Private Credit Crisis: What the SaaS Selloff Reveals

The $1.7 Trillion Blind Spot in Global Finance

Private credit has quietly grown into a $1.7 trillion industry — larger than the entire high-yield bond market — built largely in the shadows of traditional banking regulation. And now, investors are starting to ask uncomfortable questions about what's actually sitting inside these funds. Specifically, how much exposure does private credit have to software companies whose business models are being dismantled by artificial intelligence?

The short answer: more than the industry wants to admit.

Steve Eisman — the investor famously portrayed in The Big Short for predicting the 2008 banking collapse — is sounding the alarm. He argues that an entire generation of private credit executives has never lived through a real credit cycle, and when the losses finally arrive, the shock will be severe. Whether this becomes a systemic threat or a painful-but-contained correction is the central question facing investors, pension funds, and regulators right now.

Here's what the data actually shows — and what it means for your exposure.

---

What Private Credit Actually Is (And Why It Exists)

Private credit refers to lending that occurs outside the traditional banking system. Instead of a business borrowing from JPMorgan or Citibank, it borrows from a private fund managed by firms like Blackstone, Apollo, KKR, Ares, or Carlyle.

This market didn't emerge from nowhere. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis triggered a sweeping overhaul of bank regulation under frameworks like Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act. Banks were required to hold more capital against risky loans, which made lending to smaller, more leveraged, or speculative businesses far less attractive from a regulatory standpoint.

But the demand for that credit didn't disappear. Businesses still needed capital. Private credit funds stepped in to fill the void — and they've been growing at roughly 15% annually for the past decade as a result.

The irony is sharp: regulators moved risky lending off bank balance sheets, but didn't eliminate it. They just shifted it somewhere less visible — and less regulated.

For lenders, the model is appealing. Because these loans carry more risk than what a traditional bank would touch, they command higher interest rates — often floating rates tied to benchmarks like SOFR, which means returns rose sharply as interest rates climbed post-2022. Investors poured in, attracted by yields of 10–12% at a time when savings accounts were paying next to nothing.

---

The SaaS Exposure Problem in Private Credit

Here's where the story gets uncomfortable. Between 2018 and 2022, private equity firms went on a buying spree of software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies. Revenue multiples were sky-high. Growth was the only metric that mattered. And to fund those acquisitions, private credit funds issued billions in loans to these software businesses.

Estimates suggest that approximately 25% of all direct lending in private credit is tied to software companies — a staggering concentration for an industry that markets itself on diversification.

Now those bets are under pressure from two directions simultaneously:

• AI disruption: Tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini are threatening the per-seat, per-license revenue models that SaaS companies built their valuations on. If AI can replicate what enterprise software does at a fraction of the cost, the cash flows backing these loans deteriorate rapidly.
• Refinancing risk: Many of these loans were issued at lower rates between 2018 and 2022. As they come due for refinancing in a higher-rate environment, companies that were already borderline may find debt service costs genuinely unsustainable.

The smaller SaaS businesses acquired by private equity during this window are particularly exposed. Unlike Salesforce or Adobe — large, diversified, and cash-generative — these are mid-market software companies with narrower product lines, thinner margins, and less financial resilience. When AI puts pressure on their core revenue, the buffer is thin.

---

Private Credit Funds Are Massaging the Data — And Investors Are Noticing

A Wall Street Journal investigation found that several of the largest private credit managers were systematically underreporting their software exposure. The mechanism was straightforward: if a software company served the healthcare sector, its loan would be categorised under healthcare rather than technology or software. Technically defensible. Practically misleading.

The numbers are telling:

• Blue Owl, Blackstone, Ares, and Apollo reported an average software exposure of 19% before the investigation.
• Adjusted for actual underlying business activity, the true average was closer to 25%.
• Blue Owl specifically reported roughly half its actual software exposure — the largest discrepancy among the funds examined.

This kind of data management wouldn't matter much in a benign environment. But when investors are specifically trying to assess AI-related concentration risk, obscuring that exposure is a serious problem. It undermines the trust that makes illiquid investments tolerable in the first place.

And retail investors — a relatively new entrant to private credit — are responding accordingly.

---

The Liquidity Crunch: When Redemptions Hit the Cap

Historically, private credit was the domain of institutional investors — pension funds, endowments, insurance companies — who could commit capital for five to ten years without needing it back. Illiquidity was priced into the yield premium.

But the past few years saw an aggressive push to bring retail investors into the asset class. To make that work, fund managers introduced quarterly redemption windows — typically allowing investors to withdraw 5–7% of assets per quarter. The implicit promise was that these vehicles offered some liquidity, even if not the same-day variety of a mutual fund or ETF.

That promise is now being stress-tested. Recent redemption requests across major private credit funds reveal just how quickly sentiment has shifted:

• Blackstone's BCRED ($82 billion): Investors requested 7.9% in redemptions. The fund's cap is 5%. Excess requests went unfulfilled.
• Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund ($33 billion): Investors requested 14% redemptions. Only the 7% cap was honoured — roughly half of requests were turned away.
• Morgan Stanley North Haven Private Income Fund ($8 billion): 10.9% redemption requests. Only 5% was honoured.
• BlackRock HLend Fund ($26 billion): 9.3% redemption requests. Honoured at the 5% cap only.

This is the structural vulnerability of semi-liquid private credit vehicles: in normal times, the redemption cap is irrelevant because few people want out. In stressed times, the cap becomes a gate — and a gate signals to remaining investors that there's a queue forming ahead of them, which accelerates the desire to exit. It's a dynamic that regulators have long warned about.

For retail investors who entered these funds expecting some degree of flexibility, this is a painful education in what illiquidity actually feels like when it matters.

