The Tug-of-War Between Syndicated Loans and Direct Lending

The relationship between the broadly syndicated loan market and private credit direct lending has shifted from parallel tracks into something closer to a shared lane. For much of the post-2008 decade, the two markets served different borrowers: banks and CLO managers handled larger, broadly marketed credits, while direct lenders served the core middle market where speed and flexibility mattered more than pricing. That division has dissolved. Today, sponsors managing transactions in the $300 million to $1 billion range evaluate both markets simultaneously, often running dual processes to create genuine competitive tension. The result is a market where spreads, terms, and deal flow move across the divide in response to real-time pricing signals — a dynamic that benefits borrowers but demands precision from lenders on both sides.

The statistics that define 2025 reflect how deep this convergence has run. Global new-issue direct loan median spreads compressed from a peak of 716 basis points in March 2023 to 544 basis points at year-end 2025, a decline tracked by Kroll StepStone Private Credit Benchmarks and cited in McKinsey’s 2026 Global Private Markets Report.¹ All-in new-issue yields in direct lending fell to approximately 9.3 percent in 2025, down from 10.5 percent the prior year, as lower benchmark rates amplified the effect of tightening spreads.¹ These are not small movements at the margin — they represent the market repricing private credit toward its broadly syndicated rival, and they have altered the economics of borrower choice in ways that were not visible as recently as two years ago.

The Mechanics of Spread Arbitrage

The sponsor’s decision between syndicated and direct lending hinges on a handful of variables that shift in real time: all-in cost, execution certainty, documentation flexibility, and timeline. When the broadly syndicated loan market is receptive — CLO formation is strong, secondary trading is robust, and retail fund inflows are positive — syndicated loans can offer pricing advantages that direct lenders struggle to match, particularly for larger credits with broad investor appeal. The window closes quickly when market sentiment shifts. Volatility stretches syndicated timelines from four to six weeks to eight or more, price flex risk increases, and reverse flex disappears. Sponsors facing deal deadlines or competitive auction timelines cannot absorb that uncertainty. Direct lending’s ability to provide committed financing within two to three weeks, with fixed pricing and no flex provisions, is a structural advantage that commands a premium — but one that sponsors will pay when the alternative is execution risk.

What has changed since 2023 is the directionality of refinancing flows. McKinsey’s analysis of PitchBook LCD data showed that in 2025, approximately $37 billion of broadly syndicated loans refinanced into direct lending, while $34 billion moved in the opposite direction — from direct lending into the broadly syndicated market.¹ That near-parity is a notable break from prior years, when flows ran predominantly one way, from BSL to private credit. The reversal reflects two forces acting simultaneously: direct lending spreads declining to levels that made BSL execution economically attractive for qualifying borrowers, and a BSL market with sufficient CLO demand and technical strength to absorb large private credit takeouts. The equilibrium is fragile, and it shifts on a quarter-by-quarter basis, but the existence of meaningful two-way flow is itself a structural signal — one that would have been difficult to anticipate even in 2022.

Documentation: Where Convergence Stalls

The pricing gap has narrowed, but documentation remains a genuine differentiator. Syndicated loan agreements follow LSTA conventions with standardized language, well-established precedent, and investor base constraints that limit structural flexibility. Direct lending facilities offer bespoke covenant packages, tailored incremental baskets, and restricted payment provisions negotiated directly with the borrower and sponsor. For transactions requiring structural features that deviate from market standard — unusual call protection, non-standard permitted acquisition baskets, or sector-specific covenant adjustments — direct lending retains a clear advantage that pricing convergence cannot eliminate.

That said, the documentation landscape in direct lending has itself shifted toward borrower-friendly terms as competition for deals intensified. Proskauer’s 15th Annual Private Credit Insights Report, based on analysis of more than 450 transactions representing $123.6 billion in value that closed in 2025, found that 21 percent of direct lending deals were covenant-lite — up from 4 percent in 2023, according to McKinsey’s citation of the same report.²¹ Proskauer noted that 91 percent of those covenant-lite transactions involved borrowers with EBITDA greater than $50 million, reflecting that the documentation shift is concentrated at the upper end of the direct lending market where competition with BSL is sharpest.² This is not a uniform trend across the asset class — core middle market transactions with EBITDA below $25 million continue to carry maintenance covenants that provide meaningful lender protection — but the upper tier is visibly converging with syndicated market practices.

Average closing leverage in Proskauer’s 2025 data set reached 5.1 times EBITDA, a modest increase from 4.8 times in 2024, while McKinsey’s analysis of Kroll StepStone benchmarks showed global median leverage on new-issue direct lending at 4.9 times.²¹ The divergence between these figures reflects differences in sample composition, but both point toward leverage holding relatively steady rather than collapsing alongside spreads — a combination that narrows the risk-adjusted return available to lenders without a corresponding reduction in credit risk.

Banks Enter the Field Directly

The competitive dynamic has drawn banks further into territory they had ceded to private credit platforms. In February 2025, J.P. Morgan announced it was allocating $50 billion from its own balance sheet to direct lending, combined with approximately $15 billion from co-lenders, at its 30th annual Global Leveraged Finance Conference.³ The firm framed the move as an extension of its existing direct lending capabilities, noting it had deployed over $10 billion across more than 100 private credit transactions since 2021. The announcement was significant not for the capital amount alone but for what it signals about strategic positioning: a major investment bank choosing to compete as a principal in direct lending rather than exclusively as an arranger of syndicated facilities.

