Private credit is having its scrutiny moment, and business borrowers should understand why the argument matters more than the outcome.
As Australian Broker reported, the collapse of NSW developer Bathla Group, into voluntary administration with more than $3 billion in debt, much of it owed to private-credit lenders, has reopened a familiar debate. ANZ chief executive Nuno Matos told the AFR Asia Summit that regulating only part of the system pushes risk elsewhere, and "it might show up in a worse profile." Private credit players countered that this is old news: yes, the sector should be regulated; no, they say, Bathla won't derail it.
The numbers behind the noise
Australia's private credit assets under management sat at roughly $200 billion at the end of 2024, up from $188 billion a year earlier. Globally, Moody's expects the market to top USD $2 trillion in 2026. The direction is not in dispute. As banks tighten and grow more risk-averse, non-bank and private lenders keep filling the gap.
What it changes for borrowers
For a business raising commercial finance, the practical point is regulatory perimeter. Private credit firms sit outside ASIC's oversight in a way the broader non-bank sector does not, which is precisely what gives them flexibility on gearing, presales and structure, and what ASIC Chair Sarah Court flagged in August as the market's "first significant cracks."
Flexibility and oversight are a trade, not a free lunch. If you borrow from a private-credit lender, the terms, the due diligence standards, and the exit strategy are the deal, banks often form part of that exit. None of that is worse by default; it is simply different, and worth reading closely.
The regulatory question is unresolved. The growth is not. For borrowers, that means more funding options and more responsibility to understand who is lending and on what terms.
General information only.