WSJ :The Year Is Off to the Strongest Start for Big Deals Ever

The Year Is Off to the Strongest Start for Big Deals Ever
Companies go forward with corporate combinations and investments despite a war and slumping stocks

Global corporate deals valued at $10 billion or more reached 22 transactions so far this year, a quarterly record.
Companies are pursuing larger deals, with some seeing an opportunity in a more lenient antitrust environment.
The total value of all deals so far this year jumped 29% year over year, but the overall number of transactions fell 17% due to slower smaller-deal activity.

Large corporate deals had their best quarterly showing ever, as companies forged ahead with tie-ups and investments despite the Iran war rattling markets.

So far in 2026, 22 transactions valued at $10 billion or more have been announced globally—a record quarterly number, according to LSEG data. The next-closest quarter was the fourth quarter of 2015, when 21 such deals were announced.


This week alone, Unilever ULVR -7.28%decrease; red down pointing triangle unveiled a more than $65 billion deal, including debt, to combine its food business with spice maker McCormick MKC -6.11%decrease; red down pointing triangle, and Sysco SYY 2.93%increase; green up pointing triangle agreed to buy family-owned Jetro Restaurant Depot for over $29 billion, including debt.

“Uncertainty due to oil, growth and rates isn’t going away. But major deals are still getting done,” said Ben Goodchild, a partner in the M&A group at law firm Paul Weiss. “The M&A market is focused on the long-term fundamentals: right deal, right price and right strategic rationale.”

The total value of all deals announced globally jumped roughly 29% in the first quarter from a year ago, but the number of deals is down more than 17% as smaller-deal activity slowed.

The megadeal tally includes a handful of big equity investments in artificial-intelligence companies such as Amazon.com’s AMZN 3.64%increase; green up pointing triangle $50 billion investment as part of OpenAI’s $110 billion fundraise announced in February.

A number of other big transactions are in the works. Estée Lauder EL 5.58%increase; green up pointing triangle has been in discussions to acquire Spanish beauty group Puig Brands PUIG -0.24%decrease; red down pointing triangle, a deal that would combine two of the world’s biggest beauty companies. Absolut vodka maker Pernod Ricard RI -2.76%decrease; red down pointing triangle and Jack Daniel’s maker Brown Forman BF.B -1.01%decrease; red down pointing triangle are holding talks. Billionaire Tilman Fertitta has been in talks to buy casino giant Caesars Entertainment CZR 3.65%increase; green up pointing triangle.

Many companies see a moment to pounce on bigger deals that would normally face prolonged antitrust scrutiny. The Justice Department’s top antitrust official, Gail Slater, departed in February after clashing with Trump allies who at times favored more lenient oversight of big deals.

This all comes as U.S. stocks are set to deliver their worst quarter in nearly four years, led by a more than 7% drop in the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index. That makes it harder for buyers and sellers to agree on prices. The Iran war has sent crude prices to above $100 a barrel, which could keep interest rates higher for longer to combat rising prices and make funding deals more expensive.

Uncertainty has forced many deal processes to move at a slower pace in recent weeks, advisers say. Dealmaking in the oil-and-gas sector, in particular, has faced challenges as oil prices gyrate.

Smaller deals valued at between $1 billion and $5 billion in the U.S. have been among the hardest hit, with activity measured by deal count and total value both lower than the year-ago period.


Bankers and lawyers say because smaller deals are less of a must-have, buyers are more willing to put them on hold.

Also, private-equity firms are sitting on record numbers of portfolio companies they need to eventually sell or take public, including many software firms threatened by the rise of AI. But many are hesitant to strike deals at today’s depressed prices.

While dealmaking activity in the software industry has stalled, there has been plenty in other sectors including financial services and healthcare. On Tuesday, Eli Lilly LLY 3.74%increase; green up pointing triangle said it struck a deal worth up to $7.8 billion for the clinical-stage biotech Centessa Pharmaceuticals CNTA 44.02%increase; green up pointing triangle, and Biogen BIIB -2.26%decrease; red down pointing triangle announced a $5.6 billion deal for Apellis Pharmaceuticals APLS 135.40%increase; green up pointing triangle.

Dealmakers had high hopes going into 2026 and believe even small deals could bounce back later in the year.

“If we get a bit of stability in the markets and the economy, the floodgates could open to a phenomenal M&A year where companies are doing $100 million deals and $2 billion deals, all the while the $50- and $100-billion deals continue,“ said Frank Aquila, Sullivan & Cromwell’s senior M&A partner.

WSJ : U.A.E. Wants to Force Hormuz Open and Is Willing to Join the Fight

U.A.E. Wants to Force Hormuz Open and Is Willing to Join the Fight
Gulf state begins effort to persuade U.S. and others to open waterway by any means necessary

  • The United Arab Emirates is preparing to help the U.S. and allies open the Strait of Hormuz by force, a shift in stance after Iranian attacks.
  • The U.A.E. is lobbying for a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize action and suggested that the U.S. occupy strategic islands.
  • The Iranian strikes have reduced the U.A.E.’s air traffic and tourism, hurt its property market and led to a wave of furloughs and layoffs.

The United Arab Emirates is preparing to help the U.S. and other allies open the Strait of Hormuz by force, Arab officials said, a move that would make it the first Persian Gulf country to become a combatant, after being hit by Iranian attacks.

The U.A.E. is lobbying for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would authorize such action, the officials said. Emirati diplomats have urged the U.S. and military powers in Europe and Asia to form a coalition to open the strait by force, the officials said. A U.A.E. official said the Iranian regime thinks it is fighting for its existence and is willing to bring the global economy down with it in a chokehold on the strait.

The U.A.E. official said the country had reviewed its capabilities to assist in securing the strait, including efforts to help clear it of mines and other support services.

The Gulf state has also said the U.S. should occupy islands in the strategic waterway including Abu Musa, which has been held by Iran for a half-century and is claimed by the U.A.E., other Arab officials said.

In a statement, the U.A.E. Foreign Ministry pointed to a separate resolution passed by the U.N. condemning Iran’s attacks on its cities and to one made by another U.N. body, the International Maritime Organization, condemning the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Emirati Foreign Ministry said there is “broad global consensus that freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz must be preserved.”

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are now turning against Iran’s regime and want the war to continue until it is disabled or toppled, Arab officials said, though they have stopped short of committing their military. Bahrain, a close U.S. ally that hosts the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, is sponsoring the U.N. resolution, with a vote expected Thursday.

The U.A.E.’s newly assertive approach is a fundamental shift in its strategic outlook, said officials from a Persian Gulf state. Dubai, the commercial center of the U.A.E., has long financed the Iranian regime. Emirati diplomats were racing to mediate between the U.S. and Iran before the war, an effort that included a visit to Abu Dhabi by Ali Larijani, an Iranian national-security official who later died in an airstrike.

Now, the Gulf state is falling into line with President Trump’s push for allies to carry more of the burden in the war, particularly to help open the Strait of Hormuz. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump has told aides that he is willing to end the war without reopening the strait, leaving the matter to other countries.

U.A.E. participation in freeing the strait carries risks. It could set the stage for tension that outlasts the end of the war.

Iran has reacted by stepping up its bombardments of the U.A.E. After proceeding at a low level for weeks, Iran’s missile and drone attacks on the Emirates have risen sharply in recent days, including nearly 50 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones Tuesday. Tehran warned it would destroy the vital civilian infrastructure of any Gulf state that supported any operation to seize its territory and specifically pointed to the U.A.E.

“They could step into this war only to face a more aggressive Iran, continue to absorb hits to critical infrastructure and potentially investor confidence, and then struggle to rebuild ties with their neighbor, particularly if Trump elects to declare victory before reopening the strait or crippling Iran’s missile and drone capabilities,” Elizabeth Dent, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former official who focused on the Gulf at the Pentagon, said of the dilemma faced by countries in the region.

Iran has rained down more missiles and drones on the U.A.E.—almost 2,500 thus far—than it has aimed at any other country including Israel. Nonetheless, the U.A.E., like the rest of the Gulf region, had long tried to avoid defining itself as a combatant.

Gulf officials said the country’s position has now changed. Before the war began Feb. 28, the U.A.E. saw Iran as a difficult neighbor with a logic to its political positions, one of the officials said. But the outbreak of the war revealed a very different regime that was trying to sow panic with strikes on hotels and airports in Dubai, the official said.

WSJ : How a Tsunami Was Unleashed at 17,000 Feet, Shattering Lives Below

How a Tsunami Was Unleashed at 17,000 Feet, Shattering Lives Below
When a lake born from a melting Himalayan glacier burst, a wall of water tore through villages below


RANGPO FOREST VILLAGE, India—Far from human eyes, nestled in the Himalayas at 17,000 feet, the South Lhonak Lake was growing. Late one night in October 2023, part of the shelf of rocks and ice that dammed the lake in northeast India collapsed.

What followed was part-tsunami, part-landslide.

The water that poured out of the lake picked up stones, sand and other sediment as it flowed through the rocky mountain channels, triggering a series of landslides along the way. In one town, the slurry knocked out a hydropower project, adding even more water to the deluge as it joined the Teesta, a Himalayan river known for its sinewy twists and turns.

Sometime after 2 a.m., Dharmendra Prasad, a 37-year-old taxi driver living far below the lake in the town of Rangpo Forest, awoke to a commotion, as townspeople desperately scrambled to get to higher ground.

Prasad bundled his 23-year-old wife, Priyanka Devi, who was due to deliver their second child, and his 5-year-old son, into his SUV. He then went to get his father, but couldn’t find him. He ran back to the car, but as he was about to jump in a wave of water hit him and he fell.

“When I looked around, neither my car nor my wife and child were there,” he said. “Somehow I managed to get out of the water and was shouting, ‘Save us, save us.’ But at the time, everyone was busy trying to save their own families.”

Shanti Rai, 45, runs a volunteer rescue group that helped save people stuck on rooftops and clinging to trees, and pulled bodies from the Teesta.

“I used to wonder where tears come from endlessly when we are sad,” said Rai, sitting at the riverside restaurant she built on the highway to Rangpo. “Looking at the river, I wondered: ‘Where is so much water coming from? Where in the mountains is there so much water?’”


As warmer global temperatures melt polar ice, ocean waters are rising, posing a threat to island nations and coastal communities. A parallel danger lurks in the Himalayas and other high mountain areas like the Andes, where melting glaciers have created thousands of new lakes.

Between 1990 and 2018, the volume of the world’s glacial lakes expanded by nearly 50%, according to the first global survey of these lakes. It was led by Daniel Shugar, a geomorphologist at the University of Calgary in Canada, and is based on an analysis of a quarter of a million NASA satellite images. It showed that the amount of water the lakes have added was about double the volume of Italy’s Lake Como.

In the 20th century, several catastrophic glacial lake outbursts took place, including a 1941 incident in Peru that killed at least 1,800 people.

In the Himalayas, which span Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan and China, the impact of a lake burst can be particularly destructive. These lakes are often located at high altitudes, sitting above river systems that help channel burst waters far downhill. At the same time, countries have added new hydropower and other infrastructure below them.

In 2024, a glacial lake in Nepal burst, cascading into another lake that also burst, washing away Thame, the hometown of Tenzing Norgay, who, alongside Edmund Hillary, achieved the first recorded summit of Mount Everest.

A study of about 2,400 large Himalayan glacial lakes by India’s space agency found that about 600 of them had more than doubled in size between 1984 and 2023.

India’s tiny state of Sikkim is a particular hot spot for glacial lakes, with at least 16 deemed by authorities to be of high risk of bursting.

Less than three weeks before it burst, Indian and Swiss disaster experts journeyed to South Lhonak Lake to put up a weather monitoring station, the first step toward installing an early warning system.

Mozart Maxon, then a consultant for India’s National Disaster Management Authority, was awed when he saw the lake for the first time.

“It was a beautiful monster—a massive lake,” he said. “We never thought it would come down [so soon], but we had a feeling it would come down at some point.”

These lakes are prone to failing because they are precariously dammed by walls made of frozen earth, rocks and ice created by the movement of a glacier. Rising temperatures are making these walls, called moraines, increasingly unstable.

“The ice, the frozen material, basically it’s kind of…a glue,” said Ashim Sattar, an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar, who led research examining the South Lhonak Lake burst. “When it melts…the strength of that material will be lost.”

Apart from a moraine collapsing, an avalanche or an unusual amount of rainfall can destabilize a lake. Other times, the immediate trigger isn’t known.

In 1985, Nepal’s Dig Tsho lake, in the Everest region, burst after part of a hanging glacier fell into it, destroying houses and infrastructure below. It helped catalyze scientific interest in Himalayan glacial lakes.

About two decades ago, the study of glacial lakes was boosted with high-resolution satellite imagery, and scientists began analyzing time-series data, said Umesh Haritashya, a professor of geosciences and sustainability at the University of Dayton, Ohio.

Scientists built out a global inventory of glaciers and measured lakes forming around them.

“There were tiny lakes that started collapsing, coalescing and becoming one big, larger lake,” said Haritashya. “And then there were a couple of large incidents that brought to the forefront that these lakes are really dangerous lakes.”

South Lhonak Lake was first captured by a covert CIA satellite surveillance program designed to focus on the Soviet bloc. In 1962, the program spotted a small wedge of lake forming on the eastern side of the Lhonak glacier. Over the next six decades, as the glacier retreated, the wedge expanded into a long finger, and the size of the lake grew twelvefold.

When part of its moraine slid into the lake a little after 10 p.m. on the night of Oct. 3, 2023, seismic monitors picked up the collapse. Strong waves broke through another part of the lake’s wall and about half the lake’s water gushed out, Sattar and his co-authors estimated in a research paper in the journal Science.


The flood triggered multiple landslides and picked up debris. The volume of debris it absorbed was five times greater than the volume of water alone.

“The water comes out in very fast movements, with a high velocity, and it scrapes away all these materials” from the valley, said Sattar, creating a “hyper-concentrated” flood that is savage in its power.

At around 11 p.m. on a rainy night, Sukraj Rai, 42, a schoolteacher in Rangpo Forest, began getting frantic calls warning him that the Teesta was rising and that the Chungthang dam had broken.

He and members of the youth group rushed over the next few hours to wake people in the lowest part of the town of 3,000. Many of them were asleep after celebrating till midnight at a birthday party.

Near Rangpo, the Teesta joins with another river and carries on toward the Bay of Bengal.

That night, the Teesta was flowing so fiercely that it pushed the other river back and sent it into the town. The water washed away some two dozen low-lying houses, a church and part of a mosque.

As the floodwaters careened through the town, Rai ran into Prasad, shirtless and crying, and urged him to get to higher ground. Nothing could be done for his family. Later, Rai took stock of the unfolding catastrophe from above. In a flash of lightning, he saw a “huge tsunami-like wave crashing through large trees with a terrifying roar,” he said.

More than 100 people died in the flood, according to Indian authorities, and many of the bodies that were found were unidentifiable. The alert sent by the border police from their camp near the lake was a stroke of luck that prevented more lives from being lost, scientists say.

At the lower Rangpo area, close to the Teesta River, only a mosque remains, surrounded by piles of sand, some reaching the height of its roof.

Prasad is still struggling to comprehend the forces that stole his family. It wasn’t a typical time of year for floods—the monsoon season was over and cooler months were on their way. When he put his wife and child in the car, there was no water around his house.

“If I had just gotten in the car and driven off with my wife and child at that exact moment, everything would have been fine,” he said. “We thought maybe a little bit of water was coming, and since this is the river’s path, the water would just flow out through it. We had no idea such a terrifying amount of water would come.”

FT : Record number of megadeals agreed in first quarter of the year

Record number of megadeals agreed in first quarter of the year
Twenty-two transactions each valued above $10bn announced in past three months

A record number of megadeals were agreed in the first quarter of the year as companies shrugged off war in the Middle East and a shakeout in the software sector to propel mergers and acquisitions to $1.2tn globally.

A total of 22 deals valued above $10bn were agreed in the past three months, the highest-ever quarterly figure, according to LSEG data, surpassing the previous record of 21 deals agreed in the fourth quarter of 2015. It cemented the third consecutive $1tn quarter for dealmaking.

“It’s extremely busy,” said Viktor Sapezhnikov, public company M&A chair at DLA Piper. “There’s no trace of the risk-off mentality that companies took following liberation day,” he added, when US President Donald Trump announced his tariff regime last April.

March wrapped up with a number of large deals. On Tuesday, Unilever offloaded its food division to spice maker McCormick, which will create a group with a combined enterprise value of nearly $66bn. While Eli Lilly and Biogen both struck biotech acquisitions valued at more than $5bn, and a day earlier, food distributor Sysco agreed to buy wholesaler Jetro Restaurant Depot for $29bn.

Dealmaking was particularly busy in the US where there were $629.8bn worth of transactions in the first three months of 2026. The sum fell just short of the $630bn of deals agreed in the first quarter of 2021, the busiest start to the year on record and the high point of a pandemic-induced frenzy.

The uptick in dealmaking comes despite operations by the US and Israel in Iran driving oil prices over $100 per barrel and jitters over the effect of AI on software companies and private credit’s exposure to the sector.

“Boards are now asking management: ‘Everyone else is doing stuff, what are you doing?’” said George Sampas, co-chair of Gibson Dunn’s M&A group. “CEOs, although they are less optimistic than a few months ago, still see an administration which is receptive to large deals.”

Some of the other biggest deals of the quarter included Global Infrastructure Partners and EQT’s $33bn take-private deal for energy provider AES, Devon Energy and Coterra Energy’s tie-up to create a nearly $60bn shale-drilling group and the all-stock merger of insurers Equitable and Corebridge.

But risks abound: the fallout of high prices at the petrol pump because of conflict in the Middle East has yet to trickle down into the wider economy and instability in private credit markets could also make it more difficult to finance deals.

Moreover, there is a large backlog of private equity-owned companies that have not yet been sold. The number of private equity-backed deals was down 12 per cent to a six-year low, despite the total dollar value of sponsor-backed deals totalling $314bn globally in the first quarter.

“Deals are very opportunistic and fuelled by big strategic transactions, while the regular-way private equity deal machine remains active, albeit more discerning, across the market,” said Eric Wedel, a partner at Paul Weiss who runs the firm’s Los Angeles office. 

Outside of the US, dealmaking in Europe climbed 82 per cent in the quarter to reach $307bn, with milestone transactions including the sale of centuries-old UK asset manager Schroders for £9.9bn to US fund manager Nuveen. Cross-border mergers were up 47 per cent.

“The market reaction to the [Middle East] conflict may present opportunities for others to take action at potentially depressed prices and go ahead and accelerate” deals under consideration, said Oliver Lazenby, a partner at Freshfields.

If there is resolution to the conflict that may yet spur more deals. But the downturn in software stocks may mean that technology dealmaking, typically the biggest sector for M&A activity, could remain muted, potentially restraining dealmaking overall.

“Unless the conflict persists, we’re likely going to feel good about 2026, but I don’t know if we’re going to beat 2025 because the possible slowdown in a sector as big as tech is very punitive to beating records,” said Guillermo Baygual, Citigroup’s co-head of M&A.

FT : Private capital: what are the risks?

Private capital: what are the risks?
As investors seek to retrieve their money, the $22tn industry rejects comparisons with 2008. Regulators aren’t so sure

Last year, a retired doctor in France’s southern region of Provence received a brochure in the mail from his bank touting a new investment opportunity.

A New York asset manager called Blackstone was offering the 77-year-old the chance to invest €25,000 into its flagship private debt fund. The former doctor called his son to ask: had he ever heard of Blackstone, or private debt?

His son Mathieu Chabran, co-founder of alternative investment group Tikehau Capital, had indeed heard of the powerful pioneer of private markets. But he was floored to discover that a company with $1tn in assets, which has minted over half a dozen billionaires, was seeking new business from novice investors such as his father.

“That’s when I realised that the wealth and growth of the juggernaut US managers was coming from retail channels,” says Chabran, who worries the funds are being mis-sold to unsophisticated investors, often through their financial advisers.

He believes people like his father do not fully understand the risks of investing in funds that are harder to sell out of but which offer the opportunity to invest in private loans, property deals and corporate takeovers, with the allure of high returns.

“Obviously, there is a difference between my father and an Asian sovereign wealth fund in how they underwrite an investment,” says Chabran.

Targeting individual investors has become part of the rise of private capital, the collective term for a range of investments outside public markets, in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis that humbled many traditional banks.

It is a boom that has turbocharged private equity, the sector that specialises in buying companies away from the glare of public markets, in typically debt-fuelled transactions. 

The loans backing those buyouts are often arranged privately and sold to investors, in what is known as private credit or private debt — a $2tn market now under intense scrutiny as investors seek to redeem their savings from such funds.


Chabran’s father is just one of tens of thousands of individuals who have ploughed over $200bn into private funds managed by Blackstone and arch-rivals such as Apollo, Blue Owl, Ares and others. Mathieu Chabran’s own group, Tikehau, is a specialist firm that invests in private credit deals itself.

Over the past two decades, private loans such as those made by the Blackstone debt fund and many others have helped finance a record frenzy in private equity takeovers struck at ever higher valuations, with annualised returns of nearly 10 per cent since 2004.

Large and midsized banks have been happy to lubricate the activity by offering additional financing. Insurance companies, increasingly owned by private capital giants themselves after a wave of takeovers, have also entered the market, putting portfolios intended to provide safe income to retirees into opaque private assets. 

Taken together, private capital, once little more than a cottage industry, has grown into a giant part of the financial system, holding $22tn in assets, largely outside the purview of banking regulators.

But Wall Street has been rattled this year as investors have pulled their money in the face of turbulent financial markets, creating a stampede of redemptions that has caused many private credit funds to “gate” or limit investors’ ability to exit.

As loan portfolios face pressure, regulators, credit rating agencies and financial pundits are beginning to ask whether the private markets boom will lead to a more general crisis.

The industry rejects comparisons with the market meltdown two decades ago, arguing that private credit is much less leveraged than the banks of 2007-2008.

But as the “retailisation” of private capital continues, following Donald Trump’s decision to allow 401(k) retirement savings accounts to invest in such assets, the question is to what extent — and for how long — that will remain the case.

“There are cracks in the foundation of the private debt market,” says Alan Schwartz, executive chair of Guggenheim Partners, a $300bn private asset manager.

“Any time you get increased selling in illiquid assets that don’t have transparent valuations, it can cause significant spasms in financial markets.”

He adds that “while I’m sure there are excesses in the market, I don’t think they’re as deep and systemic” as 2008 — when he led Bear Stearns, the investment bank whose collapse that year largely inaugurated the crisis. 

So far many recent blow-ups in lending markets have been blamed on alleged fraud rather than broader problems, such as US auto parts supplier First Brands and UK property lender Market Financial Solutions. Still, the debacles have raised questions about underwriting standards in hot credit markets.

“When you see one cockroach, there’s probably more,” JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon said of such scandals last year.


The most immediate problem for private lenders and their private equity clients is the prospect of returns that fall far short of the expectations of the investors who shifted money out of public markets in the hope of large windfalls.

Nearly $4tn in potentially overvalued private equity deals have proved hard to exit amid higher interest rates and geopolitical turmoil. Loans backing these deals have begun to show cracks. 

Banks such as JPMorgan financing the activity are reconsidering their exposures. Insurance experts worry that industry holdings of private assets do not carry sufficient reserves to cover potential losses.  

The strain will be most acute for wealthy individuals like Chabran’s father, as well as insurers and the teachers and firefighters who through their pension plans are heavily exposed to private markets. 

Most at risk are private markets’ heavy investments in software companies, the epicentre of Wall Street’s dealmaking boom, which represent about a third of overall activity over the past decade.

“This is an unsettling time for markets and investors,” Michael Patterson, a senior BlackRock executive, told wealthy individuals in the firm’s flagship private credit fund this month. “There’s real impactful geopolitical uncertainty and well-founded anxiety about how artificial intelligence will reshape our personal and economic landscapes.”

Some longtime investors in private markets such as Patrick Dwyer, a financial adviser at NewEdge Wealth, have told their clients to cut their exposures to buyout funds out of fear that the troubles are just beginning. 


“Funds raised before 2022 are totally screwed,” says Dwyer, referring to a bubble in private equity deals struck at dizzying valuations just before interest rates began to march higher.

In his view, private capital firms grew too big too quickly and took in too much money, creating a glut of capital that was invested in ever shoddier deals that now face a reckoning.

“There was too much money, everyone got greedy and they killed the golden goose,” he says.

The PE pioneers
Decades before Apollo, Ares and Blackstone became giant financial institutions, the early pioneers of private equity were small teams of dealmakers such as KKR founders Henry Kravis and George Roberts.

The stagnant equity markets of that era yielded a plethora of targets they could buy cheaply using debt and then quickly sell off to earn almost immediate profits. Their ambitions were tamed only by the limited amount of bank debt available in that era. 

The emergence of “junk” bonds and highly leveraged buyouts in the 1980s provided them with the credit they yearned for. Michael Milken’s investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert popularised low-rated financing for corporate takeovers.

Drexel collapsed in 1990 but its executives at the investment bank fanned out across Wall Street, founding firms such as Apollo, Ares and Cerberus.

But it was the 2008-10 financial crisis that provided private capital with its big break.

As regulators curtailed traditional banks’ lending to safeguard the financial system, riskier lending to less creditworthy companies shifted to private capital providers.

Rock-bottom interest rates reduced their financing costs and brought pension funds and endowments to their doors in search of higher returns.

Many such investors began to hold as much as 30 per cent of their portfolios in private markets as fundraising boomed. Some private capital groups came to have market capitalisations that exceeded blue-chip investment banks such as Goldman Sachs.

BlackRock’s Patterson claims the industry has offered less volatility than the wild swings of public markets as well as, in the case of private credit, “more attractive, risk-adjusted returns”.

In 2021, private equity and credit funds raised a record $1.2tn from investors. But as firms became ever mightier, they were presented with the challenge of investing their growing war chests quickly. 



Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://help.ft.com/faq/gifting-and-sharing-an-article/what-is-a-gift-article/.

Purchase price multiples soared, roughly doubling in the decade up to the 2021 peak. Investors could raise large debt packages based on non-conventional credit metrics like their equity commitment, or heavily adjusted future forecasts of profits that often never materialised.

Adding fuel to the fire was a flood of new capital coming into the industry from wealthy individuals such as local property moguls in Asia, rich dentists in the US — or retired doctors in Provence.

Banks and insurers get in on the act
Although the rise of Apollo, Blackstone and others has proven a competitive threat to banks like JPMorgan and Goldman, the more established lenders have found lucrative ways to profit from private markets.

Banks discovered that regulators were sometimes more comfortable with them extending loans if they were channelled through private credit.

“The way that you lend into private credit is based on a secured basis that gets certain preferable treatment,” Michael Roberts, chief executive of corporate and institutional banking at HSBC told the UK’s Financial Services Regulation Committee last year. 

The bank may have to hold 20 per cent of capital against these loans as opposed to the 100 per cent requirement if it was to lend to the same borrowers directly, he explained.  

Moody’s has estimated that banks have lent $300bn to the private credit industry and another $285bn to private equity funds as of June 2025. The US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research reckons lending to private credit funds by banks and other lenders could now be as high as $540bn, while noting that the data showed “leverage risk overall appears limited”.

The regular premiums paid by customers of life insurance and annuity companies, some of which have been acquired by private credit firms, have added to the wall of money.

In theory, life insurance and annuity providers are well suited for the illiquid loans made by private credit groups, since their promises to policyholders stretch decades into the future.

But regulators​, policyholders and even some Wall Street executives are growing worried that the assets backing Americans’ nest eggs could be riskier than ratings suggest.

​Many of Apollo’s loans have been sold on to Athene, the insurer it acquired in 2022, prompting questions over whether such assets are being adequately vetted and priced.​

Regulators are concerned about whether insurers have enough capital to back such loans, and some industry figures have voiced concern about “ratings shopping” — seeking better ratings on such assets from smaller credit rating agencies than more established groups would provide.

UBS chair Colm Kelleher said in November that the phenomenon could create a “systemic risk” to global finance​.

This time is it different?
Warnings that a private credit crisis could spill over into the wider financial system are multiplying, with the Bank of England due to carry out a stress test this year to look into such a scenario.

BoE governor Andrew Bailey has said “alarm bells” are ringing over the “slicing and dicing” of loans, with uncomfortable echoes of how US subprime mortgages were repackaged and sold around the world in the run-up to the 2008 crash.

Regulators voice concerns about what they say is the sector’s lack of transparency, weak risk management and interlinkages with banks.

Some in the market express similar fears.

“Is the pain banks are seeing in the business development companies and private credit world enough where they pull back risk in other areas?” says Terry Monis, co-chief investment officer of investment manager ICG Advisors.

“We are in a risk-off environment because of the [Iran] war. There’s fears of stagflation. But it’s never just one thing that causes a turn in the cycle.”

But Blackstone chief Jon Gray says he has “never seen something so disconnected from reality in finance” than the comparison between private credit’s current travails and the financial crisis that shook the world two decades ago.

Like many other industry figures, he emphasises that private markets players are far less leveraged than traditional lenders. Their funds generally borrow one to two times the amount investors contribute, although that figure can stretch above three at some funds. That compares with a ratio of 15 in many banks.

Private capital, even in insurance marketplaces and so-called “retail funds”, is also much longer term and harder to redeem than bank deposits, which can be pulled overnight.



Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://help.ft.com/faq/gifting-and-sharing-an-article/what-is-a-gift-article/.

For years, today’s private market giants have been able to withstand pressures from fast-rising interest rates and the turmoil of the pandemic, without collapsing as banks such as Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic did.

“There will be defaults,” Gray adds. “We definitely see there are some companies that will face challenges, but we’re not in a recessionary period . . . How this is creating incremental risk to the financial system, no one has yet explained this to me.”

However, private capital’s difficulties with exiting investments have caused industry-wide returns to plummet since central banks started raising interest rates in 2021. For much of that time, by contrast, public markets soared, buoyed by surging valuations of technology stocks.

Fundraising for private equity deals has now declined by about half from the 2021 peak. Many midsized private equity funds have been unable to raise new capital as dealmakers predict a growing crop of “zombie funds” that will slowly die over the next decade due to their lacklustre returns.

Roughly a quarter of private equity funds raised since 2015 have failed to earn the rate of return at which firms earn performance fees, according to the hedge fund Davidson Kempner. 

The problems are partly structural. Private equity groups have often used a standard template to consolidate assets as diverse as car washes, veterinary clinics and insurance brokerages, often using a single company to accumulate such acquisitions.

Such businesses have proved too complex to sell to regular corporate buyers.

The underlying financial health of private equity-owned companies has also been pummelled by higher rates and geopolitical turmoil. Over 10 per cent of such groups have chosen to increase their debt rather than making their interest payments in cash.

The industry’s outsized exposure to software deals threatened by Al has already added to the malaise.

Scott Goodwin, co-founder of credit investment firm Diameter Capital, says an “AI risk factor” affects over half of the deals made by private equity and financed by private credit over the past 10 years. Such concerns are a result of the industry’s series of acquisitions of software-related businesses in healthcare, financial services and other professional services.

Other investors told the FT they were now also worried about the industry’s investments in wealth managers and insurance brokerages for the same reason.

John Beil, head of private equity at Partners Capital, predicts a wave of asset writedowns for software deals when first-quarter numbers are finalised next month, clouding returns from a sector that was “private equity’s golden trade for the past decade”.

“There is no sugar coating the numbers,” he says. “Private equity has lagged [behind] the public benchmarks by meaningful amounts” over the past five years.

On the debt side, ageing deals have proved problematic for lenders including funds managed by KKR and BlackRock, which have slashed the value of many of their holdings. 

Vehicles that once easily trounced the returns of public market equivalents such as high-yield bonds have begun to mark the value of their assets downwards.

Industry executives warn that ageing loans left in debt funds are of lower quality given that stronger businesses have been easily able to refinance their borrowing in recent years. 

The falling returns have caused a flood of redemption requests at funds sold to wealthy investors.


Such funds have been dubbed “semi-liquid”, since they let people take out a small portion of their money — usually capped at 5 per cent of funds’ net assets every quarter. But many are now limiting withdrawals as the limits, designed to prevent asset fire-sales, are reached.

Former Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein told the FT recently that a liquidity mismatch had become more likely given the length of time since the last major credit market crash. “When something goes off you’re going to find all the assets that have been carried at prices that can’t be realised in the market,” he said.

Taking the hit
The troubles have yet to work their way through the system. Some US pension and endowment funds now face a squeeze that could hurt their ability to give their beneficiaries the income they desire.

Some have been selling stakes in their private equity funds at large discounts on secondary markets and are beginning to dump their credit portfolios, advisers say.

The impact of falling returns and looming losses will also prove a major test of whether insurers that invested in riskier debts have appropriate buffers to withstand any losses.

“There’s going to be a higher rate of business failure going forward because of technological disruption and that’s gonna be a problem for credit,” says Dwyer, the wealth manager who has told clients to exit many private market investments.

He predicts a “day of reckoning for private equity” as firms loaded with overvalued investments capitulate by taking their portfolio companies public, even if it causes their investors to face writedowns.


But, rather than steeling themselves for anything resembling a re-run of the financial crisis, many in the private capital industry appear to view the coming crunch rather like the aftermath of the original 1980s bubble.

Ultimately that crisis left the financial system largely unharmed. Some PE players still active today made their names buying junk bonds at rock-bottom prices from troubled insurers and pension funds.

This time around, some firms, including junk-bond pioneers like Apollo, have built up war chests to capitalise on others’ distress. Even as parts of the world of private capital come under strain, the giants plan to continue their onward march.

“There’s nothing that’s flashing anything other than green right now,” Ares chief Michael Arrougheti said this month, vaunting the profitability of the hundreds of businesses his group lends to, as well as trillions of dollars of collateral.

“For the 30 plus years I’ve been investing in credit, there’s nothing in those numbers that screams credit crisis is coming.”

FT : Oaktree’s path puts private credit choices into relief

Oaktree’s path puts private credit choices into relief
Market stress to test whether it is right not to pursue scale as aggressively and broadly as some peers

When the share prices of US private capital companies were racing up to dizzying heights in 2023 and 2024, I sometimes thought of Howard Marks, the high-profile founder of Oaktree Capital.

In what was a golden boom for private credit, Oaktree appeared to be surpassed by other managers, at least in scale and valuation terms. In that frenzied period, Ares Management, a Los Angeles-based credit-focused firm, had reached a peak market capitalisation of $60bn. Blue Owl, a firm with origins that only go back a decade or so, topped out at $40bn.

In contrast, Oaktree went public initially in 2012 at a valuation of $6.5bn. After paying out healthy dividends to shareholders, it then sold a near two-thirds stake to Canadian titan Brookfield at an implied valuation of just $7.7bn in 2019. Last September, Brookfield purchased the rest of Oaktree, this time at an implied valuation of about $11.5bn.

