Alternative Financing Hybrids: When Credit Looks Like Equity and Equity Looks Like Credit
The problem hybrids were built to solve
Let’s start from the beginning: why did hybrids gain so much popularity in recent years? Multiple structural shifts in the world of Private Equity contributed to the trend. Here are a few:
1. Liquidity turned scarce:
Median buyout holding periods crept up from 2.5 years in 2016-2019 to 3.4 years by 2024; meanwhile the share of companies held 5+ years has risen from 19% to 32%.₃
Over the same decade, global buyout AUM has tripled to ~$4.7 trillion, while annual distributions as a share of NAV dropped from around 29% to 12.3%.₄
Sponsors are sitting on large portfolios, thin exit markets, and LPs who want to cash out faster. Selling crown-jewel assets or issuing plain-vanilla equity is often politically or economically unattractive, therefore, many managers started to look for alternative financing (and refinancing) solutions.
2. The cost of traditional leverage reset.
The old playbook, based on maximizing the senior part of the leverage, worked well as long as interest rates were cheap – but that’s no longer the case. For example, a typical large-cap buyout in Europe, financed with 5-5.5x EBITDA of senior notes, can easily cost 400-450 bps. Layering hybrid capital behind it (second-lien, PIK, preferred or structured equity) helps reduce the cash interest, by giving investors access to other repayment structures.₅
3. Fund-level leverage has gone mainstream.
The practice of Net Asset Value financing – debt taken at the fund level, secured by the portfolio’s NAV – has “taken off” in recent years, and its market is forecasted to reach about $700 billion by 2030, with some observers expecting it to be ubiquitous among PE funds within five years.₆ Fund-level debt and preferred equity solutions act as flexible liquidity tools that funds can rely on to keep raising capital even when exits are slow and traditional fundraising gets difficult.
Hybrids are where those three pressure drivers meet: sponsors need non-dilutive, flexible capital, and credit managers want equity-like returns with embedded structural protection. The combined result has been the observed proliferation of these “middle of the stack” instruments, which have become vital in today’s M&A market dynamics.
Meet the middle: what these hybrids actually are
While hybrid instruments are highly customized tools that can exist in a virtually endless number of nuances and combinations, a few categories stand out:
a) Preferred equity at the company level
Preferred equity has evolved from an internal structuring tool to an asset class in its own right. By its position in the capital “food chain”, it’s senior to common equity, but junior to debt. It pays fixed or floating dividends that can considerably exceed the ordinary ones and benefits from a contractual liquidation preference.
Preferred investors usually get board seats and can exercise a certain influence on capital allocation and redemption decisions. Covenants on these contracts are heavily negotiated, and can include several restrictions to the management’s discretion. Upon exit, preferred shareholders exercise special redemption rights and can enforce drag or forced-sale provisions if not redeemed by a set date.₈
On a term sheet, this looks like equity, but in a downside scenario, its behaviour is much closer to deeply subordinated, covenant-rich debt.
b) HoldCo PIK notes
Holdco PIK notes sit at the holding company level, and are therefore structurally subordinated to the Opco’s senior debt, but still have right of precedence on the sponsor’s common equity.
Sponsors use Holdco PIKs to “stretch” the total leverage capacity without increasing the target company’s debt burden: interest is paid in kind, maintenance covenants are light or absent, and terms often mirror the senior facilities but with extra headroom.₉
Economically, this is equivalent to equity-like risk (you are behind the Opco lenders and dependent on a successful exit), but the return profile feels like you hold a loan.
c) Convertible / structured equity
Convertible instruments are subordinated debt that pays a fixed or minimum return, and can convert into common equity at a fixed or capped price, and are often tailored to achieve a specific accounting treatment.₁₀ Originally, these instruments were used mainly in distressed buyouts and turnarounds, given the protection they provide from the downside case; however, such instruments are increasingly used in investment-grade situations as well, to help reduce the total leverage on paper as well as the cash interest paid.₁₁
d) Fund-level hybrids: NAV loans and preferred equity
The hybrid revolution doesn’t stop at the portfolio company.
