With a headline as broad as ‘alternative fixed income’, the discussion started with an attempt to frame what it is and maybe also what it’s not.
Matthew Freund: “For many, the baseline when it comes to fixed income is Treasuries and government bonds, followed by liquid corporate credit. We think of private credit as an alternative to liquid credit —so anything that’s outside of liquid bonds and loans, and anything non-government, has historically fallen into the alternatives bucket, which is a broad interpretation but reflects some market sentiment. I’d be curious to hear how others are thinking about it as well.”
Sid Chhabra: “The question is of course alternative to what? I think it’s probably a sliding scale of what you put in which bucket. So, you have plain vanilla corporate credit and maybe portions of high yield that are more traditional and not alternative. Securitized credit probably straddles two camps where one part is liquid and has some features which are similar to public credit. However, other parts are outside the broad kind of primary definition of plain vanilla corporate credit. A lot of what we are seeing in alternative fixed income is not alternative in its underlying asset classes, but rather how it’s structured or blended.”
Steve Alvarez: “I agree that the definition it’s less about the underlying assets and more about the resulting profile that an investment vehicle can offer. When we speak to clients and prospects, what they want is the good things you get from traditional fixed income. They want a positive carry, and they want to have something that can offer a steady and reliable NAV with low volatility and ideally with low to no correlation to equities. If you on top of that can protect against the traditional risk sensitivities of corporate credit and fixed income such as credit risk and interest rate sensitivity – then that’s something that can be valuable within a portfolio and help diversify risks.”
Niklas Tell: How do you think about alternative fixed income as investors? Is it first and foremost alternatives within the fixed income or is it an alternative to fixed income?
Fredrik Nylund: “The risk profile and diversification to the overall portfolio is obviously the biggest reason why we would enter the asset class. However, liquidity is also very important for us and internally we talk about liquid versus illiquid credit. The underlying drivers of risk and return are probably similar, but what you expect to get when venturing outside liquid credit is the illiquidity premium.”
Johanna Högfeldt: “When we decided to add private debt in our alternative portfolio, the main reason was the illiquid premium. There are probably other risk premiums, like complexity premium and information premium, but the illiquidity premium is what we are looking for. Private debt replaces part of our public fixed‑income exposure, making the liquidity premium a central component of the strategy. It fulfils a similar diversifying role as traditional fixed income, albeit with a materially higher yield.”
Sid Chhabra: “The illiquidity premium is something we discuss a lot with our clients. A few years back, when rates were low and when you didn’t have as much dispersion in credit, grabbing that illiquidity premium was perhaps the right way to enhance return. But, in a world with increased dispersion, what’s the required illiquidity premium? Is it enough for the risks you are taking in not being able to meaningfully manage your assets?”
Shaun Mullin: “I think that’s a very good question. We’re of course coming from a private credit perspective, and while the illiquidity premium ebbs and flows as markets react, it is a constant that exists and is measurable vs the public credit markets. However, the part that we as managers are constantly evaluating is what is the right risk-adjusted return for the underlying asset and the portfolio that you’re constructing on the back of that.”
Vilhelm Hultgren: You talk a lot about the illiquidity premium in private markets – but do you also see any downside protection from the ability to negotiate the terms of recovery in private markets?
Matthew Freund: “Our heritage in this asset class goes back to the early 1990s, but participation really accelerated coming out of the global financial crisis, as exposures moved out of banks and into the hands of investors. Historically, recovery outcomes have been very favourable, and I think ultimate recovery rates will matter a great deal going forward—particularly in closed-end vehicles, where outcomes are driven by tail risk. A relatively small portion of a portfolio can account for a disproportionate share of complexity in stressed scenarios. We sometimes think of it as the 80/20 rule: roughly 20 per cent of a portfolio’s loans are going to create 80 per cent of its headaches. And this is why manager selection is so critical. You can infer a great deal about a manager’s approach by looking at how they’ve behaved in the past and how they tend to operate when stress situations emerge.”
Michael Levén: “We used to have a big allocation to more traditional direct lending here in Europe, an allocation which we started to build up when that market started to emerge around 2011. We have reduced that allocation during the last couple of years because we’ve seen that with the growth of the market and with many new entrants, underwriting standards have become less strict. In private credit it’s all about protecting the downside and we’ve been in some situations with large well-established managers that has held fairly concentrated portfolios and that’s been a challenge when something happens. Diversification is important and we’re not too keen on traditional direct lending going forward. We’ve tilted the portfolio more towards junior debt and hybrid solutions where you also have some upside potential and asset-backed finance and structured credit, where you have a different cash flow profile.”
