/ 29 min read / Reed Smith Newsletters

Global Fund Finance Symposium 2026 – A Grand Slam for FFA

Authors

Leon Stephenson, Christopher Davis, Angela A. Hagerman, Cheryl A. Lagay, James S. Lawlor, Linn Mayhew, Chu Ting Ng, Natalie Sharkey, Diana H. Whitmore, Owen Gonzalez

1. Fireside chat with Rob Lewin

By Owen Gonzalez

The symposium kicked off with a fireside chat between Rob Lewin, chief financial officer at KKR, and Mark Mulroney, global vice chair, Office of the CEO, at CIBC. The discussion focused on private markets and the evolving role of fund finance and emphasized the importance of long-term investment strategies designed to perform across market cycles, supported by disciplined underwriting, durable capital structures, and thoughtful capital deployment.

Building on these themes, the discussion highlighted several key areas of investment opportunity. Asia remains a key growth region, with a particular focus on India’s long-term demographic and economic trends, while investment activity in other areas of the region is becoming increasingly selective, reflecting geopolitical and policy sensitivities. Digital and broader infrastructure were also identified as attractive investment opportunities, supported by sustained global demand for connectivity, data, and essential services, and by the growing role of private capital in financing infrastructure development. 

In addition, the conversation addressed developments in financing markets, with private credit cited as an area of continued strength and interest, reflecting its role as a core financing solution across the private capital landscape. The expanding use of private credit to support a wide range of investment strategies and capital structures was highlighted as reinforcing its position as a core financing solution and an increasingly integral component of the broader private capital market. It was also noted that allocations to alternative investments by high net worth and retail investors are expected to increase gradually as product structures continue to evolve to accommodate liquidity preferences and applicable regulatory considerations. 

The discussion concluded with an emphasis on partnership as a defining element of successful fund finance relationships. Trust, alignment, and long-term collaboration were noted as critical to delivering effective financing solutions, underscoring the continued strategic importance of fund finance within the global private credit market.

2. Fund Finance Market Update (Macro)

By Cheryl Lagay 

The demand for fund finance capital call facilities remained stable in 2025. There was also an uptick in demand for NAV facilities and hybrid facilities during the year. Facilities are most commonly bilateral, and bespoke structures are also common, as the appetite for risk has expanded across products. Borrowers are growing ever more sophisticated in terms of what types of products and structures lenders can offer. This has created more opportunities for both bank and non-bank lenders.

There remains a high demand for ratings in the market, together with increasing transparency, in order to unlock favorable regulatory capital treatment and liquidity. The scope of assets has broadened to include real estate, infrastructure, and esoteric assets (e.g., music royalties), as well as other asset classes typically seen in the structured finance market. The market has evolved toward greater sophistication and specialization; lenders align offerings with their strengths, and the market is sufficiently diversified for lenders to find their niche in the market. There is a need to develop methodologies to address an evolving and innovative market.

Banks and alternative lenders are increasingly working together, with syndicated deals often including one or more of each type of lender. Banks need to be on both sides of the market – the more bespoke deals tend to be bilateral, while more traditional syndicated facilities appear to be trending toward concentrated bank groups (e.g., four banks as opposed to six or eight). Firms increasingly partner with lenders on larger, strategic deals by cutting financing into multiple pieces, with transactions split into tranches, banks offering the revolver, and fixed-term facilities offered by non-bank lenders. European banks show a higher incidence of approaches by banks to non-bank lenders to offload exposures due to regulation.

There are notable regulatory changes impacting the US market as well. In the US, demand for ratings has been tempered by increased regulatory focus. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) requires US insurers’ debt to be rated to obtain favorable capital treatment. In response, at least in part, to the exponential growth in ratings, the NAIC has formed a working group to review ratings and established a framework for challenging such ratings. Another US regulator to watch is the Department of Labor as it will soon be issuing guidance in response to a 2025 executive order directing it to facilitate the inclusion of alternative assets – such as private equity, real estate, and digital assets – in 401(k) plans by February 2026. Generally, regulators in Asia, Europe, and the US are backers rather than blockers of private credit growth and view it as a solution for capital formation.

3. Regional Market Comparison – US / EMEA / APAC Credit

By Jim Lawlor

As the symposium’s name makes clear, fund finance is a global phenomenon. But it is also a market with distinct regional – and even local – differences. The Regional Market Comparison panel discussed current trends, market dynamics, growth drivers, and regulatory developments in the US, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), and Asia-Pacific (APAC) fund finance markets. 