NAV loans are debt that sits at the fund level, secured by the net asset value of the fund’s portfolio.₁₂ In other words: funds are levering their already-levered portfolios with their own layer of hybrid capital.
Why everyone loves hybrids (for now)
If you sit on the sponsor or lender side, hybrids can seem to solve several issues.
Sponsors and management: liquidity without (visible) dilution
Due to their subordinated nature, hybrid instruments can be seen as a way of cashing out early investors without ceding control, funding M&A without overlevering the operating company, and raising capital without giving up decision rights.₁₃
For sponsors, the appeal is obvious:
you bridge valuation gaps; while
avoiding marking down common equity; and
you keep control, because governance rights are negotiated, not statutory.
Credit and hybrid managers: mid-teens returns with structural edge
Park Square’s data shows that primary junior capital deals historically offer blended returns of roughly 10% over the risk-free rate, with preferred and structured equity instruments targeting mid-teens net IRR.₁₄ Basically, investors can target mid-teens returns just by sitting in a preferred part of the stack of large, high-quality companies.₁₅
Neuberger Berman pitches capital solutions as offering higher yields than traditional debt but more protection than common equity, explicitly positioning them between direct lending and buyout equity in a private-markets allocation.₁₆
In a world where senior private credit yields high single digit returns and buyout equity struggles to reach the hurdle rate, it’s easily understandable why these instruments appeal to investors.
LPs and GPs: portfolio engineering
On the partners side, some players have built solid business models providing preferred equity at the fund or portfolio level as a form of “flexible leverage” for PE investors, allowing the managers to raise non-dilutive capital against their fund interests without having to sell positions.₁₇
For institutions trying to manage denominators, pacing and J-curves all together, preferred equity and NAV loans become tools to:
pull forward cash flows,
maintain exposure to underlying assets, and
avoid fire sales at low prices.
Where the bodies get buried: opacity, stacked risk and misalignment
But, despite their perks and attractiveness, hybrids aren’t a free lunch. These instruments often come with hidden bills that investors, managers and sponsors alike too often underestimate or ignore. Here are some of the key factors that can turn hybrids into silent write-offs:
a) Complexity hides true leverage
Take a stylized capital structure; for simplicity, we’ll use Neuberger Berman’s example: 17x EV funded with 5x net debt, 2x structured equity and 10x common.₁₈
Imagine EBITDA falls 15% and the exit multiple compresses to 13x. Common equity can easily lose half its value while the preferred/structured layer still earns its contracted return. The hybrid tranche looks “safe” precisely because the common side is absorbing the volatility.
Let’s look at the bigger pie now:
at the company level, you may have senior TLB, second-lien, Holdco PIK and preferred equity;
at the fund level, NAV loans and fund preferred equity;
at the GP level, PIK-preferred shares to finance GP commitments.
While each instrument has a reasonable risk profile by itself, when you consider the aggregate, it’s easy to see that you’ve built leverage on top of leverage, triggering increased agency costs, the potential for creditor conflicts, and systemic risk for the whole structure.₁₉
b) Governance tilts toward the hybrid provider
Preferred and structured shareholders are seldom shy about control. Under some conditions, they have the option to:
spring board majorities on covenant breaches,
enforce drag rights and forced-sale mechanics if redemptions don’t happen on time,
impose tight leverage rules and priming restrictions that effectively give them veto power over future financing decisions.₂₀
In good times, this is framed as “alignment” and “protection”. But when things don’t go as planned, decisions about exit timing, sale processes or recapitalizations are driven by the preferred investor’s IRR clock, not by what would maximize the value for common shareholders or employees.
c) Fund-level leverage scrambles incentives
NAV loans and fund-level preferred equity sit structurally ahead of LP equity but behind portfolio company debt. In practice, these tools may introduce new agency conflicts, because when fund managers are faced with the decision of whether to exit, hold, or re-gear, they also have to manage the covenants and maturities of their own fund-level debt.₂₁
If NAV lenders have tight covenants or step-ups, GPs may feel pressure to:
sell better assets early to meet NAV tests,
over-use PIK or covenant cures that load more risk into later periods, or
engineer fund-level recapitalisations that prioritize the NAV lender’s returns over those of the LPs.