Fredrik Nylund: “I agree. The challenge with concentrated senior debt portfolios is that, even with strong fundamental analysis and rigorous due diligence, they remain exposed to idiosyncratic credit risk that is difficult to offset. Robust portfolio construction and effective diversification across issuers are therefore essential.”
Johanna Högfeldt: “Vintage risk is another challenge. You need to be deploying very consistently to avoid some specific periods which can create a lot of volatility, especially given the wide dispersion in vintage-year return outcomes. There are many different factors that you need to take into account when looking at the diversification.”
Matthew Freund: “In our experience, European portfolios tend to be more concentrated. That said, even the smallest portfolios at Barings typically include roughly 80 issuers when fully ramped. In North America, issuer counts often exceeds 150, for exactly the reasons you just described. The objective is to limit concentration risk, ensuring no single issuer or sector has an outsized impact on outcomes—particularly in a return profile where the upside is capped.”
Sid Chhabra: “I would like to ask the investors if the current macro environment, which in our view will continue to be one of disruption and dispersion, factor in how you’re thinking about managers that will focus more on being able to rotate portfolios. We were overweight software until Q3 of last year and then within a quarter we went underweight. In February, when the market had repriced quite a bit, we started to add to our software exposure again. I think this is a theme that will be with us for quite some time and we believe that we are in that world where being able to rotate is going to be important. We’ve already talked about diversification, but being able to be more liquid is also important.”
Fredrik Nylund: “For us, when we’re talking about alternative fixed income or illiquid credits, we mainly go into strategies with no liquidity. However, we have been focused on opportunistic credit with quite broad investment universe to be able to at least tilt the portfolio towards the areas where you find relative value as appealing.”
Michael Levén: “In the liquid segment it’s of course important to find a manager that can pick and choose depending on how tight the spreads are in different segments. However, on the private side, you normally select a vehicle and then you sit there for the duration of the investment.”
Niklas Tell: Johanna – coming back to your point on diversification. How do you ensure that you are diversified across vintages and sectors and managers?
Johanna Högfeldt: “For a small institution it’s hard to build a program to cover all of that so we need to find solutions which are diversified by design.”
Shaun Mullin: “We’ve clearly seen a trend in capital formation towards bespoke accounts tailored to specific investor requirements. In its simplest form it may be less exposure to certain sectors, or investment size, and in its more advanced form it might be greater diversification across geographies or specific instruments in the capital structure. What’s particularly interesting is that investors are increasingly seeking managers who can offer a broad range of strategies and, in line with investor preferences, allocate across them — from traditional liquid credit through to private credit and into stressed or distressed strategies. We believe this trend will continue and that, rather than institutional capital being channelled predominantly into traditional drawdown funds with seven‑ to ten‑year lock‑ups, we will see increased demand for bespoke solutions, including a shift towards evergreen structures.”
Steve Alvarez: “For our strategy, which is an alternative approach to convertible bonds, the liquidity is paramount. To have an opportunistic portfolio is paramount. This is an over-the-counter market, and our portfolio managers will always be testing the market for pockets of illiquidity. They saw spreads gap out early in 2008 and were able to flip a big portion of our portfolio. The core trade is that we buy a convertible bond and sell short equity. Then we can trade, or benefit from equity volatility trading opportunities, which is particularly compelling right now.”
Sid Chhabra: “Are there many other managers who are offering a similar strategy? I’m just curious because obviously private credit is more of a broad asset class.”
Steve Alvarez: “I think it mirrors what’s already been said. This was an asset class that was owned by the investment banks pre the Volcker rule coming into play and it was also in the hands of dedicated hedge funds, but many fell by the wayside through 2008. Many of our dedicated peers from back then are now part of multi-strategy firms.”
Niklas Tell: In private credit, given that you can’t really manage the portfolio on a daily basis, the key decision is whether to invest or not? I think you have said that you underwrite some five per cent of the deals that come your way.
Matthew Freund: “Yes, that’s broadly right. When we think about allocating between liquid and illiquid strategies, a key reason to allocate to illiquid strategies is to be compensated for doing so. We actively track the illiquidity premium in real time relative to liquid market indices. Over the past 10 years, that premium has clearly moved around, and as both an investor and an allocator, you need to have a view on what the long-term illiquidity premium can—and should—be, recognizing that a wide range of factors will influence it. If you determine that the long-term illiquidity premium for private credit is around 75 basis points, that becomes a difficult proposition. Very few investors are likely to allocate at that level of compensation.