---

Is This a Systemic Risk — Or Just a Painful Correction?

The media has drawn comparisons to 2008. That comparison deserves scrutiny, because the mechanics are meaningfully different — even if the opacity is familiar.

The critical link is bank exposure. Private credit funds don't just raise money from pension funds and retail investors. They also borrow from major banks, typically at around two turns of leverage (2:1). That means bank capital is sitting behind private credit losses. If loans go bad in sufficient volume, banks absorb write-downs too.

But here's why most serious analysts — including Eisman himself — stop short of calling this a GFC-level event:

Leverage. In the run-up to 2008, major banks were effectively leveraged at 30–40 times their equity when off-balance-sheet exposures were included. Structured investment vehicles, conduits, and CDO warehouses meant bank balance sheets were far more extended than their published ratios suggested. The collapse of that leverage cascade is what made 2008 catastrophic.

Private credit funds, by contrast, are currently leveraged at roughly 2:1. Business Development Companies (BDCs) — the publicly traded wrappers many retail investors access — have been capped at 2:1 leverage since 2018 under SEC rules. That's not nothing, but it's a fundamentally different order of magnitude.

The more realistic concern is a concentrated credit correction rather than a systemic banking crisis. Investors in private credit funds — particularly those with heavy SaaS exposure — face real losses. Pension funds and insurance companies with allocations to these vehicles could see mark-downs that affect long-term return targets. And the trust in the asset class more broadly could take years to rebuild, which would impair fundraising and constrain lending to mid-market businesses that depend on private credit.

That's a meaningful economic impact, even if it doesn't topple the banking system.

---

What Investors Should Be Asking Right Now

Whether you're a retail investor with allocation to a private credit fund, or a professional assessing portfolio exposure, the following questions are worth pressing on:

• What is the fund's actual software exposure? Request a breakdown by underlying business activity, not sector label. Given the WSJ findings, top-line sector allocations may not tell the full story.
• What is the weighted average maturity of the loan book? Loans maturing in the next 12–24 months carry refinancing risk in a still-elevated rate environment.
• What is the fund's redemption structure? Understand the cap, the notice period, and what happens to unfulfilled redemptions. Are they carried forward to the next quarter?
• How is the fund valuing its loans? Private credit loans are marked to model, not to market. Independent valuation reviews matter — and their frequency varies significantly by manager.
• What is the fund's bank financing structure? Leverage at the fund level amplifies both gains and losses. Understanding the terms of credit facilities, including whether banks have the right to call margin, is essential.

The broader lesson from this episode is one that financial history keeps repeating: opacity in financial markets doesn't eliminate risk. It defers it — and compounds it.

---

The Bottom Line on Private Credit Risk

Private credit has delivered genuine value over the past decade — providing financing to businesses that traditional banks wouldn't touch and offering investors yields that were otherwise unavailable in a low-rate world. That's a legitimate function.

But the industry grew up in a uniquely benign environment: low default rates, rising company valuations, and until recently, low interest rates. Many of the executives running these funds have never managed through a real credit cycle. When losses arrive — and the software exposure suggests they will — the reckoning will be a formative one for the industry.

The scenario to watch is this: AI continues to compress SaaS revenue and valuations; smaller software companies face refinancing deadlines at higher rates; a wave of defaults forces private credit funds to mark down portfolios; redemption gates trigger further confidence erosion; and banks that extended leverage to these funds absorb write-downs. That chain of events is plausible. Whether it's probable at a scale large enough to cause systemic damage is still genuinely uncertain — because, as the industry's critics keep noting, we simply can't see all the data.

And that, ultimately, is the point.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is private credit and how does it differ from traditional bank lending?

Private credit refers to loans made by non-bank lenders — typically private funds managed by firms like Blackstone, Apollo, or KKR — rather than commercial banks. The key difference is regulatory oversight and transparency. Bank loans are subject to capital requirements and public reporting; private credit is not. This allows private credit funds to lend to riskier borrowers at higher rates, but it also means problems in the portfolio are harder to detect until they're significant.

Why are private credit funds so exposed to SaaS companies?

During the 2018–2022 period, private equity firms aggressively acquired software-as-a-service companies at high valuations, using private credit to fund the debt portion of those deals. Estimates suggest software exposure now accounts for around 25% of all direct lending in the private credit market. This concentration became a serious concern once AI began threatening the revenue models that SaaS businesses are built on.

Can retail investors get their money out of private credit funds if things deteriorate?

Only up to a point. Most retail-accessible private credit vehicles allow quarterly redemptions capped at 5–7% of total fund assets. If redemption requests exceed that cap — as has already happened at multiple major funds including Blackstone's BCRED and Cliffwater's Corporate Lending Fund — the excess is either turned away or deferred. Retail investors should treat private credit allocations as genuinely illiquid capital, not as a higher-yielding alternative to a money market fund.

Is the private credit situation comparable to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis?

Most analysts, including prominent critics of private credit like Steve Eisman, argue it is not — primarily because of leverage. In the GFC, major banks were effectively leveraged 30–40 times when off-balance-sheet exposures were included. Private credit funds are currently leveraged at approximately 2:1. The risk is real and the losses could be painful, particularly for investors in software-heavy funds, but the structural conditions for a systemic banking collapse are not currently present in the same way they were in 2008.

How can investors assess whether their private credit fund is overexposed to software?

Start by requesting a detailed breakdown of portfolio companies by underlying business activity — not just the sector label reported by the manager. As the Wall Street Journal investigation revealed, some funds were categorising software businesses under healthcare or other sectors, which understated true tech exposure. Look for independent valuation reviews, understand the fund's refinancing schedule, and assess what percentage of loans mature within the next two years when refinancing risk is most acute.

---

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions.