{"id":17,"date":"2025-10-14T14:04:16","date_gmt":"2025-10-14T14:04:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mattersgraph.com\/?page_id=17"},"modified":"2026-06-12T11:06:22","modified_gmt":"2026-06-12T15:06:22","slug":"private-credit","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/mattersgraph.com\/fr\/private-credit\/","title":{"rendered":"Private Credit"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
\n

Commercial Diligence for Private Creditors<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n

Commercial Intelligence for Better Decisions at Origination and During Impairment<\/span><\/h3>\n\n

The difference between a credit that performs and one that unwinds usually comes down to whether the commercial thesis was tested against ground-truth, first before the position was sized and again when facts changed. Private credit lenders operate with less commercial visibility into their borrowers than the sponsors who bought them; that asymmetry matters most at origination, when the underwriting decision is made, and again when a covenant, a conversion right, or a deteriorating quarter forces a new decision. Independent, customer-sourced commercial evidence is what lets the credit team move with conviction at both moments.<\/p>\n\n

Origination is where the position is sized. Recovery is where it’s saved. Diligence built for one is diligence that fails the other.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

\n

Written for the Downside<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>

Most commercial diligence available to lenders was commissioned by sponsors to move a deal forward, which leaves the downside least investigated. Work product written for the lender, stress-testing the thesis rather than confirming it, starts from a different set of questions and gets to a different set of answers.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n

Built for the Inflection<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>

When a covenant comes under pressure, a quarter misses, or an amendment request arrives, most commercial diligence fails the moment: the sponsor’s consultants are conflicted, the restructuring adviser does not do primary research, and the workout team does not talk to customers. Commercial investigation architected for the inflection, providing customer-sourced evidence on churn, competitive displacement, pricing sustainability, and the assumptions most likely to break, informs the decision to hold, amend, enforce, or convert.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n

Carries Through Recovery<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>

A go\/no-go recommendation at origination is not where commercial diligence ends. The evidence from the underwriting should inform the baseline for covenant monitoring, the commercial case for amendment or enforcement, the equity read at conversion, and the operational plan on the other side of default. Origination is where the position is sized. Recovery is where it’s saved. Diligence built for one is diligence that fails the other.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

The Creditor’s Diligence Problem<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n

Most commercial diligence sold to lenders is sponsor-built diligence repurposed at the margins. Lenders rarely get diligence built for the decision they actually face. <\/p>\n\n

The defining feature of a private credit position is informational: the lender is underwriting a business with less commercial ground-truth on it than the seller had when the deal closed. And much of the commercial diligence available to close that gap was commissioned by the sponsor, designed to move the deal through the sponsor’s investment committee, not to stress-test whether the business can service debt under adverse conditions. The result is work product that systematically under-weights downside scenarios, treats pricing as a solved problem, and leaves non-obvious risk factors for the lender to discover after close. This isn’t a gap in execution; it’s a structural misalignment of incentives. When the consultancy’s repeat client is the sponsor, the diligence gravitates toward “up and to the right,” and fund returns absorb the cost. <\/strong>The research underlying that diligence is subject to the same constraints: respondents drawn from the network’s database without verified relevance to the borrower’s actual buyers, users, or decision-making process, sample sizes calibrated to an equity buyer’s risk tolerance rather than a lender’s, and conclusions presented as representative when the sourcing cannot support that claim.<\/p>\n\n

The consequence compounds. An underwriting built on the sponsor’s version of the business enters the portfolio carrying assumptions the lender never independently tested. When something later changes, the credit team inherits the same informational deficit at the moment it matters most. Covenant triggers approach, quarters miss, amendment requests arrive, and the decision to hold, amend, enforce, or convert has to be made without the commercial baseline that would make the call straightforward. Closing the lender’s information gap at origination is valuable. Closing it again at the inflection is what separates an informed decision from a forced one.<\/p>\n\n

Closing the lender’s information gap at origination is valuable. Closing it again at the inflection is what separates an informed decision from a forced one.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Buy Side Only, Origination and Inflection<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n

The investigative discipline required to find the truth, especially the uncomfortable truth about downside scenarios, covenant risk, and the commercial assumptions most likely to break, is incompatible with the promotional discipline required to sell a business, defend a sponsor’s narrative, or present a borrower’s restructuring plan to its lenders.<\/p>\n\n

