Private Credit Is Moving Toward Daily Pricing. The Technology Stack Has Some Catching Up to Do

A practical look at what daily valuation, investor transparency and controlled liquidity mean for private markets infrastructure

“Private credit did not become attractive because it was easy to see. It became attractive because it was harder to access, harder to trade and harder to compare.”

That trade-off is now being tested.

For years, private markets operated on a rhythm that suited institutional capital. Quarterly valuations. Long-term lockups. Manager-led reporting. Committee-approved marks. Investor updates packaged neatly into PDFs. The model was not perfect, but it worked because the audience was narrow, sophisticated and patient.

Now the audience is changing. So are the expectations.

Large private-market players are moving toward more frequent pricing. Wealth platforms and private banks want broader access to private credit and alternative investments. Regulators are asking harder questions about valuation, liquidity, conflicts and transparency. Investors want to understand not only what a private asset is worth, but why it is worth that today.

The IMF estimated private credit at approximately US$2.1 trillion globally in combined assets and undeployed capital commitments in 2023, including private credit funds, business development companies and middle-market CLOs. Its narrower estimate for private credit fund assets alone was US$1.7 trillion. At that scale, weak data, valuation and liquidity controls become a strategic issue, not just an operational inconvenience. Source: IMF Global Financial Stability Report, April 2024.

Scale note: Bloomberg reported that Apollo’s daily-pricing plan is tied to more than US$830 billion of credit assets. The point is not that every manager will replicate Apollo’s model immediately. It is that the largest players are changing what clients may soon expect from private-credit reporting and valuation operations

This is where the conversation becomes more interesting. Daily pricing is not only a valuation topic. It is a technology topic. More specifically, it is a data, integration and operating-model topic.

And for many institutions, that is where the gap sits.

The market is moving faster than the operating model

Private credit has grown inside an operating model built for slower cycles. Most firms have the core ingredients: portfolio management systems, fund accounting, CRM, investor relations tools, fund administrator feeds, data rooms, market data, spreadsheets and valuation committees.

None of these are automatically wrong. In fact, many of them are critical and will remain in place. The issue is that they were rarely designed to work as one connected environment.

Borrower financials might sit in one system. Covenant certificates might arrive as PDFs. Collateral information may be buried in documents. Market data may be applied manually. Valuation adjustments may be discussed in committee notes. Investor reports may be produced downstream after several rounds of reconciliation.

That is manageable when the output is quarterly.

It becomes much harder when the business starts asking for a more current view of value, risk and investor exposure. What changed this week? Why did a mark move? Which borrower is under pressure? Where is the evidence behind the adjustment? Which investor can access which product? What happens if a position needs to be transferred?

Those questions cannot be answered properly by adding another dashboard on top of fragmented data.

They require a better foundation.

BlackRock’s 2025 Private Markets Outlook cited industry estimates that private markets could grow from US$13 trillion to more than US$20 trillion by 2030. It also described private debt as a US$1.6 trillion global AUM asset class, representing around 10% of the US$16.4 trillion alternative-investment universe. This is why the issue is no longer a niche back-office problem

Daily pricing needs more than a model

There is a temptation to frame daily pricing as an AI problem. Feed enough data into a model, generate a price and the market becomes more transparent.That is too simplistic.

Private assets are not listed securities. Many are thinly traded, bespoke and dependent on borrower-specific information. A daily mark may include observable market signals, but it will also depend on judgment, assumptions and internal policy. That does not make daily pricing impossible. It means the process has to be explainable.

The question is not only: what is the price?

The better questions are: what data informed the price? Which assumption changed? Was the movement driven by rates, spreads, borrower performance, collateral, sector risk or an override? Who approved the change? How confident is the institution in the output?

A price without that evidence can create more problems than it solves. A price with data lineage, governance and workflow behind it can become a serious competitive advantage.

The FCA’s 2025 review covered firms with around £3 trillion of global private assets under management, including around £1 trillion of UK private AUM. The FCA described robust valuation processes as those able to evidence independence, expertise, transparency and consistency. It also found that many firms lacked defined or consistent processes for ad hoc valuations during market or asset-specific events.

The infrastructure private markets now need

The next private-market platform is unlikely to be one giant system that replaces everything. That would be expensive, disruptive and unnecessary for most firms.

