[author: Bonnie Jonas]
Private credit firms are exceptionally good at what they were built to do: source, underwrite, and deploy capital with speed and precision. That capability drove the asset class from a niche strategy to the center of the financial system in under a decade – a remarkable achievement by any measure.
But deploying capital and managing distressed credit are fundamentally different disciplines. And as defaults begin to rise across private credit portfolios, many firms are finding that the skill sets, vendor relationships, and operational infrastructure that served them well during the growth phase aren’t necessarily the ones they need for what comes next.
That’s not a criticism. It’s a reflection of where the cycle is, and it creates an opportunity for firms that move early.
Defaults in Private Credit Introduce an Entirely Different Set of Investigative and Regulatory Questions
During origination, the core questions are forward-looking: Is this a good business? Can it service the debt? Does the risk-return profile work for our fund? The diligence process is designed to answer those questions, and firms invest heavily in getting those answers right.
Defaults introduce an entirely different set of questions – and they’re fundamentally backward-looking. What actually happened inside this business? Are the financials we relied on at origination still reliable? Has collateral been maintained, or has the picture changed? Are there undisclosed liabilities, related-party transactions, or management issues that contributed to the deterioration?
These aren’t questions that a financial model can answer. They require investigative capabilities – forensic accounting, background analysis, asset verification, regulatory exposure assessments – that most private credit platforms were never designed to maintain in-house. Nor should they be. These are specialized disciplines that firms typically need episodically, not permanently, which is precisely why having the right external partners matters.
Why the “Why” Matters More Than the “How Much”
When a borrower defaults, the natural instinct is to focus on recovery: How do we restructure? What’s the collateral worth? What are our options? Those are essential questions. But the most consequential question is often upstream of the workout: Why is this borrower in distress?
The answer shapes everything that follows. A borrower struggling with genuine market headwinds – rising input costs, softening demand, a difficult rate environment – is typically a candidate for a cooperative restructuring. The lender and borrower share an interest in finding a path forward, and the workout process is largely a financial exercise.
But when a default is driven by something other than market conditions -misrepresentation, mismanagement, or misconduct – the calculus changes entirely. The recovery strategy, the litigation posture, the LP communications, and the regulatory exposure all look fundamentally different. And the sooner a firm has clarity on which scenario it’s dealing with, the more control it retains over outcomes.
The challenge is that these two scenarios can look identical on the surface. The financials show deterioration either way. The borrower’s narrative will almost always emphasize market factors. Distinguishing between the two requires a different kind of analysis – one that goes beyond the numbers and into the facts on the ground.
How Regulators View Private Credit Defaults and Distressed Portfolios
The timing of rising defaults coincides with a meaningful increase in regulatory attention on private credit. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) 2026 examination priorities have put the asset class in the spotlight, with particular focus on valuation practices, fee structures, liquidity management, and the growing exposure of retail investors to private credit risk. The Department of Justice has signaled its own interest in valuation governance across private portfolios. And Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) expanding regulatory perimeter means that many investment advisers will soon face Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) compliance expectations they haven’t previously been subject to.
For private credit firms, this convergence means that defaults aren’t just a portfolio management challenge – they’re also a compliance and regulatory readiness event. A firm that can demonstrate robust processes for investigating distressed credit, maintaining defensible valuations, and meeting evolving AML obligations is in a much stronger position with regulators, LPs, and boards than one that’s addressing these issues reactively.
For the lawyers advising these firms, the regulatory overlay adds complexity to every default. Your client may be managing a borrower workout while simultaneously preparing for a potential SEC examination, responding to LP inquiries about origination practices, and evaluating whether compliance infrastructure needs to be enhanced. Each of these workstreams has legal implications, and they benefit enormously from being informed by independent, credible factual findings rather than internal assessments alone.
What Boards and LPs Expect During Private Credit Defaults
For Business Development Companies (BDCs) and funds with institutional LP bases, rising defaults also create heightened governance expectations. Independent directors are expected to demonstrate active, informed oversight – particularly when portfolio stress raises natural questions about how loans were underwritten and how valuations are being determined. LPs with information rights will exercise them. And the standard for what constitutes thorough, well-documented governance is rising across the industry.
In this environment, independent third-party resources can be genuinely valuable – not because they replace the manager’s judgment, but because they supplement it with the kind of findings that give boards and LPs confidence. An independent loan file review, a borrower investigation, or a compliance assessment provides a layer of verification that strengthens the manager’s position rather than undermining it. General counsel navigating these dynamics understand that the time to build that evidentiary foundation is early in the process, when it can inform strategy, not after questions have already been raised.
Distressed Investors Need Intelligence Too
The current environment isn’t only challenging for existing lenders. Distressed and special situations funds have raised significant capital and are actively deploying into stressed and defaulted credit. For these investors, the opportunity is real – but so is the risk of buying into situations where the problems run deeper than the financial picture suggests.
Sophisticated distressed investors know that the edge in these transactions comes from information. Understanding the borrower’s true financial position, the integrity of the management team, the regulatory landscape, and the condition of the collateral before committing capital is what separates a well-informed investment from an expensive mistake. Pre-acquisition investigative diligence isn’t a cost – it’s a source of leverage and optionality.
A Partnership Moment
The private credit industry has earned its place at the center of the financial system through innovation, execution, and a willingness to serve borrowers and markets that traditional banks couldn’t or wouldn’t. Nothing about the current default cycle changes that.
What it does change is the toolkit firms need. The capabilities that matter most during a rising default environment – forensic analysis, borrower investigations, asset tracing, beneficial ownership verification, AML compliance, independent monitoring – are inherently specialized. They sit outside the core competency of even the most sophisticated credit platforms, and there’s no reason they should sit inside. What matters is having trusted partners who can deliver these capabilities with the speed, discretion, and rigor that the moment demands.
The questions are coming – from regulators, LPs, boards, and counterparties. The firms that have answers grounded in independent, verified facts will navigate this cycle with confidence. And the firms that invest in those capabilities now, rather than waiting for a crisis to force the issue, will be the ones that emerge with their reputations and relationships strengthened.
Ultimately, the firms that navigate this cycle most effectively will be those that recognize defaults as a factfinding moment and engage trusted third party investigative and compliance partners, like Guidepost, to turn uncertainty into informed, defensible decisions.
[View source.]