For private credit, the incompatibility between buy-side discipline and sell-side discipline matters twice: at origination, and again at inflection. <\/strong>At origination, the sell-side CDD was commissioned to move the deal forward, not to stress-test the credit. At the inflection moment, the sponsor’s advisors and the borrower’s restructuring counsel are structurally aligned with outcomes (amendments, equity cures, narrative repair) that may or may not be what the lender should want. Matters Graph has worked exclusively on the buy side for a quarter-century, across market cycles, sector rotations, and the full range of sponsor and lender strategies. That practice is the reason credit teams engage Matters Graph on the positions where the commercial view cannot come from the sponsor.<\/p>\n\n

Thesis-Driven Diligence Built for Credit Decisions<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n

Every credit position has a thesis, and that thesis is explicitly downside-protective, not growth-led.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

It answers three questions: what breaks this credit, what protects the lender if it does, and how customer behavior under stress determines whether the debt gets paid. Commercial diligence earns its place by testing that thesis against evidence, not by generating a survey of the market.<\/p>\n\n

The character of the thesis shifts across the life of a position. At origination, the thesis is a through-cycle bet: that the business will generate enough cash to service the debt with adequate cushion, and that if it cannot, the structure and the underlying commercial fundamentals will protect recovery. At the inflection moment (covenant pressure, missed quarter, amendment request, conversion right activating) the thesis is narrower and more adversarial: whether the stress is transient, structural, or existential, and whether the sponsor’s proposed response serves the lender’s interests or only the sponsor’s. The answer matters differently depending on the investor’s strategy. A performing credit team needs to know whether the business can return to compliance and the position is still worth holding. An opportunistic investor needs to know whether the stress is deep enough to create a basis for conversion or control. A direct lender deciding whether to amend or enforce needs the commercial picture to be clear enough to price the decision, not just react to it. Engagements begin by naming which thesis is live and what evidence would test it.<\/p>\n\n

In competitive underwriting processes, the advantage belongs to the credit team that can independently verify the commercial claims in the sponsor’s book rather than accept them at face value. Commercial intelligence developed during the process sharpens the thesis, informs pricing and covenant structure with more conviction, and, on anchor or lead-order positions, positions the lender as the informed counterparty rather than one taking the sponsor’s terms on faith. On inflection engagements, the analog holds in reverse: the credit teams that move fastest are the ones whose commercial baseline did not have to be built from scratch the week the covenant broke.<\/p>\n\n

The deliverable reflects the thesis it was built to test. Every page earns its place against the questions that matter to the decision at hand: underwriting, amendment, conversion, enforcement. Peripheral context of the sort that fills typical consulting decks (market size disclaimers, industry history, generic competitive landscapes) is absent unless it bears on the thesis. Credit committees see findings organized by risk question, not by research method.<\/p>\n\n

Investigators Who Seek Out the Critical Nuance<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n

A credit’s commercial fate is not decided in financial models; it is decided in hundreds of conversations: a customer hesitating about renewal, a channel partner revealing where the competition is eating share, a prospect explaining why they picked someone else. Those conversations live in tone, pause, and phrasing that disappear in the handoff from interviewer to synthesizer to presenter. Under stress, the problem compounds. The questions a credit team asks in month three of a watch-list engagement are not the questions it asked in month one. When the interviewer is not the presenter and the presenter is not the interviewer, the follow-up that mattered in last week’s call doesn’t make it into this week’s investment-committee discussion. At Matters Graph, the people presenting to the investment team are the people who conducted the research, which means the follow-up is the follow-up the credit committee actually needs.<\/p>\n\n

When a position is under stress, and every assumption is being reassessed, the briefer should be the one who found the signal.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Evidence That Holds Up Under Scrutiny: First Principles<\/span><\/h2>\n\n

Every credit underwriting is, at its core, a bet on whether customers will continue to generate the revenue that services the debt. Will they renew? Will they maintain spending levels through an economic cycle? Will competitive dynamics erode the pricing power that underpins the financial model? Underwriting not grounded in the voices of the people making those purchase decisions is underwriting grounded in management projections and sponsor narratives, the two sources with the most to gain from the lender’s capital. Every commercial assumption is a bet on whether customers will pay through stress. The lender carries that bet whether the underwriting tested it or not. The only way to underwrite that decision with conviction is to ask the people who will make it.<\/p>\n\n