Historically, the premium has ranged from roughly 150 to 200 basis points in the U.S., and in Europe it has been about 50 basis points higher. It’s also important to view this through a relative value lens, as different markets can be more attractive at different points in time. A good example was 2017, when the initial Trump tariffs were introduced and it was a much better time to be invested in European private credit relative to North America. Another example came in the aftermath of COVID, when policy responses differed dramatically between the U.S. and Europe, strengthening the relative value case in the U.S. The broader point is that these global events do occur and are virtually impossible to predict, which underscores the importance of constructing allocations with that uncertainty in mind.”
Michael Levén: “I’m not saying that this is good and it is not how we invest – but even if the illiquidity premium were basically non-existent, would you see some institutions preferring to lock in the capital? At least theoretically you can get the same returns but with lower volatility because it’s not traded daily.”
Matthew Freund: “If you’re being intellectually honest, the base case should be that default rates and overall credit experience will be broadly similar across private and liquid credits over time. That said, private credit is not a monolith. At Barings, we’re focused to the mid-market, and I agree with Sid that dispersion will be a defining feature this year. A significant portion of recent deployment across the industry has been concentrated in the upper middle market—larger companies that tend to dominate headlines and have attracted a significant share of retail capital in the U.S. Many of these companies sit within the private ecosystem because of their more aggressive leverage profiles, which often result in non-rateable structures. This is where we expect volatility to be most evident. Ultimately, the segment of the market a manager focuses on is going to have a meaningful impact on the experience over an intermediate time frame.”
Johanna Högfeldt: “I have one question when it comes to default risks and specifically what we refer to as shadow default risks.”
Matthew Freund: “We tend to frame this discussion in the context of PIK, or payment-in-kind structures, which allow borrowers to defer cash interest payments. By their nature, European loan structures are more likely to include PIK securities than those in the U.S., where they were very uncommon even just five years ago. In our experience, elevated PIK usage has been a leading indicator of stress in a portfolio. Looking at the market today, we’re clearly seeing PIK rates migrate higher, and as a result, the risk of so-called shadow defaults is definitively there for some managers.”
Sid Chhabra: “I completely agree with what is being said here in that large companies are coming to the loan market or private credit depending on how much leverage they need. We have a chart that we use when talking with clients, which highlights that direct lending in many of the recent vintages is essentially triple C or triple C minus, because it’s seven times leverage. Here we expect default rates to exceed or be close to 20 per cent and we’ve already seen that with the PIK rates. On top of that you have the exposure to the software sector, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more significant defaults happening for some managers – especially on that lower end of the spectrum because we’re getting closer to the maturity profile of some of them. If we also start to see less private credit allocations relative to what is already existing, then that constrains the credit environment further. This means that the propensity for defaults increases for that space, because these companies won’t be able to come to the public credit market.”
Michael Levén: “When it comes to shadow defaults, Fitch recently issued a report stating that default rates in the US private credit market amounted to 9,2 per cent in 2025 if you include bankruptcy filings and distressed debt exchanges. So, there has been a noticeable increase in defaults, although the degree depends on how you measure defaults and which segment of the market you look at.”
Shaun Mullin: “I would make a couple of observations about the European market. There are structurally more PIK features in the European market compared to the North American market, but I would make the point that there are good PIKs and bad PIKs. We have a lot of discussions with borrowers and sponsors around this concept to really understand the rationale for requesting such a feature in the underlying instrument. Often, there is a lack of clear rational. It is incorporated because the market will tolerate it which, in turn, provides borrowers with more flexibility as to how they manage liquidity. Then, there are borrowers that we put in the good category of PIK. These are companies that have a very clear and articulated business plan. These could be companies that are going through some form of transition. They want to preserve the cash and reinvest it internally to generate a better ROI. From a manager’s perspective, we only want to be involved with the good PIK. As importantly, we also want to ensure that we’re getting a demonstrable return premium for that PIK feature and ensure we have adequate controls around the use of it. If I was sitting on the other side of the table, assessing the managers and their underwriting criteria– this would be a key feature that I would want to drill into.”
