.jpg)
When private credit stops being simple
19 Aug 2026
As borrower stress leads to more amendments, payment-in-kind arrangements, and restructurings, private credit’s servicing infrastructure is facing a new test. Zarah Choudhary explores if managing the asset class through a more challenging credit environment will require far more than simply processing contractual cash flows
Image: famousdesignmarket/stock.adobe.com
Growth meets a more difficult credit environment
Private credit has transformed from a relatively niche source of corporate finance into a significant component of global markets. The global market reached an estimated US$2.3 trillion in assets under management (AUM) in 2025, up from around US$380 billion in 2010, while Europe accounts for approximately US$400 billion. Current projections suggest global AUM could reach US$4.5 trillion by 2030.
Yet its expansion also means the operational machinery underpinning the asset class is being tested at a scale not previously seen.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has warned that much of private credit’s growth occurred after the global financial crisis and its resilience to a prolonged downturn has therefore yet to be fully tested. Signs of borrower stress are also becoming more visible: the European Parliament’s May 2026 briefing cited a US private credit default rate of 5.8 per cent in January.
For asset servicers, the question is not simply how many borrowers default. Stress can appear long before that point through amendments, covenant waivers, maturity extensions, or changes to how interest is paid.
Diarmuid Ryan, global head of administration solutions at Waystone, says: “As borrower stress has risen in parts of the market, operational teams are being asked to manage more complex and bespoke loan structures than in previous years.”
When terms start to shift
A performing loan can be relatively predictable operationally. Payments, interest calculations, and reporting follow terms established at origination. Once those terms begin changing, servicing becomes substantially more complicated.
Ryan explains that when a loan is amended, waived, or restructured, administrators must examine changes covering interest calculations, payment schedules, covenants, maturity dates, reporting requirements, and valuation assumptions.
“Those changes then need to be accurately reflected across servicing, accounting, and reporting systems,” he suggests, adding that data integrity and auditability become particularly important where several amendments occur during the life of a loan.
Jamie Tadelis, chief product and investor officer at SC Lowy, agrees that the original documentation can quickly cease to provide the complete picture.
“The operational burden increases materially because the original loan documentation is no longer the complete picture,” he explains.
“The challenge is ensuring the revised terms are reflected consistently in cash-flow calculations, accruals, PIK, covenant monitoring, valuation, investor reporting, and ultimately the fund’s books and records.”
A full restructuring can take this further still, introducing multiple tranches, revised collateral arrangements, capitalised interest, equity or warrants, and new repayment waterfalls.
This flexibility is one of private credit’s attractions. Concentrated lender relationships can facilitate renegotiations during periods of difficulty rather than forcing an abrupt default. Research into covenant violations has similarly demonstrated how violations can result in renegotiation, including changes in credit commitments, maturities, waivers, and covenant resets.
Operationally, however, every negotiated solution creates another exception that must be administered correctly.
PIK: Income without the cash
Payment-in-kind (PIK) interest has emerged as a particularly important indicator of this complexity.
Rather than paying interest in cash, the borrower adds it to the outstanding loan balance. Its increased use has been identified by the FSB as one sign of borrower stress.
Ryan stresses that calculating PIK itself is not necessarily difficult. “The challenge lies in how it is recognised, valued, and then reported.”
Managers may capitalise PIK at par, recognise it using another market value or, in some cases, not recognise PIK income at all. That variation affects reconciliation, performance measurement, and investors’ understanding of portfolio income.
“As PIK usage increases in periods of borrower stress, transparency becomes increasingly important,” Ryan notes. “Investors want a clear understanding of how income is being generated, how much is cash versus non-cash income, and what impact PIK balances may have on portfolio valuations and future repayment expectations.”
Tadelis adds that complexity increases when PIK combines with default interest, different rates, capitalised fees, or amended treatment of accrued interest.
“PIK is not just an accounting calculation,” he observes. “It changes the economics and potentially the ultimate recovery of the loan.”
Covenants, waivers, and a growing data problem
The same challenge applies to covenant monitoring.
Covenants provide lenders with an early warning mechanism and contractual rights when a borrower’s financial condition deteriorates.
Research based on US syndicated lending found that performance-based covenants linked to cash flows were particularly susceptible to periods of economic stress, while private equity (PE)-backed firms displayed a higher probability of covenant violations after controlling for comparable loan characteristics.
Yet knowing that a covenant has been breached is only the beginning.
A breach may be waived; the threshold may be reset; reporting requirements may change; or the underlying loan may subsequently be restructured. Every alteration needs to reach managers, agents, administrators, valuation teams, and auditors.
For Tadelis, the solution begins by moving beyond PDFs. Material provisions including interest rates, maturity, amortisation, financial thresholds, collateral, defaults, and waivers should instead be captured as structured data.