Certain trends remain universal, or nearly so, in the US, EMEA, and the more developed markets of APAC (read, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore). The common theme across these markets is that sponsors have an ongoing need for liquidity solutions, and the lending market is continually finding ways to meet that demand. While subscription lines remain the largest product offering, NAV facilities are the largest driver of growth, approaching in both size and market acceptance the mature (and still robust) subscription line market on which the market for NAV facilities was built. At the convergence of capital call lines and NAV facilities, the often discussed, less implemented hybrid space is starting to gain traction in these markets. Meanwhile, demand for more structured products, including general partner and management company facilities, is increasingly being met by private credit, especially as NAV facilities gain greater acceptance with commercial banks. 

In the APAC market, there are a few key differences. Hybrid facilities have had a footing for some time, while NAV facilities have only recently become an accepted product. SMAs are more of a tool in APAC than other markets. While the US and EMEA are viewed as single markets, APAC was described as multiple markets, with Australia being on par with the US and Europe (and in some areas on the leading edge), while Singapore and Hong Kong are highly developed pan-regional markets. But growth in APAC is expected to be in domestic markets. Japan has recently rolled out a new, government-approved model limited partnership agreement, with lender friendly provisions akin to those seen in LPAs in the US and Europe. While challenges remain in Japan, for instance, with difficulties obtaining and enforcing liens on deposit accounts, there is growing anticipation of a rapidly developing fund finance market in the world’s fourth largest economy. Regulatory changes to facilitate market development are also in process in India, according to a panelist.

While regulatory innovations in APAC are viewed as facilitative, the story is different in the two larger markets. In the US, the trend at the SEC is toward more transparency for investors with respect to fees and financials. And for US investors in certain sectors overseas (and their lenders), the 2025 COINS (Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security) Act presents new disclosure and compliance challenges. Meanwhile, EU lenders are waiting for legislation to be enacted in most member states to implement the EU’s Capital Requirements Directive VI, which sets licensure and capital requirements for non-EU banks engaging in certain lending activities in EU member states. Implementation was to be completed in January 2026 but remains in process in nearly all jurisdictions.

The global/regional dichotomy was summed up by one lender panelist: “We bank global sponsors with global strategies that have global requirements. But meeting the requirements, such as taking security in different regions, requires local expertise and knowledge of nuanced regulatory matters in each jurisdiction.”

4. Global Bank Syndication Outlook: Liquidity, Capital Pressure, and Market Evolution

By Cheryl Lagay

Market liquidity was robust in 2025. The number of lenders in fund finance increased materially, with an influx of new banks and non-bank lenders, as well as an increase in the amount of capital made available by existing lenders, which pushed capital further into fund finance. As a result, pricing margins compressed across the market. The market became very sponsor-friendly, and participant lenders moved toward taking larger allocations on syndicated deals with longer tenures to remain relevant to certain sponsors. The market also evolved in respect of the structure of facilities, driven in some cases by sponsor creativity. Sponsors pushed for maximum liquidity and more exit opportunities. Some sponsors focused on consolidating capital markets and banking relationships to align terms and pricing; liquidity segmentation led banks to target specific capital‑structure roles rather than exit the market.

When asked in a virtual survey, more than 60% of panel attendees identified “pricing became the primary driver again” as the most significant shift in the syndicated market in 2025. The second most popular response was “entry of new non-traditional banks into the market.” This was especially true in the US. In the US, non-traditional lenders’ participation in large, syndicated deals grew by 20%. As a consequence, competition increased on price, speed of deal execution, certainty of closing, and willingness to underwrite complexity. The European market showed less change, and Asian markets remained relationship-driven, with lender mandates used to open other business lines.

Greater market sophistication has increased documentation scrutiny; syndicated facilities now require stronger documentation discipline, clearer legal protections, and faster execution to satisfy sponsors and GPs that prioritize the speed of execution. Agents’ counsel needs to understand the new and alternative structures, as aggressive terms tend to slow down negotiations and the speed of execution. Some lenders choose to front-load negotiations of terms at the term‑sheet phase (e.g., by negotiating full provisions in the term sheet). There also tends to be sensitivity around confidentiality and investor‑disclosure provisions, which remained contested in 2025 with no clear market consensus. It has proven important for agents to understand the members of the syndicate and the needs and preferences of each bank and non-bank lender in the syndicate.

