Key Takeaways
- • KKR, BlackRock, and Apollo are deploying distinct remedial strategies for their struggling business development company (BDC) funds amid private credit market turbulence in 2026, with approximately $265 billion in stock value wiped from major alternative asset managers year-to-date.
- • KKR's $12.3 billion FS KKR Capital Corp. fund has escalated issues to executive leadership, resulting in a $300 million share buyback program designed to support share price and address investor demands.
- • BlackRock's $1.5 billion TCP Capital Corp. fund is being repositioned through leadership integration, with executives from its $12 billion HPS Investment Partners acquisition now embedded on TCP's investment committee to improve loan selection and fund performance.
- • Apollo is actively exploring a sale of its $3 billion MidCap Financial Investment Corp. fund, which while avoiding the steepest discounts of peer funds, has still experienced losses and net asset declines amid a narrow middle-market lending focus misaligned with CEO Marc Rowan's broader $40 trillion private credit vision.
- • The private credit market, valued at $1.8 trillion, has created outsized reputational damage for these firms despite their BDC portfolios representing a small fraction of their total assets under management.
Summary
The private credit market's 2026 turbulence has forced KKR, BlackRock, and Apollo Global Management to confront significant performance challenges at their publicly traded business development company funds, which have become flashpoints for reputational risk despite representing marginal portions of their broader asset bases. The $1.8 trillion private credit market's struggles have disproportionately impacted these firms' most visible retail-facing vehicles, prompting differentiated remedial approaches across the three asset management giants.
KKR has elevated the persistent underperformance of FS KKR Capital Corp., its $12.3 billion BDC, to senior executive levels and the board of directors. The firm has authorized a $300 million share buyback program in response to sustained investor pressure, a tactic designed to stabilize the fund's traded price and demonstrate management commitment to shareholder value recovery. This buyback follows internal deliberations over value generation strategies and reflects KKR's assessment that market demand exists to support the repurchase program.
BlackRock's remediation approach centers on operational restructuring rather than capital deployment. Its $1.5 billion TCP Capital Corp. fund has been a persistent drag on the world's largest asset manager's reputation despite predating BlackRock's marquee $12 billion acquisition of private credit specialist HPS Investment Partners. To address TCP's underperformance, BlackRock has strategically placed HPS executives onto TCP's investment committee, a move intended to leverage HPS's lending expertise and improve the fund's loan origination and portfolio management quality going forward.
Apollo is pursuing a more dramatic exit strategy with its $3 billion MidCap Financial Investment Corp. fund. While the fund has avoided trading at the ultra-steep discounts plaguing KKR and BlackRock's offerings, it has still sustained losses and net asset value declines. More fundamentally, Apollo's focus on middle-market lending increasingly conflicts with CEO Marc Rowan's stated vision of building out a significantly larger private credit platform targeting a $40 trillion market opportunity, particularly within investment-grade segments. The exploration of a sale suggests Apollo views the mid-market focused BDC as misaligned with its strategic direction.
These interventions underscore the broader reputational and performance pressures facing alternative asset managers in 2026, with approximately $265 billion in stock value erased across major players year-to-date amid private credit market stress, including rising leveraged loan defaults and increased reliance on payment-in-kind structures in senior lending.
KKR has elevated the persistent underperformance of FS KKR Capital Corp., its $12.3 billion BDC, to senior executive levels and the board of directors. The firm has authorized a $300 million share buyback program in response to sustained investor pressure, a tactic designed to stabilize the fund's traded price and demonstrate management commitment to shareholder value recovery. This buyback follows internal deliberations over value generation strategies and reflects KKR's assessment that market demand exists to support the repurchase program.
BlackRock's remediation approach centers on operational restructuring rather than capital deployment. Its $1.5 billion TCP Capital Corp. fund has been a persistent drag on the world's largest asset manager's reputation despite predating BlackRock's marquee $12 billion acquisition of private credit specialist HPS Investment Partners. To address TCP's underperformance, BlackRock has strategically placed HPS executives onto TCP's investment committee, a move intended to leverage HPS's lending expertise and improve the fund's loan origination and portfolio management quality going forward.
Apollo is pursuing a more dramatic exit strategy with its $3 billion MidCap Financial Investment Corp. fund. While the fund has avoided trading at the ultra-steep discounts plaguing KKR and BlackRock's offerings, it has still sustained losses and net asset value declines. More fundamentally, Apollo's focus on middle-market lending increasingly conflicts with CEO Marc Rowan's stated vision of building out a significantly larger private credit platform targeting a $40 trillion market opportunity, particularly within investment-grade segments. The exploration of a sale suggests Apollo views the mid-market focused BDC as misaligned with its strategic direction.
These interventions underscore the broader reputational and performance pressures facing alternative asset managers in 2026, with approximately $265 billion in stock value erased across major players year-to-date amid private credit market stress, including rising leveraged loan defaults and increased reliance on payment-in-kind structures in senior lending.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.