The Barbell Effect in Private Credit: What Mega-Fund Migration Means for the Lower Middle Market

Something is shifting in the competitive geography of private credit that has less to do with interest rates or regulation than with the elementary math of managing very large pools of capital. When a credit platform controls hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management and targets a portfolio of several dozen positions, a $25 million loan to a company generating $15 million in annual earnings is not merely unattractive — it is operationally incompatible with the fund’s deployment requirements. The result is a structural polarization that market participants have begun calling the barbell: mega-funds gravitating toward transactions that rival the broadly syndicated loan market in size, and a growing cohort of specialized lenders finding that the lower end of the middle market has become far less crowded than it was five years ago.

The data behind this shift is now unambiguous. According to McKinsey’s 2026 Global Private Markets Report, average leveraged buyout deal size in direct lending rose 29 percent in 2025, reaching approximately $380 million — compared with roughly $295 million in 2024 and $200 million in 2020.¹ That single figure captures the trajectory more cleanly than any anecdote: over five years, the center of gravity for direct lending deal size nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the top 25 managers in closed-end private credit fundraising accounted for approximately 72 percent of total capital raised in 2025, with the seven largest platforms growing assets under management at roughly 20 percent annually from 2022 through 2025.¹ Scale is concentrating at the top, and that concentration is pulling deal activity upward with it.

The Competitive Dynamics at the Top End

The upper migration of mega-fund activity has created a genuinely contested market for large transactions. McKinsey’s report documents that approximately $37 billion of broadly syndicated loan volume refinanced into direct lending in 2025, while $34 billion moved in the opposite direction — a near-parity of flows that represents a clean break from prior years, when movement was largely one-directional from syndicated lending into direct credit.¹ The two markets are now genuine competitors for the same borrowers on the same transactions, and the result has been visible in pricing.

After reaching a peak of 716 basis points in March 2023, global new-issue direct loan median spreads — tracked by the Kroll StepStone Private Credit Benchmarks — fell to 596 basis points at year-end 2024 and continued declining to 544 basis points at year-end 2025.¹ That is a compression of 172 basis points from peak to most recent reading, driven by an influx of capital chasing a finite deal population and by the renewed competitiveness of syndicated alternatives. For lenders operating in the upper end of the direct lending market, this compression represents a genuine challenge to return targets; for borrowers at that scale, it is an unambiguous benefit.

Documentation terms have followed pricing into borrower-friendly territory. Proskauer’s 15th Annual Private Credit Insights Report, published in February 2026 and based on analysis of more than 450 deals closed during 2025, found that 21 percent of direct lending transactions in 2025 were covenant-lite — up from 4 percent in 2023.² Critically, 91 percent of covenant-lite deals in the Proskauer dataset involved companies with EBITDA above $50 million, confirming that the erosion of structural protections is heavily concentrated in precisely the large-deal segment where mega-fund competition is most intense. The covenant architecture that has historically distinguished direct lending from the public markets is being quietly traded away at the top of the market in exchange for deal access.

The Lower Middle Market: A Different Competitive Environment

Against this backdrop in the upper reaches of the market, the lower middle market presents a categorically different competitive environment. Lord Abbett’s analysis of the private corporate lending universe identifies more than 200,000 U.S. businesses as potential candidates for direct lending — companies that historically sourced financing from banks but whose access to traditional bank capital has narrowed as a result of changes in banking regulation and risk appetite.³ Within that population, Lord Abbett segments the middle market into three distinct bands: the lower middle market, defined as companies generating between $10 million and $25 million in annual EBITDA; the core middle market, running from $25 million to $100 million; and the upper middle market, from $100 million to $300 million.³

The lower and core segments of this population are structurally incompatible with mega-fund deployment requirements. A closed-end credit fund that has raised $15 billion or more and targets 30 to 40 portfolio positions needs average commitments well in excess of $300 million — commitments that, in a lower middle market transaction, would represent the entirety of the company’s enterprise value or more. The portfolio construction logic of large platforms simply does not allow them to operate efficiently at this scale, regardless of where the best risk-adjusted returns may reside.

The McKinsey report adds another dimension to this dynamic: closed-end direct lending fundraising fell 28 percent year over year in 2025, while covenant-lite structures concentrated overwhelmingly in large deals.¹ For specialized lenders with $1 billion to $10 billion in assets, the combination of retreating mega-fund competition and maintained covenant protection represents a structural tailwind that is unlikely to reverse as long as the largest platforms continue growing.

The Spread Premium and Its Source

Pricing discipline at the lower end of the market is a direct consequence of reduced competitive intensity. While specific spread data for the sub-$100 million EBITDA segment is not uniformly reported across public sources, the structural logic is straightforward and documented in the broader benchmarking literature: deals requiring $20 million to $100 million in total debt financing attract fewer competing lenders per process than deals requiring $500 million or more. Fewer competitors per transaction means more durable pricing, and the continued prevalence of full financial covenant packages — leverage, interest coverage, and fixed charge coverage tested quarterly — provides lenders with earlier warning of deterioration and more tools for constructive intervention.