5. NAV Lending as a Liquidity Tool for GPs

By Linn Mayhew

The panel discussion made clear that NAV financing has firmly transitioned from a niche product to a core component of the GP toolkit. Across asset classes, managers are deploying NAV facilities not merely to accelerate distributions but to support a range of strategic objectives, including follow-on investments, exit bridging, and value creation initiatives. Market participation has broadened considerably, with both banks and non-banks now active lenders, driving greater standardization in structures, documentation, and covenant frameworks. A typical use case involves funds that are three to five years into their lifecycle, with 80 to 90% of capital called, using NAV financing to maximize deployment, reserve capital for fees and expenses, and fund add-on acquisitions or value-enhancing M&A activity.

The shift in market perception owes much to education and industry guidance. The ILPA framework, released approximately two years ago, has facilitated LP engagement and improved understanding across the investor community. Managers have prioritized internal and LP education before pursuing NAV facilities, with the first implementation often proceeding slowly while subsequent facilities tend to follow more quickly. Investor due diligence now routinely includes questions on NAV financing, with LPs expecting transparency on use cases, cost of capital, and deployability assessments. Acceptance is increasingly conditional rather than binary, reflecting a more nuanced approach to evaluating these structures.

From a structuring perspective, lenders focus on loan-to-value ratios, diversification thresholds, security mechanics, and cash sweep design, while GPs prioritize flexibility, deployment targets, and LP alignment. Security enforcement typically follows an escalation path: pricing ratchets and increased cash sweeps as LTV rises, with hard LTV breaches potentially triggering enforcement. In practice, lenders prefer to consult with managers before enforcing share security, recognizing that the manager is generally best placed to maximize recoveries. Valuation mechanics remain a key negotiating point, including the appointment and remuneration of third-party valuers, lender rights to challenge valuations, and the triggers for challenges.

Rating agencies are increasingly engaging in NAV transactions, providing investors with risk assessments and serving as a constraint on excessive leverage. Ratings methodology evaluates both the probability and severity of default, considering earnings sufficiency, LTV, and diversification. Qualitative factors such as manager track record and service-provider infrastructure also inform the analysis, with negative notching applied where a single asset exceeds 6% concentration.

Operational terms remain a significant driver of negotiating time in NAV facilities and warrant careful attention from both lenders and borrowers. Cash sweep mechanics, in particular, require thoughtful structuring to ensure stability through market cycles while preserving sufficient liquidity within the structure to meet tax charges and ongoing operating costs. The panel emphasized that sweeps should favor measured controls over immediate enforcement, with the design calibrated to the specific characteristics of the underlying portfolio. For certain asset classes, a lower sweep may permit a correspondingly lower LTV, whereas a higher sweep can force higher LTV thresholds and introduce additional structural risk. Achieving alignment between borrowers and lenders at the outset is essential to minimize conflicts over sweep treatment during the life of the facility, and ongoing dialogue with lenders is often necessary to justify any departure from standard sweep levels. Covenant frameworks, valuation challenge rights, and the management of enforcement and reputational risk also consume considerable negotiating time, underscoring the importance of early engagement on these points to ensure a smooth execution process.

6. Trends and Innovations in NAV Lending

By Natalie Sharkey

Market development in recent years

A key takeaway from the panel discussion was that NAV facilities have evolved into increasingly standardized products as their use has become more widespread across different fund strategies. Structuring has matured to a point that provides lenders with greater predictability, thereby increasing their appetite for the product. While individual transactions will always involve bespoke elements, the introduction of more standardized finance documentation has been a significant and positive development for the market. The panel noted LPAC consent is almost always sought for NAV facilities, and this is viewed as a matter of good governance and prudent fund management rather than an obstacle to putting the product in place.

Fund strategies

The panel moved on to current strategies most actively using NAV facilities:

  • Infrastructure funds are currently particularly active users.
  • Real estate funds, having experienced a slowdown, are using NAV facilities to provide additional support.
  • Fund-of-funds structures were likewise identified as a notably active area of the market.

Structuring considerations

The panel discussed the interface between subscription line facilities and NAV facilities, noting that the sub-line is typically paid down before the NAV facility is put in place later in the fund’s life. There was a brief discussion on having a subscription line facility alongside a Term B facility for NAV financing; however, this raised broader questions around the necessity for subscription line support toward the end of the investment period if there is already a NAV facility in place. Where the portfolio lacks sufficient diversification, lenders may look to the remaining uncalled capital as additional support for a NAV facility – so this is where we may see these two products converging.

Outlook for the market

Looking ahead, the panel anticipated increased competition within the NAV lending market, potentially leading to downward pressure on pricing. Greater innovation in deal structures is also expected, alongside a rise in concentrated lending strategies and increased collaboration between non-bank lenders and traditional banks. The discussion emphasized the need for legal advisors to remain adaptable and creative in response to evolving and increasingly varied transaction structures.