Michael Levén: “Matthew – you’re running BDC funds as well and with BDCs you need to distribute 90 per cent of the income, right? I assume that becomes a challenge if there are too many PIKs?”
Matthew Freund: “These are publicly disclosed data points, and on that basis, we look quite strong. More broadly, though, it’s fair to say that elevated PIK levels have become an area of focus across the BDC landscape. For context, BDCs (Business Development Companies) are publicly traded vehicles that provide financing to small-to-mid-sized private businesses. They are often structured as Regulated Investment Companies (RICs). To avoid corporate-level taxation in the U.S., BDCs are required to distribute 90 per cent of their investment company taxable income, or ICTI. If they cannot, the structure is effectively breached, and they experience punitive tax consequences. Some would describe this event as “breaking the structure” of a BDC. That’s never happened—BDCs have failed, but not for this reason. Still, it’s a real question today and one that investors are watching closely as to whether all BDCs can distribute 90 per cent. With some BDCs operating with elevated PIK rates, and distribution requirements close to 92 per cent, there could be some real headwinds for certain managers.”
Michael Levén: “I guess that’s one reason why many BDCs have traded down significantly?”
Matthew Freund: “There are several factors at work. BDCs are, by design, retail products, and there has been a significant amount of commentary since last fall that has weighed on the sector. Fundamentals played a role as well—there were concerns around the forward curve, with expectations that base rates could come down and impact dividends. In addition, high-profile credit situations such as Tricolor and First Brands brought renewed attention to credit quality and underwriting discipline. Today, there is greater visibility on interest rate expectations, and while credit quality remains a point of differentiation across managers, it’s not a universal issue. When we look at our own portfolio, underlying credit fundamentals remain sound and broadly consistent with where they were a year ago. That’s not to suggest conditions won’t change, of course, but based on what we see today, we’re comfortable with the positioning. We’re optimistic that as some of the headline volatility fades, and fundamentals start to take hold, the sector will pull closer to par.”
Fredrik Nylund: “We’ve seen a lot of retail money coming in through BDCs and there’s of course also been fundraising from institutional clients. How do you see this playing out if we continue to see outflows from retail clients? What will happen if retail money is removed from the ecosystem?”
Matthew Freund: “From a managers’ perspective, diversity of capital—and diversity of capital formation—is important. On one hand, our responsibility is to deliver durable, consistent returns for our limited partners. On the other, we also need to remain relevant to our issuer community in order to continue originating compelling opportunities. From that standpoint, we are comfortable with our balance of retail and institutional capital. In fact, over the past month or so, we’ve received more inbound interest from institutions looking to increase their exposure, more so than we’ve experienced in recent years. More broadly, if capital were to decline across the system, we would expect that to place some upward pressure on spreads, particularly in our segment of the market. How that dynamic plays out in the upper end of the market will be important to watch.”
Sid Chhabra: “The whole topic for the last few days, and in fact for the last two months, has been dispersion and I just don’t see a reason why any of the headlines will improve for the foreseeable future. Credit spreads are increasing, defaults are going to go up, and redemptions are only going to go up. You just saw one of the funds having a 14 per cent redemption in one quarter. I therefore think that the credit constraining aspect is here for that upper middle market and the larger companies, and I don’t see how the overall community will get more capital. I think this will create great opportunities on the liquid side because we’ll be able to pivot around that. I completely agree with your point that this doesn’t affect the smaller end of the spectrum to the same extent because here public markets have never been an option.”
Shaun Mullin: “I think you’ll see a recalibration of the capital structure coming through, and they will be forced to negotiate with their private market counterparts. Either because of challenges in getting traction in the public market – or because the managers or the owners of those businesses don’t necessarily want all of this out in the public domain. Many borrowers and issuers will prefer this privately negotiated, bespoke instrument and will pay more for it.”
Niklas Tell: With increased dispersion, manager selection will become even more important. As investors – what are you focusing on when you are looking at different managers, and as managers – is there something that investors should focus more on?
Shaun Mullin: “I believe the industry needs to evolve and provide more transparency including more frequent marks and valuations combined with transparency and consistency on their methodologies. Having an asset move from 100 to zero in a short period isn’t constructive for the industry and it should not really happen because these highly idiosyncratic events are rare. Private credit needs to evolve with regards to transparency, how valuations are conducted and how that information is disseminated to the underlying investors.”
Niklas Tell: Do you have enough information to do a proper due diligence?
