The Private Credit Collapse No One Saw Coming

By Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®, co-authors of the international bestseller It Starts With Gold™ and the forthcoming Killing Crypto™ 

The headlines were muted, but the shock inside boardrooms and trading desks across North America was unmistakable. BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager with more than thirteen trillion U.S. dollars under administration, wrote down a private-credit loan to zero.

A complete loss. No recovery. No warning.

For an institution built on the image of control, this was more than a financial setback. It was an admission that the financial system’s private-debt machine is not the fortress it claims to be.

A single borrower defaulted, leaving a loan that had been valued at full price one month earlier completely worthless the next. There was no cyberattack, no hidden scandal, and no rogue trading activity. It was simply another company unable to meet its obligations.

That is what should alarm investors. When the largest asset manager in the world cannot see a total loss coming, the problem is not the borrower but the system itself. The models are blind.

👉 Subscribe to The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, along with our white paper, Last Asset Standing™ and early updates on our forthcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Private credit has become the new favourite of the financial establishment. It is sold as a stable, high-yield alternative to traditional bonds and a way to earn strong returns without enduring public-market volatility. The idea has drawn in pension funds, insurance companies, and high-net-worth investors eager for predictable income.

The private-credit market has grown to more than one and a half trillion U.S. dollars in North America. Loans to mid-sized companies, property developers, and private businesses are packaged and sold as low-risk investments. These loans are rarely traded and even less frequently scrutinized.

On paper, the system looks innovative. In practice, it has created a shadow credit market with limited oversight and heavy leverage.

During years of low interest rates, abundant liquidity hid structural weakness. Companies that should have failed survived by borrowing more. As borrowing costs rose, the tide turned, revealing a market far more fragile than its promoters admit.

A single default does not break the economy, but it reveals the illusion of stability. Behind the glossy marketing materials lie inflated valuations, internal pricing models, and misplaced confidence in spreadsheets that were never tested in a high-rate world.

For over a decade, easy money disguised risk. When that tide recedes, the weak links become visible.

When a firm of BlackRock’s scale cannot anticipate a complete write-off, the problem is systemic.

Fund managers had classified the loan as sound just weeks before it became worthless. That is not a misjudgment; it is evidence that the valuation process itself is flawed. The private-credit market relies on internal pricing. The same managers who own the loans also decide what they are worth. Until a borrower defaults, there is no market test.

This self-reinforcing cycle hides risk for years. Investors see smooth returns, low volatility, and consistent yield because there is no price discovery. Then, suddenly, the illusion breaks. The loss appears overnight because it was there all along.

The parallels to 2008 are undeniable. Back then, complex derivatives disguised the weakness of subprime loans. Today, internal valuations in private credit serve the same purpose. The danger has not changed, only its packaging.

In 2008, investors learned how dangerous it is to believe in engineered stability. Mortgage-backed securities were rated “AAA,” diversified across thousands of loans, and sold as safe. Yet diversification meant nothing when the entire market turned.

Today, the same pattern has returned under a new label. The illusion of safety now hides in covered-call and leveraged exchange-traded funds marketed to conservative investors as “high monthly income.”

Funds such as the Hamilton Enhanced Canadian Covered Call ETF pay more than ten percent annually, achieved by using leverage and selling call options on blue-chip Canadian stocks. The income looks stable but is manufactured from borrowed exposure and option premiums, not from dividends or profits.

Other funds like the Evolve S&P/TSX 60 Enhanced Yield ETF use similar methods, writing options on part of their portfolios. The trade performs well when markets are calm, but erodes capital when volatility rises or when stocks move sharply.

The Harvest High Income and Equity Income ETFs promise yields of up to fifteen percent by combining leverage with derivative income. These funds are often sold to retirees seeking steady cash flow, but their payouts are synthetic and collapse under stress.

Even so-called defensive products like the Enhanced Canadian HighShares ETF depend on the same premise: that volatility will remain low and liquidity will always be available.

All these funds are legal, regulated, and transparent, but their structures reflect the same behavioural pattern that fueled the 2008 crisis. Yield is being sold as safety. Complexity is being used to disguise risk.

The lesson of 2008 was not learned. It was rebranded.

Once again, risk has been repackaged as income, and investors are paying for comfort with exposure they do not understand.

In past crises, banks were the spark that set the system on fire. Today, the threat comes from outside the banks, from private funds, asset managers, and leveraged income products that operate in the shadows of regulation.

Private-credit funds and high-yield ETFs are two sides of the same coin. Both manufacture income by borrowing money. Both depend on low volatility and abundant liquidity. Both hide their most fragile links inside complex structures that look safe until tested.

When one segment of this system fails, liquidity dries up across them all.

Private-credit funds and covered-call ETFs share the same structural weakness. Each claims diversification and stability, yet both rely on borrowed exposure and derivative income that only work in calm conditions.

Private-credit funds lend to companies and then use leverage to boost returns. When defaults rise, that leverage magnifies losses. Covered-call ETFs hold stocks and sell options to collect premiums. When volatility rises, the premiums disappear, and the portfolio loses value.

In both systems, cash flow is not earned; it is engineered. Investors think they are diversified because the products use different mechanics, but when the market turns, everything moves together.

The risk structure is identical. Leverage multiplies exposure, valuations depend on models instead of markets, and liquidity vanishes precisely when it is needed most.

The danger is not hidden in spreadsheets but in language.

Private-credit funds describe themselves as “floating-rate,” suggesting protection from rising interest rates. Covered-call ETFs call themselves “defensive,” implying safety during market declines. Both rely on comforting labels rather than math.

“Floating-rate” means that borrowers pay more as rates rise, which weakens their ability to repay. “Defensive income” means option-writing strategies that lose money when volatility spikes.

Investors are not buying safety; they are buying a story about safety.

Leverage connects every part of the system.

In private credit, the default of one borrower forces fund managers to revalue similar loans. Portfolios marked at stable values suddenly show losses, shaking confidence across the sector.

In leveraged ETFs, a modest five percent market drop can translate into fifteen percent losses once borrowed exposure is factored in. When investors redeem their units, managers must sell assets to raise cash, driving prices even lower.

Private loans cannot be sold quickly, and option-based ETFs face widening spreads in turbulent markets. Forced selling accelerates declines, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of redemptions, price drops, and further redemptions.

This is how stability breaks. Liquidity disappears the moment investors need it most.

Every credit cycle follows the same psychological pattern.

When returns look smooth, complacency grows. Language softens. What was once “speculative” becomes “alternative income.” Investors crowd in, convinced that high yield and low risk can coexist.

Then reality intrudes. Volatility spikes. Withdrawals rise. Engineered income disappears overnight.

In 2008, the trigger was housing. In 2025, it could be private credit, covered-call ETFs, or both. The mechanism is the same: misplaced faith in financial engineering and the belief that institutions can control complexity.

When a private-credit loan defaults, the loss rarely stays contained. Pension funds mark down their holdings. Banks tighten credit lines to asset managers. Leveraged ETFs face collateral calls as volatility climbs.

What looks like a single failure becomes a global chain reaction. The contagion spreads not through bank balance sheets but through investor behaviour and algorithmic models that link asset classes. Liquidity turns into correlation, and diversification becomes an illusion.

Private credit and leveraged income funds may look different, but they operate on the same principles. Both manufacture yield rather than earn it. Private-credit funds use internal models that change slowly, while ETFs mark to market instantly. Both suffer when markets move abruptly.

Private credit is illiquid. Covered-call ETFs are liquid until they are not. Defaults in one and volatility in the other produce the same outcome: a simultaneous decline across supposedly independent investments.

Even their investor bases overlap. Institutions dominate private credit. Retail investors dominate ETFs. Yet pension funds and mutual funds often hold both. What appears diversified on paper is one unified risk position in practice.

These products are bound together by leverage, herd behaviour, and dependence on central-bank liquidity. When one fails, the rest tremble.

Many pension portfolios in Canada and the United States hold both private-credit funds and covered-call ETFs. The goal is balance, private credit for income and ETFs for liquidity. In reality, they amplify each other’s weaknesses.

When markets fall, covered-call ETFs lose value, cutting portfolio liquidity. At the same time, private-credit valuations fall as defaults rise, eroding collateral. Investors experience two forms of stress at once: less cash flow and less access to capital.

The diversification is an illusion. Public and private holdings share the same source of vulnerability: leverage built on optimism.

Large investors face another problem. Pension plans and insurance companies must meet fixed return targets written into their policy statements. When interest rates were near zero, these targets became impossible through safe bonds. Private credit and synthetic-yield funds filled the gap.

Now, even as rates rise, these institutions are trapped. Selling would mean locking in losses and admitting misjudgment. So they double down, using longer maturities or more leverage to preserve yield.

This is the same behaviour that turned the 2008 mortgage problem into a global crisis, the refusal to acknowledge that yesterday’s strategies no longer work in today’s conditions.

Early indicators show the stress building quietly beneath the surface.

Default rates among U.S. middle-market borrowers are rising. Bid-ask spreads in private-loan markets are widening. Some high-yield ETFs are using record leverage to maintain payouts even as their asset values shrink. Private-credit funds are extending lock-up periods or restricting withdrawals.

Each of these signs may seem minor, but together they form a pattern, a system that mistakes liquidity for solvency.

These pressures are not confined to Wall Street. They are already visible in Canada’s pension system, banking exposure, and housing markets, each quietly absorbing the same global credit strain.

Canada’s financial system is often described as conservative and well-regulated. That reputation has created a dangerous sense of security. Beneath the surface lies a growing exposure to the same leverage and synthetic income structures that are now destabilizing global markets.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) has warned repeatedly about rising corporate leverage, exposure to commercial real estate, and concentration risk among the country’s largest banks. Yet those same institutions continue to expand their activities in private-credit markets, infrastructure loans, and structured-yield products.

Many of Canada’s pension plans and financial institutions have quietly become major investors in private credit. The logic was simple: traditional bonds no longer offered sufficient returns to meet long-term obligations. The solution was to chase higher yield through private lending and derivative strategies.

This shift has transformed the nature of Canada’s financial system. It now mirrors the same shadow-banking dynamics that once triggered global contagion.

Canada’s mortgage and housing sectors add another layer of fragility. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has grown its exposure through mortgage-backed securities and insured lending. As property values soften and mortgage renewals reset at higher interest rates, the quality of underlying collateral is deteriorating.

A growing number of homeowners are seeing payments rise from two and a half percent to nearly five percent or more. For many, refinancing is no longer possible under current income and debt-service ratios. This leads to forced sales, which depress prices further.

Falling prices create stress for both lenders and investors. Banks must increase loan-loss provisions. Mortgage-backed securities lose value. The CMHC faces rising insurance exposure. Pension funds holding real estate investments see declines in appraised value, which then feed back into balance-sheet pressure.

The result is a slow-motion feedback loop that weakens the very institutions meant to protect Canadians from systemic risk.

The Bank of Canada’s ongoing quantitative-tightening program has reduced liquidity in the system precisely when refinancing needs are at their peak. As liquidity drains from the market, refinancing costs rise, and credit availability tightens.

This situation is the financial equivalent of dry timber waiting for a spark. All it would take is a few concentrated defaults in commercial real estate or private-credit funds to ignite a chain reaction that spreads through credit markets.

Canada’s interconnected financial system means that even small shocks can spread rapidly. A decline in private-credit valuations leads to reduced collateral values at banks. Those banks, in turn, tighten lending to developers and consumers, which further depresses property values and business activity.

The cycle then repeats until confidence returns or intervention occurs.

Canada’s regulatory structure has not evolved fast enough to match the complexity of modern finance.

OSFI oversees federally regulated financial institutions but has limited reach into private-credit funds or non-bank lenders. The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) monitors retail market practices but cannot control institutional exposures. The CMHC manages mortgage insurance but depends on stable property valuations that are increasingly unrealistic.

This division of authority leaves entire sectors unmonitored. Private-credit funds operate largely outside direct oversight. Derivative-based income products fall between regulatory jurisdictions. The result is a system that appears strong on paper but is fragmented in practice.

In effect, Canada’s regulators are monitoring the visible parts of the financial system while the real risks accumulate in the shadows.

The most significant vulnerability may not be institutional but personal.

The Canadian household has become the silent carrier of systemic risk. Rising mortgage renewals, consumer credit debt, and exposure to income-oriented ETFs have created a direct link between family finances and market liquidity.

Households are facing higher payments just as asset values begin to weaken. Many Canadians, especially retirees, have allocated large portions of their portfolios to covered-call ETFs that promise steady monthly income. These funds are highly sensitive to volatility and market corrections.

If markets decline, both homeowners and investors will face losses at the same time. The typical Canadian retiree could see a drop in home equity alongside a fall in their investment income. This double exposure represents a new form of risk that did not exist a generation ago.

Many investors believe their portfolios are diversified because they hold a mix of private and public assets. Yet this separation is largely theoretical. The same institutions often provide financing to both. The same liquidity supports them. The same investors own them through different vehicles.

When stress appears in one part of the market, the others follow. A markdown in private credit affects the collateral base of pension funds. If those funds sell assets to raise liquidity, they drive down public markets. Falling equity values then erode household wealth and confidence, which reduces spending and growth.

This is how a system built on diversification becomes one of interdependence.

In 2008, the United States was able to respond to its crisis with massive stimulus and interest-rate cuts. In 2025, Canada faces tighter constraints. Government debt is higher, inflation remains elevated, and the Bank of Canada has limited room to act without reigniting price instability.

A sharp downturn today would likely unfold more slowly and painfully. There may be no single dramatic event like the fall of Lehman Brothers. Instead, the crisis could manifest as a prolonged erosion of asset values, restricted credit, and declining confidence.

This would be harder to contain because it would feel less like a crash and more like a gradual suffocation of liquidity.

After 2008, the financial community promised reform. New regulations were enacted to prevent a repeat of excessive leverage. Yet the outcome was not restraint but adaptation.

Banks reduced their visible leverage, but shadow institutions grew to fill the gap. Risk was not eliminated; it was redistributed under new labels such as “alternative yield” and “private lending.”

Today’s policymakers again insist that the system is safe. They cite stress tests and capital buffers as proof. Yet these measures apply mainly to banks, not to the web of private-credit funds and leveraged ETFs that now drive much of the financial ecosystem.

The optimism that preceded 2008 has returned, this time cloaked in the belief that regulation has made markets safer.

Canada’s financial structure is among the most concentrated in the world. A few large banks dominate lending, asset management, and wealth services. This concentration provides stability in normal times but magnifies vulnerability in a crisis.

If multiple sectors falter simultaneously, such as mortgage renewals, private-credit defaults, and leveraged ETF drawdowns, no single institution will have the capacity to absorb the impact.

What appears to be diversification is, in reality, a shared dependence on continuous liquidity. Once that assumption fails, confidence could evaporate quickly.

The consequences would reach far beyond balance sheets. Retirement savings, housing wealth, and corporate credit would all reprice. For a country that prides itself on financial prudence, the shock to public confidence could be profound.

Modern financial systems are no longer defined by individual institutions but by networks of exposure. Every layer of the Canadian economy is tied to the same underlying source of risk: cheap liquidity that no longer exists.

Banks depend on capital-market confidence. Pension funds depend on stable valuations. Households depend on both. When one link weakens, the entire chain strains under the weight.

The lesson is simple but uncomfortable. Canada’s apparent financial strength is built on the same assumptions that failed elsewhere. Without a foundation of real, unleveraged assets, every level of the system remains exposed to the same storm.

To understand the fragility of the system, imagine how it would react under different levels of stress. Three scenarios illustrate how quickly stability can vanish.

• Scenario One: Mild Correction A ten percent decline in equity markets and a small widening in credit spreads cause covered-call ETFs to fall by twelve to fifteen percent. Private-credit funds adjust their valuations down by two to three percent. Investors treat the decline as temporary, and redemptions remain low. The system absorbs the shock.
• Scenario Two: Moderate Dislocation A twenty percent equity market decline combines with a liquidity squeeze. Covered-call ETFs sell options at lower prices, reducing income while leverage multiplies losses. Net asset values drop by as much as thirty percent. Private-credit funds face a wave of borrower defaults, forcing write-downs of ten to fifteen percent. Some funds gate withdrawals to preserve liquidity. Confidence begins to erode.
• Scenario Three: Severe Crisis A forty percent market drop and a tightening of credit produce a full-blown liquidity freeze. Option markets seize up. Leveraged ETFs lose half their value. Private-credit funds face cascading defaults. Pension plans mark down portfolios by double digits. Retail investors, unable to redeem, panic. Liquidity evaporates across markets.

Each scenario ends the same way: engineered income disappears, and the illusion of diversification collapses.

Diversification works in calm markets but breaks down when volatility rises. In times of crisis, all assets move together because they share the same dependency on liquidity.

Stocks, bonds, real estate, and private credit all fall in unison when credit tightens. The result is that diversification becomes correlation, and investors discover that what they believed were separate asset classes were all built on the same foundation of borrowed confidence.

True diversification requires assets that do not depend on the same financial system for their value.

Many Canadians believe regulation will protect them from the kind of chaos that struck Wall Street in 2008. Yet Canada’s oversight focuses on solvency, not market valuation.

OSFI ensures that banks hold sufficient capital, but those ratios are based on internal models that often lag behind real-world conditions. CIRO enforces disclosure and suitability standards for advisors but cannot prevent structural losses within approved products. CMHC guarantees mortgage debt but cannot stabilize property prices during forced sales. The Bank of Canada can inject liquidity, but it cannot restore confidence once trust in the system fades.

Regulation can delay the recognition of loss, but it cannot eliminate it.

Many Canadian retirees believe they hold balanced portfolios designed to weather any storm. Yet beneath the labels, most own correlated exposures to the same sources of risk.

Dividend stocks, covered-call ETFs, and balanced mutual funds all depend on equity stability and liquidity. When markets fall, covered-call ETFs lose capital as volatility spikes. Private-credit funds lose value as defaults increase. Even dividend-paying companies, often held within those ETFs, decline in the same downturn.

The result is that diversification on paper becomes duplication in practice. Pension plans face similar risks, holding illiquid private-credit positions alongside leveraged public assets. When both decline together, funding shortfalls widen and benefits come under pressure.

When liquidity disappears, the Bank of Canada will likely act, just as it did in 2020, by offering emergency lending and asset-purchase programs. But the scale of the next crisis may exceed the capacity of those tools.

Public debt is already high. Inflationary pressures limit how far rates can be cut. Any rescue effort will be aimed at preserving the stability of the financial system itself, not individual investors.

History shows that institutions are saved first, while savers absorb the losses.

While policymakers search for temporary relief, investors must take responsibility for structural defence. Survival in the next phase of this cycle will not come from government programs or central-bank liquidity. It will come from rebuilding wealth on solid ground, using real assets and disciplined structure.

Building lasting wealth begins by restoring strength to its foundation. True financial security is achieved by structuring assets to withstand market volatility, institutional failure, and government overreach. The It Starts With Gold™ framework defines this discipline through the Four Critical Pillars of Financial Survival, each designed to protect, preserve, and empower independent wealth.

Pillar One – Gold and Precious Metals: The Ultimate Foundation

Gold remains the anchor of real financial independence. It holds value when paper assets fail and stands outside the reach of digital control. Silver supports this foundation with industrial utility and affordability, ensuring that wealth is both tangible and accessible. Together, precious metals provide lasting protection beyond fiat currency and centralized systems.

Pillar Two – Alternative Investments: Income and Stability Beyond Public Markets

Alternative investments such as purpose-built multi-family real estate, private equity in profitable companies, and private lending solutions provide steady income and diversification outside the stock and bond markets. These holdings generate real economic value and help offset inflation and volatility, creating a stable second pillar of financial strength.

Pillar Three – Active Discretionary Private Portfolio Management: Discipline and Custodial Safety

Professionally managed portfolios bring structure and oversight to public-market exposure. Through independent discretionary management, assets are securely custodied and allocated with discipline, not emotion. This professional framework minimizes counterparty risk and keeps clients aligned with long-term objectives rather than short-term sentiment.

Pillar Four – Mutual Life Insurance Financial Instruments: Stability Through Policyholder Ownership

Participating whole life insurance offered by mutual companies provides guaranteed growth, tax-advantaged accumulation, and secure liquidity. Because mutual insurers are owned by policyholders, they prioritize stability over profit extraction. This pillar adds a defensive, intergenerational layer of protection and estate efficiency.

Building wealth in this structure transforms a portfolio from fragile to resilient.

At our firm, we assist clients in structuring their wealth by Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security. This framework prioritizes the most secure, tangible assets first, including physical gold, productive land, and private income-generating holdings, while gradually reducing exposure to those that depend on financial markets and centralized systems.

The objective is not speculation but preservation. By owning assets according to their level of inherent security, investors can protect their capital against the kinds of systemic shocks now emerging across credit, real estate, and public markets.

True liquidity is the ability to act without restriction. Wealth held entirely inside the banking system is conditional. Withdrawal limits, market halts, and bail-in provisions can all restrict access during crises.