7. Continuation Vehicles and the Evolution of Fund Liquidity

By Diana Whitmore

The panel discussion on liquidity options for continuation vehicles and GP-led funds reflected a trend toward hybrid facilities. 

As continuation vehicles have grown in popularity, liquidity for these funds focuses on the design of capital stacks that anticipate LP liquidity needs while preserving upside for continuing investors. Sponsors and lenders can collaborate to structure financing that supports LP buyouts and the recycling of distributions. Debt solutions for continuation vehicles can fund cash consideration to selling LPs and provide incremental liquidity for follow‑on investments. 

Hybrid facilities pair investor support with asset‑level NAV as dual collateral. These structures are especially attractive for continuation vehicles and frequently incorporate enhanced, downward‑looking covenants linked to asset performance. 

Although the collateral and underlying assets that make up a borrowing base for a continuation vehicle may be more concentrated than those of its primary fund, the entrance of new lenders has increased competition and sharpened pricing for borrowing bases. Many borrowers, however, still prefer their incumbent primary‑fund lenders, whose familiarity with the assets and investors can streamline underwriting.

As continuation vehicles extend the runway for top assets and aim to balance liquidity for selling LPs with upside for rolling stakeholders, sponsors will likely place greater emphasis on covenant frameworks that are responsive to asset‑level key performance indicators and realistic exit pathways, while lenders refine underwriting around concentrated exposures and timing risk. Careful attention to these mechanics will be critical to sustaining performance and preserving market confidence as continuation vehicles continue to scale.

Ultimately, continuation vehicles have become a durable solution for aligning time horizons across sponsors, LPs, and lenders in an era where holding quality assets longer can be a superior path to compounding value. By marrying flexible liquidity with well‑structured, dual‑collateral risk and portfolio‑level oversight, these transactions are poised to remain a core instrument in private markets’ liquidity toolkit.

8. Lender Perspectives in Fund Finance: Beyond the Bank Lender

By Linn Mayhew

The fund finance market continues to evolve toward flexible, solutions-oriented structures, with subscription lines, NAV facilities, and hybrid constructs forming the core product suite. While banks continue to offer scale and balance-sheet capacity, non-bank lenders – including insurance capital and private credit funds – are increasingly defining the market’s creative frontier. These alternative capital providers offer materially greater flexibility on security packages, covenant structures, cash-flow arrangements, and payment terms, and are able to calibrate their risk appetite without the volume-driven constraints faced by traditional banks. Where banks often fragment fund finance across multiple divisions – creating coordination challenges and limiting responsiveness – non-bank lenders can deploy a more nimble, integrated approach better suited to the bespoke structures now prevalent in the market.

Insurance and private credit capital are particularly well suited to fund finance, offering diversification benefits and term flexibility that the bank market struggles to match. Private credit lenders can accommodate concentrated portfolios and bespoke structures, provided there is a clear path to repayment, while insurance capital frequently achieves diversification through fund-of-funds structures capable of obtaining investment-grade ratings. Importantly, rating methodologies have matured considerably over the past decade, unlocking fund finance as an asset class for ratings-dependent institutional capital – ratings on individual deals are now in active use and materially expand funding options for non-bank participants.

Looking ahead, the market was described as nascent in terms of innovation potential – presenting significant opportunity for non-bank lenders willing to invest in GP education and relationship-building. Europe has notably outpaced the US in the uptake of NAV subscription structures, though transparency and LP–GP alignment remain critical prerequisites for creative structuring. Subscription line facilities are now deployed well beyond traditional bridge capital – financing GP commitments into SPVs, single-asset acquisitions, and continuation vehicles – with typical underwriting parameters including advance rates of approximately 70 to 90%, subordinated tranches, and first-loss pieces. With lending volumes reportedly rising by approximately 150% between 2023 and 2024, and demand driven by M&A activity, continuation vehicles, and secondaries, the competitive landscape continues to intensify, requiring clear risk strategies and a willingness to deploy capital in advance of deal flow to build the GP relationships that underpin success in this market.

9. Insurance in Fund Finance

By Diana Whitmore

Insurance capital is playing a growing role across fund finance – as both a lender and an investor. Insurance capital is inherently diversifying and flexible for fund finance, enabling sponsors to tap a new entry point for investors while maintaining portfolio composition. While banks remain core to the ecosystem, their constraints differ from those facing insurers, creating room for complementary participation and innovation.

