None. Complete non issue for the banks - the loans they make it these funds are 0-25% LTV. The media is trying to find a problem there were there isn’t one. The risk is generally pretty broadly distributed, however IF there are eventual defaults and losses because of AI or a broader macro cycle there will be losses distributed across the LP base that are concentrated in the cause of the defaults. If that ends up being the current concern of AI then the LPs of those funds that have poor portfolio construction and risk mgmt and in some cases 50%+ exposure to AI threatened businesses over the long term will suffer. It’s very hard to know what the eventual impact of AI is so hard to say at this point but diversification wins when you are buying carry assets at 98-99 that can only trade to 100!
There are at least 6 problems in no particular order:
-mislabeling or intentionally disguising the amount SaaS exposure in some porfolios
-no concept of portfolio construction for some of the direct lending managers
-mismarking and/or marking inconsistencies across funds
-other uses of leverage away from the basic bank/bond/clo financing of direct lending - 2nd outs, jv’s, direct clo equity investments to juice returns and mask the real underlying leverage of the portfolio
-250bln of the direct lending market is in “semi-liquid” products where underlying isn’t liquid at all
-prisoners dilemma for LP’s of that last bucket - if you don’t redeem do you just get left with the turds?
Everyone has to make their own opinion on the SaaS and AI disruptions threatened loans. I think there will be a very interesting secondary opportunity as entities look to sell to meet redemptions or reduce exposure to areas they are too overweight. Right now though to your point Boaz the public BDC’s at .85 -.95 GAV - I look at GAV not EQUITY NAV bc the latter ignores the ultimate downside risk - are cheap to where these secondary private portfolios are offered/trading - I think there will be a convergence in the near future given the amount likely to come for sale.
Seriously if we freak the fuck out every time a bank loses $100M to a real estate scammer we’d need a shit ton more shrooms. And that $2B “hole” at FB is what we in the business call “insolvency,” I don’t recall people being like “there’s $1B MISSING at Spirit Airlines” they spent it and didn’t make it back man
@GrandTokamak We’ll just do co-invests for the first few deals to see how you operate and get into a rhythm. But we get to decline whatever we want after wasting weeks of your time. Oh and we want to control how we vote on everything. THEN we’ll give you some dinner money to manage I promise
@AyyouEm I don’t know how someone could defend these marks; it wasn’t exactly a secret this was going to be a donut. Lincoln/VRC/et al. are just as culpable. Must be a coincidence blackrock decided to wind down this strategy?