Will they renew? Will they maintain spending through a cycle? Will competitive dynamics erode the pricing power that services the debt? Underwriting that cannot answer these questions from the customers themselves is underwriting that carries the risk without testing it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

The experts who matter for a credit commercial question are the borrower’s customers, its lost customers, the non-users who should be customers but aren’t, competitors’ customers, and the channel buyers and influencers who shape purchasing decisions. The evidence that matters is gathered from them, at scale, under conditions built to hold up. Consulting firms typically compete on heritage brand and broad biography: qualifications, industry veterans, and prior diligence on adjacent assets. They too often sell conclusions derived from that experience or repurposed from earlier assets in the sector. The answers to credit commercial questions are not in the advisor’s head. They are in the market, waiting to be collected, and reached only by thesis-driven primary research that builds conclusions from the ground up.<\/p>\n\n

When primary research is conducted, it is too often sourced through expert networks whose respondents are drawn from the network’s database without verified relevance to the borrower’s actual buyers, users, or decision-making process, rather than custom-sourced by those responsible for cracking the case: current users, prospective buyers with the problem the product solves, the influencers and decision-makers involved in the purchase, lost customers, competitors’ customers, and the channel participants who shape which options reach the decision-maker. In most markets, the purchase itself is cross-functional and jointly made, which means the research has to reach the full decision-making group, not just the budget holder. Expert networks match firms with individuals who have indicated some connection to the relevant industry, but there is limited structural verification that their experience maps to the buying behavior the credit thesis depends on. The first few calls may surface someone genuinely relevant; beyond that, relevance declines because the network’s business model rewards completed calls, not respondent quality. The result is a set of responses that sound informed but carry no verifiable connection to the decisions the credit thesis depends on. When consulting firms use these calls as source material and present curated quotes in a deck, the provenance is invisible to the credit committee. What remains are quotes that support the narrative, not a representative read of customers, lost customers, non-users, channel participants, and the decision-makers whose behavior the credit model underwrites.<\/p><\/div>\n\n

High-N Research Drives Distinctive Insights<\/span><\/h2>\n\n

Underwriting a sizable position requires statistical confidence small-sample research cannot deliver. A handful of customer calls can tell a story; they cannot confirm whether that story holds across the borrower’s full addressable market. The commercial assumptions in a credit model need to hold up at scale, not anecdotally. High-sample-size, custom-sourced Voice of Customer and Voice of Channel research is how they get tested.<\/p>\n\n

\n

The covenant breach that starts in one segment<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>

Aggregate revenue growth looks healthy. At high N, a customer segment tied to a single end-market is flat or declining while a cyclical segment is masking the weakness. A small-sample study sees the blended growth and moves on. The risk is that the cyclical tailwind fades and the covenant test fails two quarters later.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n

The renewal risk that hasn’t hit reported churn yet<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>

Reported retention is 95%. At high N, you can segment by contract vintage and customer size. The most recent cohort, signed under aggressive pricing, renews at materially lower rates. The book looks stable today because older, stickier contracts dominate the mix. As vintage shifts, the blended number degrades.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n

The customer concentration the sponsor’s diligence underweighted<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>

The top ten customers represent 35% of revenue. That looks manageable. At high N, you discover that three of those ten are evaluating a competitor that launched eighteen months ago. Sponsor diligence, built to support an equity thesis, treated concentration as a disclosure item. For a lender, it is a recovery-rate assumption.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

In commercial diligence, the point of diminishing returns is at significantly greater scale than what most diligence exercises attempt. That is the opposite of most market research. A small-sample study can measure an aggregate; it cannot reliably discover behavioral segments, low-incidence high-impact objections, channel-specific dynamics, or customer-loss patterns that drive aggregate outcomes, each often statistically invisible at low N. A customer segment that is 10% of the base but churns at three times the average rate is the kind of risk concentration that decides whether a credit holds through stress, and at a sample size that produces only a handful of observations, the pattern cannot be distinguished from noise. The marginal interview is not redundant; it is often the one that reveals what the earlier interviews could not see.<\/p>\n\n