Why insurers matter in fund finance

Insurers can often offer a longer tenor than banks, which face tighter maturity constraints. They are also able to engage in structures that banks typically cannot, including scenarios with equity-like exposure, provided those exposures are appropriately rated or structured. Although insurers depend on formal ratings in ways banks generally do not, that requirement can be an advantage where a clear ratings framework underpins capital efficiency. In markets where headline pricing is less important than duration, capital treatment, and certainty of execution, insurance balance sheets may be the better fit.

Fund finance aligns well with insurers’ regulatory investment parameters and offers a broad risk–return spectrum, from lower-risk, short-tenor facilities to more complex, higher-spread opportunities. The collateral toolkit in fund finance – capital commitments, asset-level security, and hybrid enhancements – provides optionality that insurers can tailor to their mandates. Much of the value for insurers stems from the complexity premium embedded in fund finance products, where structure, documentation, and counterparty profiling can unlock incremental return without necessarily increasing fundamental risk.

Regulatory and rating consideration

Historically, rated note feeders have been concentrated in private credit, but their use is expanding across other strategies as managers seek to optimize capital formation and investor reach. Rated note feeders also enable creative structuring, allowing managers to tranche notes to match different risk appetites and target spreads. This alignment of tranche design with ratings outcomes helps insurers meet both return objectives and regulatory capital requirements.

As NAIC guidance evolves, it is likely to spur further innovation. The more explicit the direction from the NAIC, the more consistent and predictable ratings processes become, which in turn supports larger scale and broader insurer participation.

Looking to the future

The panelists expect to see a continued increase in GP adoption of insurance-backed solutions. Additionally, tranched note structures will remain a key tool, allowing issuers to create the combination of tenor, rating, and spread their investors require. As the ratings environment matures and regulatory guidance solidifies, insurance participation in fund finance should deepen, broadening liquidity solutions and reinforcing the market’s structural resilience.

10. Keynote: Economic Update from Mark Zandi

By Chris Davis

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, delivered a pragmatic outlook for the US economy in 2026. Zandi predicted a reasonably good growth year, with GDP likely stronger than 2025. He identified two main tailwinds. First, artificial intelligence continues to boost demand via data center investment and equity-driven wealth effects, with productivity benefits expected to become more visible in 2026. Second, fiscal policy should provide a notable, albeit temporary, lift through larger refunds and higher federal outlays early in the year; modest rate cuts could add marginal support. Zandi’s cautions centered on deglobalization – tariffs, tighter immigration, export controls, and institutional retrenchment – which is now a persistent headwind weighing on hiring and shrinking labor force growth, even as health care remains a relative bright spot.

He highlighted AI’s two-sided risk: Equity valuations could reset if optimism proves excessive, dampening spending via negative wealth effects; conversely, if productivity accelerates quickly, layoffs could rise against a backdrop of already slowing hiring. He also flagged growing fragility in the Treasury market amid heavy issuance, shifting investor bases, leverage, and policy uncertainty. Long-term policy priorities, in his view, start with comprehensive immigration reform to bolster labor supply and productivity, followed by longer-term tax and entitlement adjustments to counter the US’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Zandi closed on a measured note of confidence in the US economy’s capacity to adapt.

11. GP Perspectives

By Owen Gonzalez

The panel began by examining how private credit managers and fund finance participants are adapting their platforms, financing strategies, and lender relationships in response to a more complex market environment. Panelists focused on organizational integration, the continued evolution of GP-led and asset-backed solutions, and the growing importance of execution and alignment as these products become more widely used across the industry.
As a starting point, the panel explored how managers are scaling their businesses through growth and selective acquisitions while prioritizing cultural continuity and investment discipline. Panelists described models that preserve autonomy at the strategy or asset level and centralize core functions such as financing, risk management, and lender engagement. This approach was highlighted as a way to create consistency across documentation, improve visibility into exposures, and provide counterparties with a clearer and more efficient point of engagement across geographies and products.

Against that organizational backdrop, the discussion turned to current market conditions and the expanding role of fund finance and private credit solutions. Panelists distinguished cyclical uncertainty from longer term structural trends, noting that private credit continues to benefit from bank retrenchment and sustained demand for flexible capital. In this environment, NAV facilities, continuation vehicles, and other GP-led or asset-backed financings were described as increasingly mainstream tools used to address liquidity timing, exit delays, and portfolio management needs.

Lastly, the panel highlighted the rapid pace at which new fund finance and private credit structures have been adopted across the market. Solutions that were viewed skeptically only a few years ago are now widely accepted, reflecting both growing sophistication among market participants and the industry’s need to adapt to longer fund durations and evolving investor demands. Looking ahead, panelists anticipated continued innovation, with an emphasis on simplifying processes and aligning financing solutions more closely with underlying investment objectives.

12. Changing the Game: PE Investments in Women’s Sports

By Natalie Sharkey

Growth in women’s sports viewership


The panel opened the discussion by highlighting the strong and sustained growth in women’s sports viewership, which has increased exponentially in recent years and, in certain instances, has surpassed viewership levels for men’s sports. The upward trajectory in viewership and commercial interest has been attributed in part to the influence of high-profile athletes and advocates in driving visibility and engagement, such as Billie Jean King, Caitlin Clark, and Serena Williams, to name a few. The panel also pointed to Nike’s decision to air a women-focused advertisement during the Super Bowl last year – its first such advertisement in 25 years – as a clear signal of the changing market dynamics and growing brand confidence in women’s sports.

Market valuations and growth potential

The panel cited comparative viewership and valuation metrics to illustrate the opportunity for growth in this industry. For example, the NHL average viewership is 600,000 viewers per season, whereas the WNBA has approximately 1.5 million viewers per season. Average team value for the WNBA is approximately $250 million, whereas the NBA average team value is $5 billion, suggesting that women’s teams may potentially double or triple in value, while in the men’s leagues, the teams are already valued in the billions and therefore closer to saturation, offering more limited growth potential. The panel highlighted that the most significant revenue opportunity lies in attracting new fans. Women’s sports benefit from the absence of legacy expectations and entrenched perceptions, allowing leagues to tailor experiences to modern audiences. Importantly, there is minimal overlap between purchasers of men’s and women’s season tickets. For example, the WNBA reportedly has less than 10% overlap with NBA season ticket holders, demonstrating that women’s sports are drawing in new consumers. League owners are increasingly participating as LPs to better understand how to reach these untapped audiences.

Commercial viability and market maturity

The panel highlighted that men’s sports have benefited from decades of ecosystem development across ticketing, merchandising, sponsorship, etc., and women’s sports are not required to build this infrastructure from scratch as they can utilize the existing network. The existing digital landscape, particularly social media platforms, has enabled women’s sports to achieve high levels of engagement and reach that exceed those of men’s sports, thereby attracting significant brand interest. Facilities were also identified as a particularly compelling investment opportunity – purpose-built venues that cater specifically to women athletes and fans are attracting PE interest, as these investments often function as hybrid sports and real estate elements, with media contracts and long-term lease arrangements generating consistent cash flows to LPs, offering an attractive alternative to reliance on team sales as the primary exit mechanism.

The future?

​Despite accounting for approximately 15% of the viewership, the WNBA represents only around 3% of the NBA’s valuation – highlighting the disconnect between audience engagement and enterprise value. The panel expects this gap to narrow over time with improved leadership, stronger brand relationships, and more sophisticated financing solutions. Current capital deployment is primarily focused on women’s leagues within established sports rather than emerging or niche sports categories, which involve distinct risk and return considerations.

13. CFO Panel

By Chris Davis

Panelists unpacked the rapid maturation of collateralized fund obligations (CFOs) from a niche tool to a mainstream fund finance technology. A CFO is a structured investment product backed by fund interests, which are pooled together and split into tranches with differing risk–return profiles. Panelists described record issuance in the past year and a clear broadening beyond traditional secondaries into private credit, select private equity portfolios, and multi-asset platforms. Ratings are supported by diversification across funds, vintages, and strategies, with investment‑grade seniors increasingly achievable; the equity tranche remains the hardest to place and is often backstopped by the sponsor to demonstrate alignment.

Sponsors emphasized that an institutional balance sheet is the practical gateway to repeat issuance, allowing the warehousing of LP interests, incubation of assets, and reliable backstopping of subordinate tranches. Panelists cataloged a growing set of use cases, including funding GP commitments and co‑invests; supporting LP commitments and bridging fundraising; replenishing dry powder for secondaries transactions; LP‑led CFOs; hybrid GP/LP structures; and seeding and incubating assets via warehousing. Distribution has shifted from being primarily to insurance investors to a wider base that now includes asset managers comfortable with CLO‑like technology. The panel’s outlook was steadily optimistic: continued growth, geographic expansion, and broader investor participation, provided structures remain disciplined and cash‑flow stability remains paramount. In short, CFOs are becoming a durable component of the fund finance toolkit and a strategic lever for managers focused on building and using their balance sheets to support fundraising and platform growth.