“Ideally, each amendment should create a clearly identifiable version of the loan terms,” he comments, allowing firms to establish both the current position and the historical path that led there.
Toby Glaysher, chairman of FINBOURNE Technology, sees the same difficulty. He notes that firms can find themselves “managing multiple versions of the same agreement across investment teams, fund administrators, loan servicers, and finance functions”.
That makes governance of the underlying data as important as the processing itself.
Can legacy technology cope?
Technology therefore becomes critical as the number of exceptions increases.
Modern platforms can accommodate changing effective dates while retaining a history of the investment, Ryan argues. Legacy systems, by contrast, can force firms into manual workarounds when loans are modified repeatedly.
IQ-EQ has similarly warned that spreadsheets remain common across loan operations despite problems around version control, broken formulas, and auditability. It argues that growing portfolio complexity makes manual models increasingly difficult to scale.
Glaysher says many organisations still depend on “a combination of spreadsheets, manual workflows, and systems originally designed for more standardised lending products”.
“These approaches can become difficult to scale as amendments become more frequent and each loan develops unique characteristics,” he adds.
Tadelis says technology needs to capture not merely today’s terms but the complete evolution of an asset. That includes document intelligence capable of extracting changes from credit agreements, automated PIK and cash-flow calculations, integrated covenant monitoring and valuation infrastructure linking credit, collateral, and recovery data.
But technology cannot replace credit expertise. Understanding whether a restructuring genuinely strengthens a lender’s position or determining realistic recovery expectations remains dependent on specialist judgement.
The valuation test
That judgement becomes particularly important when changing loan terms feed into valuation.
Private credit lacks the frequent trading and price discovery available in public markets.
The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has consequently identified independence, expertise, transparency, and consistency as central features of robust private-market valuation processes, while also calling attention to the risks of stale valuations and insufficient processes for ad hoc revaluations.
Tadelis cautions against treating every restructuring as an impairment.
“If a loan has deteriorated and we believe the expected recovery value is below par, then it should be valued at a discount to that estimated recovery value,” he explains. However, a restructuring that leaves a sufficiently low loan-to-value ratio and a high probability of repayment could reasonably remain at par.
“The important point is that ‘restructured’ should not automatically mean ‘impaired’, just as ‘amended’ should not automatically mean ‘par’.”
That distinction places increasing importance on the information flowing from loan servicing into the valuation process. Changes in collateral, interest terms, or expected repayments cannot remain trapped in separate operational systems if net asset value (NAV) is to accurately reflect the underlying portfolio.
Finding the golden record
With an investment manager, loan agent, administrator, valuation specialist, auditor, and potentially multiple lenders touching the same asset, another question follows: whose record is definitive?
Ryan says the legal record will typically sit with the agent bank or designated loan servicer, but servicing depends on information moving accurately between all parties.
“Having a clear source of truth is essential,” he emphasises. Maintaining consistency across stakeholders is becoming an “important operational differentiator” as investors demand more reliable information.
Tadelis describes the solution as a clearly defined operational “golden record”, reconciled back to the underlying legal documents.
Each party nevertheless retains a distinct responsibility. The manager understands the investment and makes credit decisions; the loan agent or servicer administers payments and contractual mechanics; while the fund administrator reflects the investment in the fund’s books and NAV.
For Tadelis, fund administration is ultimately about the fund, while loan servicing is about the asset itself.
“The two functions inevitably intersect, particularly when a loan is amended or restructured,” he notes. “The important thing is that there is a clear handoff and reconciliation between them.”
From processing cash flows to managing complexity
Private credit’s next stage may therefore change what managers expect from their servicing providers.
IQ-EQ argues that loan administration should no longer be regarded simply as a back office activity, with integrated systems, specialised credit expertise, and real-time data becoming increasingly important as portfolios scale.
The importance of that infrastructure will only become clearer if borrower stress intensifies. A wider downturn could generate simultaneous covenant breaches, PIK conversions, amendments, valuations, and restructurings across portfolios.
Processes designed to handle exceptions occasionally could suddenly be required to handle them routinely.
For Waystone’s Ryan, this means flexible technology needs to sit alongside robust controls and accurate investor reporting. Glaysher similarly argues for systems capable of retaining an accurate history as contractual terms evolve.
Tadelis sees an even wider change taking place.
“The industry is moving from an environment where servicing was primarily about processing contractual cash flows to one where servicing increasingly needs to support active credit management throughout the life of the investment.”
Private credit has long promoted its ability to tailor financing and renegotiate rapidly when circumstances change. Its operational resilience will increasingly depend on whether the infrastructure behind those loans can demonstrate the same flexibility.
