US private credit defaults hit record 9.2% in 2025, Fitch says
marketscreener.com431 points by JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
431 points by JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
See also: https://alternativecreditinvestor.com/2025/10/22/us-banks-ex...
Yeah, I'm going down a bit of a rabbit hole this morning. Turns out Wells Fargo's $59.7bn of private-credit lending is equal to 44% of its CE Tier 1 capital [1]. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank got back to being Deutsche Bank while I was not looking [2]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72971/00000729712500... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/deutsche-bank-highl... Deutsche gonna Deutsche. Recruitment tables should just have a banner that reads 'we've already spent your bonus on legal fees, here's some chocolate' I'm re-running some of the Fed's stress tests and, somehow, still find myself flabbergasted that DB is at the top of my risk list. Despite only having $12bn of exposure, if they see a 60% loss on that risk alone (assuming 60% recovery and 1.5x leverage), they breach their 4.5% capital requirement. That's the lowest threshold I'm finding across all of the banks the Fed stress tests. Now 50% loss means wipe out. But given the size of the portfolio, there is also the concentration risk. A single private-credit firm going bust shouldn't take out a bank. But that seems–seems!–to be what I'm seeing. Time to short them? It's never the time to short a company, even a really bad one. You have only 100% upside, infinite downside, and you have to time it perfectly. A short can be a part of a combination strategy where you go long on one company and short on a related one, but you still have to be really careful. If DB stock increases 50% before it crashes, would you be forced to sell at the top and lose all your money? This is sensible advice for most people. I see some thoughtful quibbles but I wish you weren't down voted. If you are a normal retail investor, please listen to pocksuppet. pocksuppet’s advice is I think more of a reaction to a specific way that you could take a short position, and in 2026 I think you want to assume that people who know what “short” means, also know what options are. The advice is good in a kind of stopped clock sense. I'm old, so I am a stopped clock. However, I have invested my whole life including good times and bad. I believe that for a retail trader -- someone who doesn't get paid to trade other people's money-- options are bad. OK yes there are special cases like when your job requires you to hold a lot of one stock etc. I'm not going to make the case why here I am sure it has been argued to death. I do remember smart friends getting interested in options at different times in the last thirty years because they make higher returns. Then they have a period where make lower returns, or have a real problem. I don't think its worth the attention and the trading cost for most people, even people who understand what a short is. You can't argue with a person who has been doing really well with them for five years but it always seems like people stop. My take on why options are bad—options are bad most people because most people don’t get use from hedging, don’t have enough information about the timeline of price movements, and all you’re left with is a form of gambling. A form of gambling that’s pervasive enough to worry me. People on Reddit trying to get rich with SPY options (how could you possibly know where SPY is moving?) Short positions are also bad, because there’s an ongoing cost to carrying a short position, and that cost is likely to cannibalize your expected gains. Lots of good reasons around to avoid short positions and options like they’re the plague. I don’t like the “unlimited downside” reason because it’s solvable. To people who are making lots of money in stocks or options… my question is always, “do you have high returns, or do you just have high volatility?” Because it’s easy to look at high short-term returns and believe that you’ve somehow beaten the market, when you’re really just holding a high volatility position that got lucky. > I do remember smart friends getting interested in options at different times in the last thirty years because they make higher returns. Then they have a period where make lower returns, or have a real problem. Volatility. Never trade options if you don’t understand volatility. “Shorting” a company does not just mean short selling stock. Instead, it means having a short position, which you can use without unlimited downside. The easy way is to buy puts. Maybe your next question is, “who is selling puts?” And that’s a good question, but you don’t really care, because you can buy your puts on the open market and when you do that, you get protection from credit risk. There are other reasons why this isn’t a good idea but “unlimited downside” is not one of them. > “Shorting” a company does not just mean short selling stock. Instead, it means having a short position, which you can use without unlimited downside. If you are an equity index holder anyway, simply by not holding any exposure in an otherwise "market" portfolio is a "short" relative to benchmark. ie if I "buy" the SP500 constituents according to weight but with TSLA zero'd out my portfolio is essentially the same as long SP500 and short weigtht*TSLA. Normally you buy into something like SP500 via something like an ETF, something with a very low fee because it’s managed entirely automatically via simple algorithms. How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees? Unless such a fund already exists, you’d be managing it yourself and pretty much wiping out any gains any time you rebalanced. > How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees? Various options… 1. Direct indexing (requires minimum amount of assets), 2. Certain actively-managed ETFs like GGRW, which is not exactly SP500 minus TSLA but it’s not too far off 3. Buying passively-managed ETFs in sectors that don’t include TSLA, 4. TSLQ, maybe. You get fees and other problems. I wouldn’t. Direct indexing costs more than ETFs in terms of fees, but there’s apparently some kind of tax loss harvesting that you can do with direct indexing to offset the fees, and some people say you can come out ahead. I don’t understand how tax loss harvesting works at a satisfactory level (I’ve read articles and watched videos, but I think I would need to take an accounting class and really sit down with a spreadsheet before I could say that I understand how direct indexing and tax loss harvesting work together.) And puts are highly manipulated by MMs so you have to really study the chain and how it behaves before you have a chance to buy the contracts at a fair price. MMs will flood the market with contracts and devalue yours even when the price is moving in your direction. I highly suggest people think twice about trading options, they are best used as hedges for large positions during particularly vulnerable periods. I’m not convinced. If you think you know what the fair price is for a put, then you can bid that price. If you don’t think you know what the fair price is, then you shouldn’t be trading options. There are reasons for not trading options, but the main reason is “you know less about price movement than you think you do”. Realistically, if you don't have the volume to be a market maker, there's no point bidding anything except the current market price. Either the price is higher than your bid, and your order won't fill (so why place it?) or the price is lower than your bid, and you should expect the market knows something you don't.
JumpCrisscross - 4 days ago
RobRivera - 4 days ago
JumpCrisscross - 4 days ago
Aboutplants - 3 days ago
pocksuppet - 3 days ago
georgeecollins - 3 days ago
klodolph - 3 days ago
georgeecollins - 3 days ago
klodolph - 3 days ago
blueone - 2 days ago
klodolph - 3 days ago
Ntrails - 3 days ago
ses1984 - 3 days ago
klodolph - 3 days ago
iwontberude - 3 days ago
klodolph - 3 days ago
pocksuppet - 3 days ago