d) The illusion of “safe” junior paper
Park Square publishes historical junior capital loss rates of just 13bps annually since 2005, even through default cycles, attributing this to high-quality assets, large equity cushions and cov-lite senior loans that reduce premature restructurings.₂₂
That’s impressive – and exactly the sort of data that can lure capital into these instruments.
It’s important to note the dependencies implied in that story:
“cov-lite” terms often postpone confrontations with senior lenders₂₃
historically strong exit markets that allow refinancings and dividend recaps;
generous equity cushions supported by elevated entry multiples.₂₄
If any of those pillars were to get eroded, the junior and hybrid layers would be suddenly exposed to risks that their back-tested loss analyses don’t fully capture.
What to do with this, depending on who you are
If you’re on a deal team (whether PE or corporate):
Don’t forget to model the nuances: Include Holdco PIK, structured equity, earn-outs and fund-level leverage in your downside cases. The key test factor should be “who pays more if the investment underperforms.”
Treat governance like pricing: Springing board control, drag rights, and tight leverage caps are economic terms in disguise, so treat them as such. A cheaper coupon with aggressive governance can easily be more expensive than a higher coupon with looser controls.
Avoid stacking hybrids on top of hybrids: If you already have a preferred layer at the Opco level, taking on NAV leverage at the fund won’t “solve” the problem, but just delay it.
If you’re an LP:
Ask for a full capital map, not just fund-level metrics: Who sits above you and behind you in the capital pie? What’s the real leverage when you consider the full structure?
Disaggregate returns by instrument: How much of the GP’s historical performance came from common equity vs hybrid paper? Are you paying 2/20 for equity risk while the manager is gradually migrating to capital-solutions strategies with more contractual returns?
Scrutinise covenant and governance packages: Especially in continuation vehicles and deals including preferred equity, who can force a sale, reset terms, or take control when things wobble? Whose IRR clock is actually running the show? How much discretion can other stakeholders exercise over key strategic decisions?
If you’re a CEO on the receiving end:
Follow the rights, not the headline valuation: A term sheet offering “non-dilutive preferred capital” is only friendly if the covenants, redemption profile and control rights let you actually run the business.
Look at your downside before their upside: If the preferred investor is guaranteed a high single-digit or low double-digit return via coupons, PIK and preferences, ask yourself: what scenario leaves you with a meaningful outcome if growth or multiples disappoint?
Negotiate triggers, not just levels: Step-ups, PIK toggles, springing board control and forced-sale rights often hinge on specific tests (leverage, coverage, redemption dates). Understanding and tightening those clauses can matter more than shaving 50 bps off the dividend.
The real lesson: understand the boundary conditions
The key takeaway is that hybrid capital isn’t inherently good or bad. The problem is that hybrids work beautifully when incentives are aligned and markets are cooperative, but they can bite back when they’re deployed reactively, to “solve” immediate funding gaps without a clear view of their long-term implications for control, incentives and exit dynamics. Make sure you know exactly whose downside you’re actually underwriting before embedding these instruments in your deal structure.
[1] Private Equity Insights
[2] Park Square
[3] nb.com
[4] nb.com
[5] Park Square
[6] pennlawreview.com
[7] https://www.cvc.com/media/insights/2025/capital-solutions-flexibility-that-powers-private-markets/
[8] A&O Shearman
[9] Jones Day
[10] nb.com
[11] Mondaq
[12] pennlawreview.com
[13] nb.com
[14] Park Square
[15] CVC
[16] nb.com
[17] 17capital.com
[18] nb.com
[19] pennlawreview.com
[20] A&O Shearman
[21] pennlawreview.com
[22] Park Square
[23] Park Square
[24] Park Square