As amendments and restructurings become more frequent, the real stress test may not simply be whether lenders can keep borrowers alive.
It will be whether the servicing ecosystem can keep every calculation, valuation, covenant, and record aligned while they do so.
Private credit has transformed from a relatively niche source of corporate finance into a significant component of global markets. The global market reached an estimated US$2.3 trillion in assets under management (AUM) in 2025, up from around US$380 billion in 2010, while Europe accounts for approximately US$400 billion. Current projections suggest global AUM could reach US$4.5 trillion by 2030.
Yet its expansion also means the operational machinery underpinning the asset class is being tested at a scale not previously seen.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has warned that much of private credit’s growth occurred after the global financial crisis and its resilience to a prolonged downturn has therefore yet to be fully tested. Signs of borrower stress are also becoming more visible: the European Parliament’s May 2026 briefing cited a US private credit default rate of 5.8 per cent in January.
For asset servicers, the question is not simply how many borrowers default. Stress can appear long before that point through amendments, covenant waivers, maturity extensions, or changes to how interest is paid.
Diarmuid Ryan, global head of administration solutions at Waystone, says: “As borrower stress has risen in parts of the market, operational teams are being asked to manage more complex and bespoke loan structures than in previous years.”
When terms start to shift
A performing loan can be relatively predictable operationally. Payments, interest calculations, and reporting follow terms established at origination. Once those terms begin changing, servicing becomes substantially more complicated.
Ryan explains that when a loan is amended, waived, or restructured, administrators must examine changes covering interest calculations, payment schedules, covenants, maturity dates, reporting requirements, and valuation assumptions.
“Those changes then need to be accurately reflected across servicing, accounting, and reporting systems,” he suggests, adding that data integrity and auditability become particularly important where several amendments occur during the life of a loan.
Jamie Tadelis, chief product and investor officer at SC Lowy, agrees that the original documentation can quickly cease to provide the complete picture.
“The operational burden increases materially because the original loan documentation is no longer the complete picture,” he explains.
“The challenge is ensuring the revised terms are reflected consistently in cash-flow calculations, accruals, PIK, covenant monitoring, valuation, investor reporting, and ultimately the fund’s books and records.”
A full restructuring can take this further still, introducing multiple tranches, revised collateral arrangements, capitalised interest, equity or warrants, and new repayment waterfalls.
This flexibility is one of private credit’s attractions. Concentrated lender relationships can facilitate renegotiations during periods of difficulty rather than forcing an abrupt default. Research into covenant violations has similarly demonstrated how violations can result in renegotiation, including changes in credit commitments, maturities, waivers, and covenant resets.
Operationally, however, every negotiated solution creates another exception that must be administered correctly.
PIK: Income without the cash
Payment-in-kind (PIK) interest has emerged as a particularly important indicator of this complexity.
Rather than paying interest in cash, the borrower adds it to the outstanding loan balance. Its increased use has been identified by the FSB as one sign of borrower stress.
Ryan stresses that calculating PIK itself is not necessarily difficult. “The challenge lies in how it is recognised, valued, and then reported.”
Managers may capitalise PIK at par, recognise it using another market value or, in some cases, not recognise PIK income at all. That variation affects reconciliation, performance measurement, and investors’ understanding of portfolio income.
“As PIK usage increases in periods of borrower stress, transparency becomes increasingly important,” Ryan notes. “Investors want a clear understanding of how income is being generated, how much is cash versus non-cash income, and what impact PIK balances may have on portfolio valuations and future repayment expectations.”
Tadelis adds that complexity increases when PIK combines with default interest, different rates, capitalised fees, or amended treatment of accrued interest.
“PIK is not just an accounting calculation,” he observes. “It changes the economics and potentially the ultimate recovery of the loan.”
Covenants, waivers, and a growing data problem
The same challenge applies to covenant monitoring.
Covenants provide lenders with an early warning mechanism and contractual rights when a borrower’s financial condition deteriorates.
Research based on US syndicated lending found that performance-based covenants linked to cash flows were particularly susceptible to periods of economic stress, while private equity (PE)-backed firms displayed a higher probability of covenant violations after controlling for comparable loan characteristics.
Yet knowing that a covenant has been breached is only the beginning.
A breach may be waived; the threshold may be reset; reporting requirements may change; or the underlying loan may subsequently be restructured. Every alteration needs to reach managers, agents, administrators, valuation teams, and auditors.
For Tadelis, the solution begins by moving beyond PDFs. Material provisions including interest rates, maturity, amortisation, financial thresholds, collateral, defaults, and waivers should instead be captured as structured data.
“Ideally, each amendment should create a clearly identifiable version of the loan terms,” he comments, allowing firms to establish both the current position and the historical path that led there.