14. Institutional Investor Panel

By Angela Hagerman

A panel of four participants from leading insurance companies and private capital funds delivered a clear message to market participants: Institutional capital is abundant, but it is also highly disciplined. With allocations to private credit, NAV-based facilities, and hybrid structures continuing to grow, investors said the challenge is no longer capital formation – it is structuring deals that fit squarely within regulatory, rating, and internal risk frameworks.

The panelists agreed that demand for yield and duration remains strong. Several noted that, relative to traditional fixed income, fund finance continues to offer compelling risk-adjusted returns, particularly in an environment where sponsors are under pressure to optimize liquidity without triggering asset sales. As a result, institutional investors are seeing a rising volume of opportunities and increasingly bespoke structures.

Creativity, however, does not mean loosened standards. Panelists emphasized that regulatory capital treatment – whether under NAIC, Solvency II, or pension-specific regimes – plays a decisive role in determining whether capital can be deployed. One insurance executive noted that while a deal might be attractive, the structure has to work as efficiently on a capital charge basis as it does economically. This has led to closer collaboration with banks and sponsors to tailor tranching, collateral packages, and tenor profiles to meet regulatory constraints.

Risk assessment was another central theme of the discussion. Unlike traditional subscription line facilities, newer structures require deeper underwriting of asset pools, sponsor behavior, and downside scenarios. Panelists said they focus heavily on portfolio composition, diversification, and cash-flow visibility, with particular attention paid to concentration limits and valuation methodologies. Several highlighted the importance of alignment – both in terms of sponsor “skin in the game” and clear covenants that provide early warning signals.

Insurance investors, in particular, stressed the role of ratings and internal credit models. Even when a transaction is unrated, investors often run it through rating-agency-style analytics to understand how it would perform under stress. Pension fund executives echoed this approach, noting that their fiduciary duty demands a conservative view of tail risk, even when chasing incremental yield.

The panel concluded that the influx of institutional capital is reshaping the fund finance market, pushing it toward greater customization and sophistication. While capital is plentiful, investors made clear that successful deals will be those that marry innovation with transparency, robust downside protection, and a structure that respects the regulatory realities governing the institutional balance sheet.

15. Financing Structures for Mid-Market Managers

By Chu Ting Ng

This session targeted mid-market managers and their financing needs from both a fund perspective and a management company perspective.

The discussion kicked off with a comprehensive overview of fund finance products in chronological order. Panelists discussed the need for subscription line facilities from the outset, typically structured nearly in parallel with fundraising. The transition to NAV financing as uncalled capital dwindles was explored – the common view was that hybrid lines (where the facility is modeled off uncalled capital commitments and switched over to NAV-based covenants) were not as readily available in the middle market, even in the non-bank lender space, owing to the unpredictability surrounding pricing and portfolio performance. Full NAV financings and continuation vehicle financings were also covered, though it was noted that these were bespoke and could potentially pose a challenge when managing investor expectations on returns. 

Rated note feeders and insurers as sources of liquidity were touched upon as well. The commentary indicated that insurers were not as relevant for mid-market funds because the relative size and cost of subscription lines for these sponsors did not make mid-market lending a particularly attractive prospect for insurers. 

The session then turned to manager-specific lines, namely management lines and co-invest lines. Discussions generally addressed how mid-market managers make greater use of these facilities, though the number of lenders that could underwrite these types of loans was far fewer than those who could provide the “standard” suite of facilities for a fund.

16. The Retailization of Alternatives – The Next Frontier

By Owen Gonzalez 

Opening the discussion, the panel examined the continued “retailization” of alternative investments broadly, including the expansion of private market strategies to investors beyond traditional institutions through global wealth platforms and advisor-led distribution. Panelists emphasized that these products require a distinct distribution model and supporting infrastructure, including enhanced investor servicing and operational capabilities. The conversation focused on the range of structures currently being used in the market, such as interval funds, non-traded BDCs, REITs, and other retail-oriented formats, and the factors driving increased sponsor attention to these channels.

Turning to product mechanics, speakers contrasted retail-oriented vehicles with traditional closed-end drawdown funds, noting that many retail formats are designed to accept subscriptions at NAV and offer periodic liquidity rather than relying on capital call processes across a large investor base. This structural shift has direct implications for fund finance: In steady state, sponsors may rely less on traditional subscription line facilities and more on NAV or asset-based solutions to support liquidity management, portfolio turnover, and return objectives. Panelists also noted that these products bring heightened legal, compliance, and reporting considerations that can shape both fund design and financing execution.