The most commercially consequential fact about a borrower’s end-market is rarely its demographic size. It is the shape of the behavioral segments inside it: who buys, why, and under what conditions they stop. That structure sits beneath the management presentation’s SAM number and discovering it requires sample sizes that small-N studies, the fifteen-to-thirty interview exercises typical of most commercial diligence providers, cannot produce. At the sample sizes we field, structured survey analytics isolate which behavioral features predict retention and churn under stress, turning segment structure from an assertion into a measured input to the credit model. For a lender underwriting a sizable position on a TAM-supports-the-growth-plan thesis, an oversized SAM assumption is not a modeling risk. It is a credit decision built on the wrong denominator.<\/p>\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n

Discover more about our approach<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n

What We Don’t Do<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n

No sell-side CDD for bankers, sellers, or sponsors.<\/strong> Matters Graph does not produce the vendor due diligence commissioned to move a deal forward, and does not represent borrowers or sponsors to lenders. The lender’s diligence cannot come from the same practice that argues the sponsor’s case; the skeptical posture a credit committee relies on is incompatible with the advocacy that sponsor- and borrower-directed work demands.<\/p>\n\n

No implementation.<\/strong> Matters Graph does not run PMOs, deliver transformations, or serve as interim management. Findings that recommend work the firm can later sell are not findings; they are pitches. Independence between diagnosis and delivery is what makes the commercial conclusions the credit committee can use to decide.<\/p><\/div>\n\n

Commercial Intelligence Across the Credit Lifecycle<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>
Solutions<\/div>
\n
<\/span>Under­writing<\/span><\/div>
\n

Independent evidence before the syndicate coalesces<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

When a credit position is sizable enough that accepting sponsor-commissioned diligence carries unacceptable risk, when the decks point “up and to the right” on too many consequential factors, proprietary Commercial Diligence focused on lender concerns is warranted. The work targets the downside risks and upside optionality under-addressed in the sponsor’s materials, and the analysis, including downside scenarios, informs pricing and covenants that balance competitiveness and risk.<\/p>\n\n

Time matters compound. Commercial intelligence developed before the club forms, before the term sheet is issued, before the syndicate coalesces around a shared model lets the lender lead the order rather than follow consensus. It also lets the lender size the position on independent evidence rather than the banker’s book, and write covenants that protect the position rather than the market default. Not by a little. By a lot. For anchor positions and lead-order commitments, pre-origination commercial intelligence is what separates the lender setting terms from the lender accepting them.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/span>Watch-List<\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/div>
\n

Ground-truth at the inflection<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

When a position shows stress (covenant triggers approaching, EBITDA deteriorating, management guidance missing, sponsor pushing for amendment), the lender has to decide what to do with far less commercial ground-truth than the sponsor ever had, and on a timeline the sponsor now controls. The restructuring adviser does not do commercial diligence. The workout team does not talk to customers. The sponsor’s consultants are conflicted by definition. Board-level reporting and material disclosures surface what is already known, not what the lender needs to know.<\/p>\n\n

Independent commercial investigation at the inflection closes that gap. It answers the questions the decision turns on: whether the deterioration is cyclical or structural, whether customer behavior is stabilizing or accelerating away, whether the sponsor’s proposed remedy addresses the commercial reality or defers it. The outputs support the decisions that follow: protecting the holding position through take-the-keys moments, clearing the credit committee on amendments or enforcement, navigating co-lender dynamics, and evaluating the full range of rights and remedies with evidence rather than speculation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/span>Convert-to-Equity<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/div>
\n

An equity decision deserves equity-level diligence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

A debt position with conversion rights eventually presents a decision that debt diligence was not built to answer. Whether the trigger is positive performance, a structural right exercised at refi, or a restructuring that converts debt to equity by necessity, the conversion decision is not an underwriting extension. It is an equity investment decision being made with debt-level commercial intelligence. No sponsor or strategic bidder would accept that gap on an equity investment of comparable size; the lender facing conversion should not either. Original Commercial Diligence at conversion reassesses the business on equity terms (growth trajectory, competitive positioning, customer expansion potential, and the commercial fundamentals driving long-term enterprise value) so the decision is made on evidence commensurate with the risk.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