Toby Glaysher, chairman of FINBOURNE Technology, sees the same difficulty. He notes that firms can find themselves “managing multiple versions of the same agreement across investment teams, fund administrators, loan servicers, and finance functions”.
That makes governance of the underlying data as important as the processing itself.
Can legacy technology cope?
Technology therefore becomes critical as the number of exceptions increases.
Modern platforms can accommodate changing effective dates while retaining a history of the investment, Ryan argues. Legacy systems, by contrast, can force firms into manual workarounds when loans are modified repeatedly.
IQ-EQ has similarly warned that spreadsheets remain common across loan operations despite problems around version control, broken formulas, and auditability. It argues that growing portfolio complexity makes manual models increasingly difficult to scale.
Glaysher says many organisations still depend on “a combination of spreadsheets, manual workflows, and systems originally designed for more standardised lending products”.
“These approaches can become difficult to scale as amendments become more frequent and each loan develops unique characteristics,” he adds.
Tadelis says technology needs to capture not merely today’s terms but the complete evolution of an asset. That includes document intelligence capable of extracting changes from credit agreements, automated PIK and cash-flow calculations, integrated covenant monitoring and valuation infrastructure linking credit, collateral, and recovery data.
But technology cannot replace credit expertise. Understanding whether a restructuring genuinely strengthens a lender’s position or determining realistic recovery expectations remains dependent on specialist judgement.
The valuation test
That judgement becomes particularly important when changing loan terms feed into valuation.
Private credit lacks the frequent trading and price discovery available in public markets.
The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has consequently identified independence, expertise, transparency, and consistency as central features of robust private-market valuation processes, while also calling attention to the risks of stale valuations and insufficient processes for ad hoc revaluations.
Tadelis cautions against treating every restructuring as an impairment.
“If a loan has deteriorated and we believe the expected recovery value is below par, then it should be valued at a discount to that estimated recovery value,” he explains. However, a restructuring that leaves a sufficiently low loan-to-value ratio and a high probability of repayment could reasonably remain at par.
“The important point is that ‘restructured’ should not automatically mean ‘impaired’, just as ‘amended’ should not automatically mean ‘par’.”
That distinction places increasing importance on the information flowing from loan servicing into the valuation process. Changes in collateral, interest terms, or expected repayments cannot remain trapped in separate operational systems if net asset value (NAV) is to accurately reflect the underlying portfolio.
Finding the golden record
With an investment manager, loan agent, administrator, valuation specialist, auditor, and potentially multiple lenders touching the same asset, another question follows: whose record is definitive?
Ryan says the legal record will typically sit with the agent bank or designated loan servicer, but servicing depends on information moving accurately between all parties.
“Having a clear source of truth is essential,” he emphasises. Maintaining consistency across stakeholders is becoming an “important operational differentiator” as investors demand more reliable information.
Tadelis describes the solution as a clearly defined operational “golden record”, reconciled back to the underlying legal documents.
Each party nevertheless retains a distinct responsibility. The manager understands the investment and makes credit decisions; the loan agent or servicer administers payments and contractual mechanics; while the fund administrator reflects the investment in the fund’s books and NAV.
For Tadelis, fund administration is ultimately about the fund, while loan servicing is about the asset itself.
“The two functions inevitably intersect, particularly when a loan is amended or restructured,” he notes. “The important thing is that there is a clear handoff and reconciliation between them.”
From processing cash flows to managing complexity
Private credit’s next stage may therefore change what managers expect from their servicing providers.
IQ-EQ argues that loan administration should no longer be regarded simply as a back office activity, with integrated systems, specialised credit expertise, and real-time data becoming increasingly important as portfolios scale.
The importance of that infrastructure will only become clearer if borrower stress intensifies. A wider downturn could generate simultaneous covenant breaches, PIK conversions, amendments, valuations, and restructurings across portfolios.
Processes designed to handle exceptions occasionally could suddenly be required to handle them routinely.
For Waystone’s Ryan, this means flexible technology needs to sit alongside robust controls and accurate investor reporting. Glaysher similarly argues for systems capable of retaining an accurate history as contractual terms evolve.
Tadelis sees an even wider change taking place.
“The industry is moving from an environment where servicing was primarily about processing contractual cash flows to one where servicing increasingly needs to support active credit management throughout the life of the investment.”
Private credit has long promoted its ability to tailor financing and renegotiate rapidly when circumstances change. Its operational resilience will increasingly depend on whether the infrastructure behind those loans can demonstrate the same flexibility.
As amendments and restructurings become more frequent, the real stress test may not simply be whether lenders can keep borrowers alive.
It will be whether the servicing ecosystem can keep every calculation, valuation, covenant, and record aligned while they do so.
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one asset servicing news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Asset Servicing Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one asset servicing news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Asset Servicing Times
