The $4 Billion Question: Why HSBC Paused Its Private Credit Push

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

HSBC, one of the world’s largest banking and financial services organizations, is yet to deploy billions of dollars into its own private credit strategy, almost a year after publicly announcing a significant strategic pivot. This delay, a striking deviation from its stated ambitions, comes as Europe’s largest lender grapples with a substantial $400 million hit linked to an Apollo-owned credit fund, raising questions about risk appetite and market conditions in the rapidly evolving alternative lending space.

In early June of last year, HSBC had grand plans, declaring its intent to inject a formidable $4 billion from its balance sheet into its asset manager’s nascent range of private credit funds. This move was framed not just as an investment, but as a strategic declaration of war – an “arms race,” as HSBC’s head of asset management Nicolas Moreau candidly put it to Reuters at the time. The objective was clear: to leverage HSBC’s colossal $3.2 trillion balance sheet to carve out a dominant position at the top table of alternative lending, challenging established private capital behemoths like Apollo Global Management and Blackstone.

However, nearly twelve months on, not a single dollar of the promised capital has been transferred. Sources close to the decision-making process confirm that there are currently no immediate plans for the allocation, suggesting a fundamental re-evaluation of the initial aggressive stance. This pause is a crucial development, indicating a shift in strategic priorities or, more likely, a heightened sensitivity to emerging risks within the private credit ecosystem.

The multitrillion-dollar non-bank lending industry, which has grown exponentially since the 2008 financial crisis as banks retreated from certain lending activities due to stricter regulations, is currently experiencing significant turbulence. Recent months have seen a surge in headlines detailing alleged frauds by borrowers, alongside intensifying questions over the underlying asset valuations of private credit portfolios. The illiquid nature of many private credit instruments and the infrequency of mark-to-market adjustments have long been points of concern, but these issues are now exacerbated by a global environment of rising interest rates and economic uncertainty. Adding to the pressure, a wave of retail and wealth withdrawals from funds, including those managed by major players like Blue Owl, has highlighted potential liquidity mismatches and investor nervousness.

One individual familiar with HSBC’s internal deliberations confirmed that executives have grown increasingly wary of the investment amid these “wobbles” in the US private credit market. While HSBC officially states its continued “commitment to our asset management’s offering in private credit funds,” the delay speaks volumes about the palpable caution now permeating boardrooms.

The catalyst for much of this internal apprehension at HSBC appears to be the unexpected $400 million charge suffered in the first quarter, related to back-leverage financing provided to a unit of Apollo. This hit sent HSBC shares tumbling more than 6 per cent on May 5, despite the bank having seen a 12 per cent gain since the start of the year. The surprise element stemmed from the fact that HSBC, unlike rivals such as Barclays and Santander, had not lent directly to Market Financial Solutions (MFS), the collapsed UK mortgage lender at the heart of the scandal. This indirect exposure, however, proved just as costly.

Administrators overseeing the insolvency of MFS have painted a grim picture, accusing the collapsed lender’s owner, Paresh Raja, of misappropriating at least £1.3 billion. This alleged fraud, funnelled through complex financial structures, reverberated throughout the financial system, reaching HSBC indirectly through its counterparty relationship with an Apollo private credit unit. This entanglement made HSBC one of the banks hit hardest by the MFS collapse, despite its seemingly peripheral position.

The episode starkly highlighted the interconnectedness and opacity inherent in certain segments of the private credit market. For HSBC, the loss underscored the challenges of due diligence and risk assessment when exposure is indirect, relying on the credit quality and operational integrity of third-party fund managers and their underlying portfolios. Even with a relatively small “pure” private credit exposure of just $6 billion (representing only 2 per cent of its total $1 trillion loan book), the $400 million charge demonstrated that even limited, indirect forays into the sector can carry significant downside risk.

The broader market implications of HSBC’s decision are substantial. The private credit market has soared to over $1.7 trillion globally, driven by institutional investors’ relentless search for yield and private equity firms’ demand for flexible, bespoke financing solutions. However, the current environment is testing the resilience of this growth. Higher interest rates are increasing borrowing costs for the mostly leveraged companies that private credit funds lend to, raising the specter of increased defaults. Furthermore, the very illiquidity that once offered a premium to investors is now becoming a liability, making it difficult to exit positions or accurately value portfolios in a downturn.

HSBC’s initial ambition to join the “arms race” reflected a desire to capture a share of the attractive fees and yields promised by private credit. However, its subsequent retreat, even if temporary, signals a more conservative, risk-off stance. This could be interpreted as a prudent recalibration in a volatile market, or a missed opportunity to build scale in a segment that still offers diversification benefits and potentially higher returns for those with robust risk management frameworks.

Market Impact

HSBC’s decision to pause its $4 billion private credit allocation carries significant implications for both the bank and the broader alternative lending market. For HSBC, it signals a renewed focus on capital preservation and risk management in the face of unexpected losses and market uncertainties. While this may reassure some investors concerned about aggressive expansion into opaque assets, it could also temper expectations for future growth in its asset management division and potentially impact its long-term competitive positioning against private capital giants. The indirect nature of the MFS hit also highlights the complex web of counterparty risk that can exist within the private credit ecosystem, prompting deeper scrutiny of fund manager diligence and underlying asset quality across the industry. For the private credit market itself, HSBC’s caution serves as a powerful bellwether. If other large institutional investors, particularly those with significant balance sheets, follow suit and temper their allocations, it could lead to a slowdown in capital inflows, impacting fundraising cycles, deal flow, and potentially increasing pricing pressure for borrowers. This development reinforces the narrative that while private credit offers attractive yields, its illiquidity, valuation challenges, and growing exposure to credit risk demand heightened scrutiny and a more cautious approach from even the most seasoned financial institutions, potentially ushering in a new era of more disciplined deployment and greater transparency.