@cremieuxrecueil@david_ninow “Excess” energy use - higher electricity bills - and fear of losing jobs all seem like high and legitimate things to be concerned with / whether totally accurate or not. These aren’t unfounded concerns.
There is definitely more room for bad behavior when assets are private, or not marked to market, or held in hidden leveraged structures or derivative forms. No disagreement at all.
It just doesn't mean, ALL private assets are somehow fraudulent. The aspect of being private is also in no way unique to "Private Credit' as its sometimes portrayed.
All private assets in any form would be similar. This would include basically every non-traded loan on every bank balance sheet (which is most loans). These are equally opaque and held in 6-10x leveraged structures (i.e. banks), whether the bank is public or not. Same loan.
Some private credit strategies choose higher credit risk verticals to be sure, but there is nothing inherently extra risky about a private loan per se.
If certain life insurers are bad asset allocators, or underwriters of risk, they (and unfortunately possibly their policy holders) will bear that downside performance.
Its hard to paint an entire asset class or industry with a broad brush though. That was really the only point I was trying to make.
There is room for bad behavior in all assets and all investments. People (such as yourself) often do great work exposing specific examples of malfeasance.
But take them into grandiose proclamations that are industry or asset class wide , seems like quite the leap of logic.
And I get why "Private Credit" is a scam headlines or provocative clickbait headlines drive traffic, but its also a parlor trick disservice and muddies the water unnecessarily, and obscures the good work being done in specific situations.
This is just a sophisticated way to say something pejorative in broad generalization form. "Cockroaches"...."the company you keep" aren't exactly quantitative terms or arguments.
You could equally say, Stock A went down, Management misled investors, and therefore all equities are now bad and all investors reap what one has sown...
Or say "Blogger A" spreads gross exaggerations or was simply wrong about something, and now ALL financial bloggers are full of..... and should be ignored.
None of those are good logical arguments
Well obviously they think its a good idea, right?
...or feel like they are in a competitive arms race with other well funded players and can't "fall behind"
...or they think their existing quasi-monopolies are all at risk from AI, and so they face ruin if they don't participate.
I mean, there could be any # of reasons...
...including that they think its the best idea for capital investment they've ever seen (which is how they're acting).
All possibilities exist.
@junkbondinvest So all of those companies are going to fail, that's what your crystal ball is telling you? No competitive response, no cost cuts, no running them for cash, no sponsor support, no workout, no liquidation value. Just zeroes across the board when the "maturity wall" hits?