The Proskauer data bears this out directionally: while large-deal covenant-lite penetration reached 21 percent, that rate falls sharply among smaller-EBITDA credits, with 91 percent of covenant-lite deals concentrated above the $50 million EBITDA threshold.² The practical implication is that lenders choosing to specialize at smaller deal sizes are largely insulated from the structural degradation occurring at the top of the market. Lenders active in the sub-$50 million EBITDA segment are, by implication, operating in deals where full covenant packages remain the norm — a structural advantage in credit monitoring and recovery positioning that has no analogue in the broadly syndicated market.

What the Fundraising Concentration Signals

The concentration of capital among the largest platforms deserves attention as a signal, not merely as a statistical fact. When the top 25 managers capture approximately 72 percent of closed-end private credit fundraising, the remaining 28 percent is spread across a much larger number of smaller platforms.¹ For those platforms — the specialized mid-sized managers that originate, underwrite, and monitor lower middle market credits — institutional LP capital remains available, but fundraising requires demonstrating a differentiated strategy and a track record that is genuinely distinct from the products offered by the largest managers.

The largest fundraise of 2025 in the closed-end private credit universe illustrates the scale differential clearly. Ares Management’s sixth European direct lending fund, Ares Capital Europe VI, closed at €17.1 billion in LP equity commitments — a figure that Ares characterizes as the largest institutional direct lending fund ever raised on the basis of LP commitments, representing a 53 percent increase over the €11.1 billion raised for its predecessor fund in 2021.⁴ Combined with related vehicles and anticipated leverage, total available capital for the Ares European Direct Lending strategy reached approximately €30 billion. A vehicle of that magnitude cannot operate in the same deal-size range as a $500 million fund; the upmarket migration is not a choice but a structural inevitability.

At the same time, Oaktree Capital Management closed Opportunities Fund XII at approximately $16 billion, the largest distressed debt fund ever raised according to PitchBook data.⁵ The concurrent growth of mega-scale direct lending vehicles and record-size distressed credit vehicles reflects two ends of the same cycle: compressed pricing in direct lending at the upper end, and a growing expectation among sophisticated investors that some portion of that compressed-spread lending will produce stressed or distressed outcomes in the years ahead.

Conclusion

The barbell in private credit is not a temporary dislocation or a cyclical phenomenon — it is the predictable arithmetic consequence of platform scale. As the largest direct lending managers continue growing, their need to deploy capital in larger increments drives them inexorably toward larger transactions, which places them in direct competition with syndicated markets and generates the pricing and documentation concessions that benchmarks now confirm are occurring. The lower and core middle market, by contrast, remains a segment where deal sizes are structurally incompatible with mega-fund portfolio construction, where covenant packages remain more robust, and where competitive intensity per transaction is meaningfully lower. For specialized lenders, advisors, and sponsors who understand and operate within that segment, the barbell’s consequences are not a risk to be managed but a structural advantage that is widening with each successive mega-fund vintage.

—

Footnotes

1. McKinsey & Company, *Private credit in 2025: A maturing industry navigates change* (Global Private Markets Report 2026, June 9, 2026) (average LBO deal size in direct lending rose 29% to ~$380M vs. ~$295M in 2024 and ~$200M in 2020; median new-issue spreads peaked at 716 bps in March 2023, fell to 544 bps at year-end 2025; top 25 managers ~72% of closed-end fundraising; seven largest platforms grew AUM ~20% annually 2022–2025; closed-end direct lending fundraising fell 28% YoY 2025; BSL-to-DL and DL-to-BSL refinancing flows ~$37B and ~$34B respectively.)
2. Proskauer Rose LLP, *15th Annual Private Credit Insights Report* (February 9, 2026) (21% of direct lending deals were covenant-lite in 2025, up from 4% in 2023; 91% of covenant-lite deals had EBITDA above $50M; analysis based on 450+ deals representing $123.6B aggregate transaction value.)
3. Lord Abbett, *Lord Abbett Explains: Private Credit — Middle Market Direct Lending* (2025) (U.S. middle market encompasses over 200,000 businesses; lower MM = $10M–$25M EBITDA; core MM = $25M–$100M; upper MM = $100M–$300M; private corporate lending market ~$1.7 trillion.)
4. Ares Management Corporation, press release via Business Wire, *Ares Management Raises €30 Billion for European Direct Lending Strategy* (January 14, 2025) (Ares Capital Europe VI closed at €17.1B LP commitments, above €15B target; described as largest institutional direct lending fund ever on LP equity basis; 53% increase over predecessor fund’s €11.1B close; total available capital including leverage ~€30B.)
5. PitchBook, *Oaktree breaks record with largest-ever distressed debt fund* (Oaktree Opportunities Fund XII closed at approximately $16 billion, the largest distressed debt fund ever raised per PitchBook data.)