan-documentation, https://www.junipersquare.com/solutions/private-credit, https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/publications/client-alerts/aml-best-practices-for-private-fund-managers-the-prudence-of-establishing-an-aml-compliance-program-investment-management, https://www.cscglobal.com/service/press/cross-border-private-credit-set-to-surge/, https://www.allvuesystems.com/industries/fund-administrators/, https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/private-markets-how-will-fund-finance-shape-private-credit-s101660730, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/bank-lending-to-private-credit-size-characteristics-and-financial-stability-implications-20250523.html, https://iqeq.com/insights/whats-new-in-regulatory-compliance-for-the-world-of-private-credit/, https://www.privatedebtinvestor.com/lp-perspectives-2025-read-the-full-report-here/, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/05/2025-22015/loan-performance-categories-and-financial-reporting, https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/private-credit-laws-and-regulations/, https://www.lw.com/en/insights-landing/admin/upload/SiteAttachments/Private-Credit-2025.pdf, https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/private-credit-laws-and-regulations/deal-structures-in-private-credit/, https://www.afp.com/en/infos/cross-border-private-credit-set-surge-operational-complexity-threatens-momentum-csc-finds, https://www.wellington.com/en-us/intermediary/insights/2025-private-credit-outlook-5-key-trends, https://www.generalatlantic.com/insights/why-smaller-more-complex-deals-are-attractive-in-todays-private-credit-market/, https://www.cscglobal.com/service/press/cross-border-private-credit-set-to-surge/, https://www.morganstanley.com/im/en-ch/intermediary-investor/insights/articles/private-credit-outlook-2025-opportunity-growth.html, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/private-credit-characteristics-and-risks-20240223.html, https://carta.com/learn/private-funds/private-equity/strategies/private-credit-investing/, https://www.statestreet.com/sg/en/insights/rise-of-private-credit, https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2025/10/private-credit-identify-and-manage-its-current-risks, https://www.kkr.com/insights/private-credit-outlook, https://www.cscglobal.com/service/press/cross-border-private-credit-set-to-surge/, https://www.clearlyacquired.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-private-credit-fund-metrics, https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/articles/asset-management/2025/ai-plays-for-smart-fund-admin-and-profitability, https://www.privateequitylitigation.com/?p=3846, https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/credit-estimates-provide-transparency-into-bdcs-investments-s101656198, https://alterdomus.com/insight/fund-administration-trends/, https://www.wellington.com/en/insights/2026-private-credit-outlook, https://aztec.group/us/insights/the-lp-perspective-what-next-for-allocations-to-private-debt/?print=pdf, https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/articles/tackling-risk-effectively-todays-private-credit-market, https://www.wellington.com/en-us/institutional/insights/2026-private-credit-outlook, https://www.lordabbett.com/en-us/financial-advisor/insights/investment-objectives/2025/a-closer-look-at-the-growth-of-private-credit-markets.html, https://www.proskauer.com/blog/three-risks-to-monitor-in-private-credit, https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/private-credit-laws-and-regulations/deal-structures-in-private-credit/, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpolicy/private-credit-systemic-risk, https://www.ml.com/articles/lets-talk-alts-real-estate-private-credit.html, https://www.afp.com/de/node/3806465, https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/private-markets-how-will-fund-finance-shape-private-credit-s101660730, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/insights/global-insights/todays-private-credit-opportunity, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/private-capital/our-insights/global-private-markets-report, https://www.idealsvdr.com/blog/mna-deal-structure-types/, https://www.lordabbett.com/en-us/financial-advisor/insights/investment-objectives/2025/a-closer-look-at-the-growth-of-private-credit-markets.html, https://www.bain.com/insights/private-equity-midyear-report-2025/, https://dealroom.net/blog/challenges-during-m-a, https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/private-markets-how-will-fund-finance-shape-private-credit-s101660730

Get M&A headlines on X!