Johanna Högfeldt: “We’ve mainly been looking at Swedish and Nordic managers, but I agree that it’s very difficult to compare managers. That’s the same in private equity so yes, we would welcome some more transparency. There are of course many factors you have to consider when you’re doing your due diligence, and one is what we talked about earlier regarding defaults. How are different managers handling this and do they have the capacity to manage the situation when things go wrong.”
Fredrik Nylund: “I agree. I think it’s very important to understand if a manager is organized in a way that is fit for more turbulent times. Do they have portfolio monitoring and restructuring teams? I think it’s a hygiene factor to be able to show good processes in reporting and valuations and being transparent in what you give to investors. I also like to see a long track record and to see that a team has deployed capital through different cycles.”
Johanna Högfeldt: “I also think it’s important that managers are being honest if there have been things which have gone wrong. Have they changed their strategy or have they built new processes? It gives a lot of credibility if a manager is transparent with those kinds of things.”
Niklas Tell: Have we kind of forgotten about the importance of restructuring and distressed situation, because we’ve been in a fairly benign market environment for a long time?
Michael Levén: “I think having restructuring capabilities in the team will be absolutely important going forward.”
Niklas Tell: Steve – considering what we’ve just discussed regarding the illiquid market, what does that mean for your strategy? Do you see similar challenges, or does this rather create opportunities?
Steve Alvarez: “What we see within our asset class is a clear value opportunity that’s existed for at least the last two years. We’ve been recognising that core credit spreads are tight, and we see the threat of defaults. Our portfolio has been purposely steered into something that offers true ballast against all of that. Half of our portfolio is now in investment grade bonds and in every one of those positions, it’s a capital structure trade where we own the bond and short the equity. We’re also focusing on shorter date credits and the average maturity of our bonds, and our portfolio, is about two years. If you think of what the historical default recovery rate for bonds has been, it’s 30 cents in the dollar. In many cases, with our short book – if a bond would default overnight, it’s theoretically a break even. Also, a big part of what we do is event-driven alpha. This is a cornerstone of our fund and close to 50 per cent of our returns is negotiated exits back to the issuing company to arrive at mutually beneficial outcomes. The unique feature of the asset class is that in many cases, this is a direct one-to-one negotiation. They do not need to offer that opportunity to the bondholders. They don’t need to get equity shareholder approval. It’s just a negotiated exit between us and them in many cases.”
Niklas Tell: Sid, you mentioned increased opportunities in the liquid space earlier. Where do you see value today?
Sid Chhabra: “I would highlight three areas within liquid alternative credit. One is securitized credit where we see a lot of deals at interesting levels right now. A lot of investors have limited allocation to it, so I think there’s room for it to grow. The second opportunity is just broadly in loans, because there’s a lot of dispersion. Then we have something called the multi-strategy credit business. This is essentially a 10 per cent return type of product in a liquid format and it’s a mix of the best opportunities in DM and EM. This blend has actually worked very well, because there’ll be times when emerging markets are doing extremely well, and there’ll be times when securitized credit is doing well, and there’ll be times when traditional long-shot credit is doing well. I think that blend approach for alternative credit where you can get a 10 per cent return and really limit your drawdowns has worked quite well. I think the takeaway for me would be that if you believe that dispersion is with us for three years, I think it’s going to be harder and harder for clients to lock up capital in a more passive way. I think the world is changing and you can’t really focus on passive credit for too long when liquid credit can offer a very compelling return opportunity. It only works when rates are very low. When rates are high and there is dispersion, I think it is going to be more challenging.”
Michael Levén: “When it comes to the liquid space, although spreads have widened a bit in February and March, bonds are very richly priced, with spreads in their 90th percentiles of historical ranges so we don’t want to have too much exposure there for the moment. Loans are on average not quite as richly priced as bonds in a historical context but there is a huge divergence within loans where BB trade relatively rich while CCC have widened significantly. One area which we are looking at in order to potentially increase the exposure is structured credit, which we currently find more attractive.”
Niklas Tell: As investors, what are you currently looking at?
Fredrik Nylund: “I’m responsible for both the illiquid and the liquid credit side of the portfolio. We are allocating from a high yield/loan type of exposure, so it would be more something that has correlation to the credit market, but maybe you could see some exposures in structured credits. We are actively trying to tilt the portfolio away from corporate credit. In the loan space, we have some managers who are very active, and our expectation is that these managers will perform in market downturns and they are able to pick up good credit when everything sells off. Last year we had excellent performance from our emerging market debt exposure, which is a core building block in the liquid side of the portfolio. We’ll probably continue to have that in the portfolio. We like to have a diversified credit exposure.”