Oaktree’s path partly reflects a somewhat different approach to the other firms that chased scale more aggressively. Ares, founded in the 1990s like Oaktree, now has $600bn assets under management while Blue Owl, assembled over the past decade, already manages some $300bn and industry leader Apollo manages nearly $1tn.

Oaktree at the time of its IPO had about $75bn of assets and by the time of its 2019 sale, that figure had only grown to $120bn. That total today, under the aegis of Brookfield, is up to $225bn.

Late last year, I asked Marks about the approach of the firm he co-founded more than 30 years ago with previous colleagues from Trust Company of the West, another large California money manager. His responses seem particularly pertinent now as the values of several listed private capital managers are down sharply from peaks over worries over loan losses and slowing growth. 

Marks — who was careful not to criticise any rivals — pointed out there was an inherent tension between growth in assets and investment returns or, put another way, the conflict between shareholders and fund investors. 

“To us, the main negative [of being publicly traded] would be pressure from the shareholders to grow for growth’s sake. Yeah, we were concerned. You know, I think we’ve always been obsessed with doing a great job for the clients, and we were concerned that the clients would think that we had divided loyalties,” said Marks. “I think of us as artisans, you know, kind of like craftspeople. It’s not an assembly line. It’s not scope and scale.”

Oaktree started with two main areas of focus since its founding — buying existing bonds and loans of healthy companies and originating loans to them; and separately distressed debt investing, an area Oaktree pioneered. The flagship distressed debt vehicle, which Oaktree calls its “Opportunities” fund, depended on economic dislocations that were so not evident in the US during the 2010s. 

As such, Oaktree’s growth was constrained. And as Marks told me, even after successful vintages of the Opportunities fund over the years, its managers would sometimes ask to raise a smaller subsequent pool if they believed there would be fewer good deals available.

As for the firms that grew and prospered between 2019 and 2025, they made the decision to take advantage of changes in the traditional banking sector to become huge originators of loans — both to highly leveraged risky, private equity backed companies but also in so-called investment grade, asset-based lending. The steady management fees from these operations have been highly valuable to public market investors.

Oaktree’s focus on big, if volatile, performance fees never quite resonated while listed. But as Marks suggested last year, the growth of the industry might come under more scrutiny at times of market stress like now.

“There’s nothing wrong with private credit,” Marks said. “The only question will be, in my opinion, when the tide goes out, you’ll find out who made prudent credit decisions, individual lending decisions, and who didn’t.”

That, of course, will apply as well to Oaktree, which is actually closer to the factory model than the workshop approach. Its parent Brookfield is publicly traded and manages more than $1tn. And within that, Oaktree’s asset base has been swelling in areas such as asset-based lending, investment funds known as business development companies, direct lending and the like. At least though, its distressed debt arm will be on the hunt for any bargains that from the receding sea.

FT : Giorgia Meloni hit by business backlash over botched support scheme

Giorgia Meloni hit by business backlash over botched support scheme
Anger from companies adds to pressure on Italian prime minister after defeat in referendum last month

Giorgia Meloni’s government is facing mounting anger from Italian businesses, after the botched handling of its flagship business support scheme has left many companies out of pocket.

Italy’s influential industrial association Confindustria and other groups have abandoned their usual reticence and accused the government of reneging on promises, after Rome slashed the scheme’s final tranche of funding from €1.3bn to €535mn, citing the economic fallout from the war in Iran.

The eruption is the culmination of months of frustration over the troubled programme, named Transition 5.0. It was originally funded with €6.3bn from the European Commission and designed to spur investment in digitisation and green technology but was plagued by changes and cuts.

Confindustria vice-president Marco Nocivelli called the government’s latest decision — taken at a Cabinet meeting on Friday — a “strategic error” that would undermine business confidence and could prompt companies to relocate their manufacturing capacity abroad.

“We fully understand that there is a war and that we must stay inside the limit of the budget,” Nocivelli said. “But we are talking about people that have already put their money on the table, and then they say, ‘no, we have changed our mind.’”

The revolt adds to the pressure on Meloni, who suffered an embarrassing setback with losing a referendum on her proposed overhaul of the country’s judiciary last month. She now faces the challenge of steering Italy through the geopolitical and economic turmoil triggered by the US-Israel war on Iran, ahead of next year’s general elections.

Many industry groups have been quietly grumbling about the Meloni government’s lack of a plan to revive faltering growth, which slowed to just 0.5 per cent in 2025, one of the slowest paces in Europe. Others complain of chaotic policymaking, such as an attempt, eventually scrapped, to impose a controversial tax on dividends paid to corporate entities.

But the government’s decision to cut funds promised to companies in November — which followed an earlier reduction to the scheme — has sparked an angry outpouring. Industry groups complain the move unfairly affects those that rushed to make investments based on the promise of receiving the tax credits.

Business community leaders are due to meet with industry minister Adolfo Urso on Wednesday to try to find a resolution.

Meloni’s government has been hunting for savings after the national statistics agency in March released preliminary estimates showing Italy’s 2025 fiscal deficit slightly overshot the target, coming in at 3.1 per cent of GDP.

The government is determined to have the 2025 deficit affirmed at 3 per cent of GDP so that Italy can exit the EU’s excess deficit proceedings, giving it more fiscal flexibility.

Finance minister Giancarlo Giorgetti told entrepreneurs last weekend that the economic fallout of the Middle East conflict is forcing Rome to make tough choices on utilising its scarce resources.

“We had a certain programme trajectory, and then what happened happened: something beyond our control — an external shock,” he said, noting that Rome had to re-evaluate “what we need to do, what we need to help, what we need to incentivise in the near future, taking into account the budget constraints that always exist.”

Even before the current outcry, the Transition 5.0 scheme — which offered tax credits of up to 45 per cent for eligible investments — caused simmering tensions between industries and Meloni’s government due to its convoluted design, frequent changes and funding cuts.