Maintaining part of one’s liquidity outside the system through physical holdings or short-term private instruments creates flexibility and independence. This is not speculation but basic prudence.

👉Book your complimentary review to learn how to structure your wealth around the principles of Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security.

Our team helps clients identify vulnerable holdings, secure liquidity outside the financial system, and transition from speculative exposure to enduring value. Stay informed, stay prepared, and act while choice still exists.

For decades, investors were taught that safety comes from diversification within markets. The next era will prove that safety comes from diversification away from markets.

This shift will be uncomfortable because it challenges long-standing habits. Yet every financial reset begins the same way. First, disbelief. Then, recognition. Finally, adaptation.

Those who adapt early protect their independence. Those who wait for reassurance find the gates already closed.

Every financial collapse separates those who prepared from those who trusted the system to protect them. The difference between preservation and loss lies not in timing the market but in structuring wealth to survive it.

Owning assets in the order of their security is not a slogan. It is a disciplined approach to surviving the end of a cycle built on debt and illusion.

The time to act is before the headlines appear, while liquidity and choice still exist.

The purpose of this analysis is not to create fear but to restore realism. Investors who understand how the next phase of this cycle will unfold will have options when others do not.

We help clients rebuild portfolios from the ground up, reducing exposure to synthetic yield, strengthening tangible asset foundations, and maintaining liquidity outside the system. The goal is not to outperform the market but to outlast it.

Those who wait for official confirmation of a crisis will find that opportunity has already vanished.

These insights connect directly to the themes explored in It Starts With Gold™, co-authored by Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®. Inside the book, we show how to establish a tangible-asset foundation, measure security across asset classes, and safeguard against systemic shocks while maintaining control of your future. Visit www.ItStartsWithGold.com.

👉 Sign up today for The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ to receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, our white paper, Last Asset Standing™, and early updates on our upcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Prefer a hard copy? Order It Starts With Gold™ on Amazon today.

1. Reuters. BlackRock’s Assets Hit Record US $13.46 Trillion on Third Quarter Market Rally. October 2025
2. Bloomberg. Credit Fears Rise as Private Credit Faces Default Risk. November 2025
3. Hamilton ETFs. HDIV Overview and Strategy. November 2025
4. Evolve ETFs. ETSX Product Summary. November 2025
5. Harvest Portfolios. High Income Series Overview. November 2025
6. The Bank of International Settlements Annual Economic Report 2025 (PDF)
7. FinanceFeeds. Systemic Risk in Shadow Banking. June 2025
8. International Monetary Fund. Global Financial Stability Report: Credit Risk and Liquidity Fragility. October 2025
9. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). Annual Report. March 2025
10. OSFI’s Annual Risk Outlook – Fiscal Year 2025-2026
11. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Summer Update: 2025 Housing Market Outlook July 24, 2025
12. Bank of Canada. Financial System Review. May 2025
13. Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO). Annual Compliance and Risk Report. 2025
14. Bloomberg Law. Credit Fraud Fears Loom After BlackRock’s HPS Zeros Out Bad Loan. November 2025
15. European Central Bank. Hidden Leverage and Blind Spots: Addressing Banks’ Exposures to Private Market Funds. June 2025
16. J.P. Morgan Private Bank. Why Private Credit Remains a Strong Opportunity. July 2025
17. BlackRock. Today’s Private Credit Opportunity. October 2025
18. Fitch Ratings. U.S. Private Credit Exposure Rising in Sectors With Stretched Valuations. November 2025

This publication is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal, tax, or investment advice and should not be relied upon as a recommendation to buy or sell any security, investment fund, or financial product.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of any affiliated organization or regulated firm. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and reliability, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the completeness or timeliness of the information.

Market conditions, government policies, and economic environments may change without notice and could materially affect the opinions or projections discussed. All investments carry risk, including the potential loss of principal. Real estate values, interest rates, and regulations can fluctuate significantly, impacting financial outcomes. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Readers should consult a qualified financial, tax, or legal professional before making any decision based on this publication. The authors, Peter J. Merrick, TEP®, and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®, provide professional advisory services through independent affiliations with regulated financial firms.

Neither the authors nor any related entity accept liability for losses arising from reliance on this publication or the information contained herein. By reading this article, you acknowledge that the authors shall not be held responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented. For personalized guidance, please consult a licensed financial professional.