<\/span>Post-Default<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/span><\/div>
\n

Owning a business you barely know<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The moment of transfer is the moment the lender knows the least about a business it now owns. The position was taken because the business was underperforming, meaning the reporting was inadequate or incomplete. Otherwise the deterioration would have been visible earlier. Now ownership has changed, the sponsor is gone or going, and the questions multiply: what direction to drive the business, whose representations to believe, what capabilities to bring in, what to keep, what to dispose of, and when to exit.<\/p>\n\n

Independent commercial investigation at this moment closes the ground-truth gap on an asset the lender did not originate and does not yet understand. It stabilizes the operational decisions of the first 100 days, evaluates the management team’s representations against market reality, and establishes the commercial baseline for recovery and exit planning.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

Our Core Diligence Capabilities<\/span><\/h2>\n\n
\n

Commercial due diligence<\/span><\/h3>

Customer-sourced commercial analysis calibrated to lender underwriting, written for the credit question rather than the equity case repurposed for it: market sizing and cyclicality, competitive positioning, customer segmentation and decision dynamics, retention and churn under stress, unit economics and cash-flow durability, pricing architecture, elasticity, and pass-through ability, covenant-relevant downside scenarios, and recovery-case commercial fundamentals if the structure is tested. Structured to inform pricing, covenant writing, and credit committee decisions, not to generalize about the market. Delivered on the cadence lenders run: pre-process baseline ahead of the book, inflection-window updates, and a credit-committee-calibrated final.<\/p><\/div>

Apprendre encore plus<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n

“Watch-list and Workout” commercial assessments<\/span><\/h3>

Independent commercial investigations for positions under stress: closing the ground-truth gap the lender faces at the inflection, informing decisions on amendment, enforcement, conversion, and rights-and-remedies with evidence rather than speculation. Sized to the urgency of the position, not to a standard diligence template. Independent evidence also strengthens the lender’s hand in negotiations with the sponsor and in positioning among other lenders in the capital structure, an evidence-based view of the business when every other party is arguing its own book. Where a position is held by a lender syndicate, or like-kind creditors, the group can commission a single assessment, sharing the cost and the findings and bringing one evidence base to the table as collective leverage with the sponsor and the operating company.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n

Pricing & Revenue Sustainability Analysis<\/span><\/h3>

Pricing risk is the part of the model that breaks first when growth slows. Primary-research analysis of willingness-to-pay, price elasticity, and competitive pricing dynamics, using conjoint analysis, Van Westendorp, and segment-level elasticity modeling, gives independent visibility into how durable pricing power actually is: identifying where revenue assumptions in the credit model are vulnerable and where pricing power provides downside protection. The same evidence supports watch-list reviews and pre-covenant decisions where the position is already set.<\/p><\/div>

Apprendre encore plus<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n

CDD Public Policy Factors<\/span><\/h3>

Dedicated legislative and regulatory analysis of the policy environment affecting a borrower: pending rule changes, enforcement trends, and the compliance risks and opportunities that could alter the borrower’s commercial outlook and debt-service capacity. Based in Washington, DC, where federal policy is set and the national trade associations sit, whose model legislation states and municipalities adapt, we treat the policy environment as a primary-research problem, custom-sourcing the people whose decisions actually move the question. A rule on the books is not the same as a rule enforced. Reconciled to the credit thesis, not filed as a separate workstream.<\/p><\/div>

Apprendre encore plus<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n

Credit Thesis-Organized Deliverables<\/span><\/h3>

Work product structured around the credit risks and key underwriting factors, including designing asset-appropriate covenants. . Every chapter answers a question the thesis raised (what breaks this credit, what protects it if something changes, where the downside lives), and every finding earns its place by informing a decision the credit team is making, with nothing padding the deck that does not prove out the credit or sharpen how you hold the position. Shorter, sharper, and built to be cited in the credit memo. The bar is not passing the credit committee to get the deal approved; it is evidence rigorous enough to still hold when the position is tested, at the covenant waiver, the amendment, and the workout: diligence built to carry past committee approval and through the hold.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

When Credit Teams Engage Matters Graph<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n