This is not an isolated move. The broader pattern involves banks reclaiming origination share through balance sheet lending, partnership structures with private credit platforms, and expanded hold capacity. The convergence of syndicated and private financing markets, as J.P. Morgan’s announcement phrased it, is creating new options for clients — but it is also intensifying competition in a segment where non-bank lenders had built substantial market position. The effect on pricing has been visible: McKinsey’s 2026 report noted that closed-end direct lending dry powder reached approximately $500 billion as of the first half of 2025, with that capital competing for a deal inventory that moderated over the same period.¹

What Lenders and Sponsors Should Monitor

For private equity sponsors, the two-way dynamic in refinancing flows creates a practical opportunity that did not exist at scale before 2024. A borrower financed in the direct lending market at 2022 or 2023 vintage spreads — when pricing peaked near 716 basis points — can now evaluate whether a BSL takeout at current syndicated market levels offers meaningful interest cost savings. Whether that refinancing makes economic sense depends on call protection terms, the borrower’s BSL eligibility, and prevailing CLO bid levels at the time. Sponsors who maintain active relationships in both markets and understand the real-time spread differential are in a position to create value through capital structure optimization in a way that purely syndicated or purely private credit borrowers cannot.

For direct lenders, the pricing and documentation trends of 2025 present a more complex picture. The Cliffwater Direct Lending Index returned 9.3 percent for the 2025 calendar year, in line with the index’s 20-year average of 9.5 percent, suggesting that spread compression has not yet materially damaged realized returns.⁴ Payment-in-kind income held steady at 7.3 percent of total investment income, a figure that Cliffwater described as broadly consistent with prior-year levels.⁴ These are backward-looking metrics that reflect the seasoned portfolio rather than new-issue economics; the more relevant question for 2026 and beyond is whether the spread compression that brought new-issue direct lending yields to approximately 9.3 percent — already meaningfully below peak — can be sustained at levels that justify the credit risk and illiquidity premium the asset class is designed to offer.

For specialty lenders concentrated in the core middle market — facilities below $200 million, borrowers with EBITDA below $25 million — the competitive dynamics are less acute. The two-way refinancing activity and documentation convergence described above are concentrated in the upper middle market, where BSL participation is realistic and where large direct lending platforms compete directly with bank underwriting desks. Below that threshold, direct lending’s structural advantages — speed of execution, relationship continuity, bespoke documentation, and covenant discipline — remain genuinely differentiated from syndicated alternatives. Lenders who stay within that lane face less competitive pressure on pricing and can maintain the structural protections that define the risk-return proposition of the asset class.

Conclusion

The tug-of-war between broadly syndicated loans and direct lending is not resolving in favor of either market. It is intensifying, and the battleground is widening. Refinancing flows in 2025 approached near-parity for the first time, direct lending spreads compressed by more than 170 basis points from their 2023 peak, covenant-lite structures appeared in one in five direct lending transactions, and a major investment bank committed $50 billion of its own balance sheet to compete as a direct lender. Each of these developments represents a structural shift, not a market cycle. For sponsors, the implication is clear: maintaining relationships and execution capability in both markets is no longer optional — it is the precondition for borrowing competitively. For lenders, the question is whether returns available on new-issue direct lending transactions in a compressed-spread environment compensate for the credit exposure being underwritten. The answer will be determined not in the next repricing cycle but over the next default cycle — the outcome that distinguishes lending discipline from capital deployment.

—

Footnotes

1. McKinsey & Company, *Private Credit in 2025: A Maturing Industry Navigates Change*, Global Private Markets Report 2026 (Direct loan global median new-issue spread: 716 bps March 2023 → 666 bps YE 2023 → 596 bps YE 2024 → 544 bps YE 2025, per Kroll StepStone Private Credit Benchmarks; all-in new-issue yields ~9.3% in 2025 vs. 10.5% in 2024; BSL-to-direct lending refinancing ~$37B vs. direct lending-to-BSL ~$34B per McKinsey analysis of PitchBook LCD data; covenant-lite in direct lending rose to 21% of deals in 2025 from 4% in 2023; average LBO deal size rose 29% to ~$380M; direct lending dry powder ~$500B in first half of 2025. Published June 9, 2026.)
2. Proskauer Rose LLP, *15th Annual Private Credit Insights Report* (Analysis of 450+ deals, $123.6B total transaction value, January–December 2025; 21% of deals covenant-lite, 91% of those with EBITDA >$50M; average closing leverage 5.1x in 2025 vs. 4.8x in 2024; published February 9, 2026.)
3. J.P. Morgan, *J.P. Morgan Increases Direct Lending Commitment to $50 Billion* ($50B balance sheet allocation plus ~$15B from co-lenders for direct lending; firm has deployed >$10B across 100+ private credit transactions since 2021; announced February 24, 2025.)

4. Cliffwater LLC, *Cliffwater Direct Lending Index Data Supports Strength of Private Credit* (CDLI returned 9.3% for calendar year 2025; 20-year average return 9.5%; PIK interest income steady at 0.7% of assets / 7.3% of total income; covers ~21,000 US m