In September, Italy slashed the scheme’s original €6.3bn to just €2.5bn and reallocated the rest, citing sluggish take-up, though businesses complained that was due to the confusing application process, rather than a lack of interest.

In November. Rome declared the €2.5bn EU funding for the schemes was exhausted, triggering business ire — and prompting Giorgetti to pledge to use Rome’s own resources to pay for companies that sought the credits by November 27, an amount now estimated at €1.3bn.

The Italian Confederation of Small and Medium Private Enterprises (Confapi), accused the government of “betraying the trust” of entrepreneurs. The president, Cristian Camisa, said it was “draining the lifeblood of those who are ensuring the country’s economic stability through innovation”. 

FT : German economy minister urges nuclear power rethink as energy prices soar

German economy minister urges nuclear power rethink as energy prices soar
Katherina Reiche’s call comes as Berlin launches investment summit to help revive Europe’s largest economy

Germany’s economy minister has called for a rethink of her country’s opposition to nuclear power, warning that its reliance on gas leaves it vulnerable to energy shocks.

Speaking as she launched a new investor conference to attract foreign capital to Europe’s largest economy, Katherina Reiche said previous governments’ decision to shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants meant there was now “no alternative” to gas to meet demand.

“We need gas to secure our supply — that is the only baseload supply I have left,” she told the FT. “Politically speaking, I have no alternative.”

Reiche’s comments reflect a deepening debate in Germany over the legacy of the nuclear phaseout, decided under former chancellor Angela Merkel in 2011 and completed under Olaf Scholz. While the policy was paired with an expansion of renewables, it has increased reliance on gas for baseload electricity.

European gas prices have soared more than 60 per cent since the start of the Iran war, thrusting the continent into its second energy price shock in less than five years.

German electricity prices for May based on futures contracts are four times as high as those of France, Europe’s largest nuclear power producer, according to energy marketplace EEX.

Reiche, a member of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union, urged Germany to take part, in some way, in the nuclear power revival in Europe.

Alongside France, countries including Sweden and Poland are either investing in new nuclear stations or extending reactors’ lifespans because the electricity is low carbon and reliable.

“We can decide that we are not interested. Then we stick to gas and become more dependent on one energy source. Or we can say that we are interested in technology again,” Reiche said.

Germany, “with all its engineering expertise, must be represented on international committees and if necessary, we must also be prepared to invest in Europe, and in no way oppose other countries that want to go down this path”.

She added: “Anyone standing on the sidelines simply commenting loses influence. You must be on the pitch if you want to play.”

Germany’s dependence on gas backfired after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 forced Berlin to abandon pipeline imports from Moscow. Germany had to turn to liquefied natural gas, mostly from the US, which now makes up about 10 per cent of its gas supply.

Persistently high energy costs have since weighed heavily on German industry, which also faces intensifying competition from Chinese companies at home and abroad.

In the second half of 2025, gas prices for private households were 79 per cent higher than in the same period in 2021, just before the start of the war in Ukraine, while electricity prices rose 23 per cent, according to Germany’s statistical office.

The Middle East conflict is the latest external shock complicating Berlin’s efforts to attract foreign capital and push through reforms to revive Germany’s economy.

The high oil and gas price levels were “a severe additional burden for energy-intensive industries, which were already under massive pressure”, acknowledged Reiche.

Merz, who has led a coalition between the CDU and Social Democrats for a year, has previously called the nuclear exit a “huge mistake”.

While ruling out restarting conventional nuclear power stations, his government is backing new technologies, including small modular reactors and nuclear fusion. In a gesture to France after winning elections, Merz last year promised to stop opposing nuclear power at the EU level.

The renewed focus on energy policy comes as Berlin struggles to reignite growth, despite a €1tn, decade-long public spending programme to modernise infrastructure and defence — the largest since reunification.

As part of that effort, the government will host global investors in Berlin on October 19-20 in a bid to position Germany as a “safe haven” for diversification away from the US, Reiche said. “I don’t see a flight from the dollar . . . but we see a lot of inquiries from America.”

The Invest in Germany summit will aim to secure concrete investment commitments, drawing inspiration from initiatives such as Choose France.

“I talk to a lot of investors looking for opportunities every week. They say, Germany is currently in a weak phase, but you have a strong industrial base, a well capitalised Mittelstand . . . You have a few structural issues to solve, but you are of great strategic interest to us.”

>>> US After Hours Summary: RH -16.9%, NKE -8.8% lower on earnings; NCNO +19%, P

After Hours Summary: RH -16.9%, NKE -8.8% lower on earnings; NCNO +19%, PLAY +5.4%, PVH +1.8% higher on earnings

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: NCNO +19% (also authorizes $100 mln accelerated share repurchase program), OMER +7.5%, PLAY +5.4%, RILY +4.9%, PVH +1.8%, FBRX +0.9%

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: HHH +1.9% (reschedules shareholder meeting), FRPH +1.6% (to delay 10-K filing), DRS +0.8% (awarded a $533 mln Navy contract), AREC +0.8% (to delay 10-K filing), RYN +0.3% (will maintain the Rayonier name), VRTX +0.2% (completes submission to FDA of its rolling BLA for povetacicept)

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: RH -16.9%, NKE -8.8%, POET -5.5%, ASTL -0.1%

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: ORIC -22.9% (reports Phase 3 data), INGM -2.2% (earns Microsoft Frontier Distributor designation), ACNT -2.1% (files for $100 mln mixed securities shelf offering), GLSI -1.7% (to delay 10-K filing), TMC -1.5% (files mixed securities shelf offering), ASPI -1.4% (to delay 10-K filing), FROG -0.9% (Platform is now available in the Cursor marketplace), AIR -0.9% (awarded a $305 mln Navy contract), RGTI -0.5% (announces Novera QPU sale), T -0.4% (commits up to $2 bln to modernize emergency cellular network, according to WSJ), INFQ -0.3% (stock offering; also stock offering by selling shareholders), SPGI -0.2% (launches new datasets), LMT -0.1% (awarded a $1.35 bln modification to previously awarded Navy contract)