Michael Levén: “It’s similar on our side. We’ve decreased our exposure to direct lending over the last couple of years and we’ve allocated a bit more to credit hedge funds. We haven’t had an emerging market debt allocation for some time, but that’s an area that we are looking at.”
Johanna Högfeldt: “We’re currently building a new portfolio within this space, and we see private debt as a risk-reducing building block in the total portfolio. Our aim is to collect the risk premiums over the long-term and we’re not looking to time the market. Direct lending will be core on the senior side, with an aim to diversify across both geographies and sectors. We are also exploring complementary strategies such as structured credit, asset-based lending and other less correlated credit opportunities.”
Niklas Tell: We’re in an environment that’s not without risks and headlines and events. What are the arguments for this still being a good market and what is potentially the thing that would be really bad if it happened?
Matthew Freund: “Broadly speaking, most of the clients that we work with do not have the option of simply sitting in cash—that is often the least attractive outcome for them over time. As a result, remaining invested is essential, and much of our dialogue with our LPs focuses on what those strategic asset allocations should look like and what the intermediate and long-term return expectations are likely to be.
Most professional investors today recognize that you can’t take a single quarter, or even a one-year period, and extrapolate that experience across an overall strategic asset allocation. The credit ecosystem is more complex than headline commentary might suggest. Looking ahead, an important theme in private credit and direct lending will be how perpetual strategies continue to evolve over the course of 2026. For institutional allocators with long-term horizons, that evolution isn’t inherently negative—particularly if it leads to upward pressure on spreads. It’s also important to distinguish between what can be positive for managers and what ultimately matters most for LPs. From our perspective, investing alongside clients with a long‑term credit mindset helps reinforce a focus on discipline, selectivity and downside protection. When LPs invest with us, they are partnering with a platform that is structured to navigate cycles, not just near-term market conditions. Across asset management more broadly, periods of rapid growth can sometimes create tension between scale and discipline—where the interests of managers do not always align with those of their LPs.”
Steve Alvarez: “We see the current market as very favourable for our strategy. Equity volatility is under-owned, undervalued and underappreciated. With our strategy, you’re accessing that via a credit portfolio that’s more senior, more short-dated and better protected than it ever has been and hopefully should lead to good risk-adjusted returns.”
Niklas Tell: Shaun, do you agree on the story for private credit?
Shaun Mullin: “We will see a greater dispersion of returns from private credit managers. You will see which managers have been actively selecting their underlying investments and doing their due diligence – which managers have been actively managing their portfolios and those managers who have just been riding the market in terms of asset gathering and taking a less stringent approach to due diligence and underwriting. As a consequence of that, you will see capital retracting from certain parts of the market and certain managers. We’re already seeing it. What does that mean? It means that there is still an opportunity set out there. There are companies, borrowers, issuers and private equity firms who still need servicing but there will be less managers in a position to do so. Matthew mentioned it earlier: you need to be there for these clients during longer periods of time in order to see the best opportunities and get the best access. If you are an active participant in the market during this period of volatility, when others are retreating, you should be able to access transactions with lower leverage, better economics and legal protections, which should translate into more durable outcomes for your investors. The part that always angst me, and I think it is unhelpful, is just indecisiveness or lack of clarity of economic and monetary policy as well as global macro events, which we just can’t forecast.”Sid Chhabra: “I think the key take away is higher rates and more dispersion, which in turn will lead to better total return opportunities. I think the elephant in the room is AI. We don’t know what the world will look like in three years’ time. What’s going to happen with the job market? What we’re investing in today might be different to what we do in three months. It’s going to be very interesting months ahead.”
// Participants
Johanna Högfeldt, Portfolio manager – alternative investments and fixed income at Kammarkollegiet
Fredrik Nylund, Portfolio manager, private credit at SEB Life & Pension
Michael Levén, Senior portfolio manager at Ericsson Pensionsstiftelse
Matthew Freund, President Barings BDC & Head of North America private credit portfolio management
Sid Chhabra, Head of European high yield, securitized credit and CLO management at RBC BlueBay
Steve Alvarez, Director, alternative investments distribution at Lazard
Shaun Mullin, Managing director, private credit & equity at Morgan Stanley Investment Management