Concluding the session, the panel emphasized that liquidity planning, financing strategy, and service provider selection are increasingly treated as core design features from day one. Sponsors highlighted the need to coordinate fundraising and deployment pacing, manage redemption dynamics, and build the operational model required to support scaled distribution. From the lender perspective, the panel described a growing demand for facilities supporting open-ended and evergreen structures, with relationship and ancillary business considerations often influencing economics and terms. Overall, the panel characterized retail alternatives as still in the “early innings,” with continued product proliferation expected as market participants refine structures and infrastructure.

17.  Securitization and Bank Balance Sheet Management Tools

By Angela Hagerman 

At a packed fund finance conference, a panel of bank structurers, rating agency representatives, and private credit investors tackled one of the market’s most closely watched developments: the securitization of subscription line facilities and their use as a borrowing base for rated note transactions.

Panelists agreed that subscription lines – historically held on the balance sheet as relationship-driven, low-risk exposures – are increasingly being viewed through a capital markets lens. As banks face higher funding costs and balance sheet constraints, pooling diversified portfolios of subscription line facilities has emerged as a way to transform these short-dated loans into term or revolving financing via securitization. The appeal lies in the underlying credit profile: Subscription lines are secured by investors’ unfunded capital commitments to private equity and private credit funds, with low historical loss rates and strong performance even through market cycles.

Speakers noted that the challenge is not credit quality but structure. Rating agencies focus heavily on eligibility criteria, advance rates tied to investor creditworthiness, and conservative assumptions around capital call timing and enforceability. To address these concerns, banks are increasingly standardizing documentation across facilities and tightening concentration limits at both the fund and investor level before assets enter a securitization pool.

A key area of discussion was the rise of rated note feeders as a complementary structure. In these transactions, a bankruptcy-remote feeder vehicle issues rated notes to capital markets investors and uses the proceeds to acquire participations in, or make loans secured by, subscription lines originated by banks. Panelists emphasized that rated note feeders allow banks to retain client relationships and origination economics while achieving capital relief and term funding. For investors, the notes offer exposure to fund finance assets in a familiar, rated format.

Looking ahead, panelists predicted continued growth in subscription line securitizations, particularly as data transparency improves and rating methodologies mature. While still a developing market, the consensus was clear: Securitization is becoming a core tool for banks seeking to scale subscription line lending without overburdening their balance sheets.

18. Private Credit Back-Leverage

By Jim Lawlor 

At the back end of the symposium, an overflow crowd for a panel discussion of back-leverage proved that the once-obscure fund liquidity strategy is no longer a backwater in the fund finance marketplace. Defined in various ways, back-leverage is a collective term that can apply to any financing regardless of the form in which a sponsor or a fund borrows money against its own equity or existing portfolio to create liquidity for fund investments or to amplify returns. Because it is particularly well suited to debt funds, it is sometimes also called “debt on debt” financing. The panel, comprising a bank lender, a credit fund principal, and three attorneys, provided an overview of back-leverage strategies, including a comparison of asset-based lending and NAV financing structures, and offered suggestions for fund managers seeking to manage liquidity and leverage across strategies.

One key takeaway was that these facilities are underwritten strictly on the unlevered portion of the fund – that is, the remaining equity in the fund assets after obligations to other lenders. Because back-leverage providers are in most cases secured by equity in the fund assets, there is invariably going to be an intercreditor discussion with the fund’s subscription line and NAV facility lenders. However, back-leverage can also be provided, at higher rates, as mezzanine financing on an unsecured basis. Primary underwriting concerns are the loan-to-value ratio and residual value, which find their way into governing credit documents in the form of financial and reporting covenants, as well as default provisions. Panelists noted that they are seeing an expansion of the asset classes on which back-leverage is provided and, anecdotally, that the more diversified the assets are in a collateral pool, the more attractive the deal will be to lenders. They also noted that the appetite to provide back-leverage has been growing among not only commercial banks, but private credit and insurance company lenders as well.

Even with the growth in supply and the expansion and diversification of asset classes in collateral pools, back-leverage remains a bespoke product in a market with a relatively small number of players. It is therefore viewed by the panelists as a relationship-based business, in which lenders can be flexible and provide custom solutions, but borrowers must remain mindful of the corresponding restraints on their free rein over their equity positions. Above all, it is incumbent on lenders and borrowers alike to be “good partners to one another.” Offered the opportunity to give advice to fund managers who may be seeking back-leverage, panelists in one form or another said the key was diversification of both the assets on which back-leverage is provided and the lending partners providing it. Finding alignment with lenders and developing meaningful relationships was also viewed as significant.

Related Insights

Our insights