The more realistic path is an integration-led architecture. Keep the systems that work. Connect the systems that matter. Add the missing layer that allows private-market data, valuation, risk and investor reporting to operate from the same evidence base.

For most institutions, that layer includes six capabilities.

First, a private-market data fabric. This creates a governed source of truth across borrower data, facility terms, covenants, collateral, cash flows, valuation inputs, fund positions and investor information.

Second, a valuation workflow. Not just a pricing model, but a controlled process that captures inputs, assumptions, approvals, overrides, confidence levels and audit history.

Third, credit and covenant surveillance. Borrower risk often shows up before a valuation committee sees it. Missing reports, weakening covenants, collateral changes and concentration issues should trigger action early.

Fourth, investor and advisor transparency. Institutional investors, wealth advisors, risk teams and executives do not need the same interface, but they do need to work from the same data. Fifth, governance and conflict monitoring. As structures become more complex, firms need better visibility into related-party exposure, concentration, eligibility rules, valuation exceptions and approval trails.

Sixth, controlled liquidity workflows. Daily pricing does not make private assets liquid, but it does make investors ask more direct questions about transferability, RFQ models, tokenized structures, custody, settlement and secondary-market access.

This is the architecture shift: from reporting after the fact to operating with evidence throughout the lifecycle.

Complexity is becoming part of the product

Private credit is not only being priced more frequently. It is also being packaged in more sophisticated ways. Multi-asset credit structures can bring together direct lending, private corporate credit, asset-backed exposure, mortgage-linked assets and fund interests. That may improve diversification, but it also increases the analytical burden. Investors need to understand what sits inside the structure, how it behaves under stress and where the risks overlap. This is where the old reporting model starts to feel thin.

A factsheet can explain the strategy. It cannot monitor the structure. A quarterly report can summarize performance. It cannot give real-time comfort on exposure, valuation movement, collateral quality or conflicts. The more complex the product, the more important the operating infrastructure becomes.

Without that infrastructure, complexity becomes a sales advantage on the way in and a governance problem later.

The IMF notes that private market loans rarely trade and are often marked quarterly using models, which can create stale or subjective valuations. It also estimates that more than one-third of private-credit borrowers now have interest costs exceeding current earnings. This makes covenant surveillance, borrower monitoring and ad hoc valuation triggers operationally important, not just nice-to-have controls.

Wealth distribution raises the stakes

Private markets are moving closer to wealth channels. That creates obvious commercial opportunity, especially for asset managers, private banks and digital investment platforms. But it also raises the bar.

Institutional investors can absorb complexity. Retail and affluent investors need a different experience. Advisors need clear product explanations. Compliance teams need suitability controls. Operations teams need subscription and redemption workflows. Investors need reporting that explains risk without oversimplifying it.

The winners will not be the firms that simply make private credit available to more people. The winners will be the firms that make access controlled, understandable and operationally safe. That requires technology.

Not as decoration around the product, but as part of the product itself.

BCG estimates that private-market AUM could expand by 12% annually to 2030, with individual investors allocating around US$3 trillion to private markets by 2030. BCG also notes that wealthy European and Asian investors often allocate below 5% to private markets, compared with 15% to 20% among many North American peers. That gap explains why wealth access is commercially attractive — and why the operating model has to scale safely.

Where to start

The right first move is not to launch a multi-year transformation programme with a huge scope and unclear ownership. That is how firms end up with a platform strategy that looks good in a steering committee and goes nowhere in delivery.

A better starting point is narrower.

Choose one high-value workflow where transparency, speed and control matter. For a private-credit manager, that may be borrower data and covenant surveillance. For a fund administrator, it may be NAV workflow automation and investor reporting. For a wealth platform, it may be suitability, subscription and advisor transparency. For a bank, it may be exposure visibility across private-credit-linked facilities. For a market infrastructure provider, it may be a controlled secondary transfer or RFQ workflow.

The first project should prove the pattern: connect the data, define ownership, automate the workflow, evidence the decision and expose the output to the right user.

Once that works, it can scale.

A sensible first project should be measured on operating evidence, not generic transformation language: cycle time from borrower report receipt to risk review; percentage of facilities with automated covenant extraction; percentage of valuations with complete data lineage; number of manual reconciliations in investor reporting; time required to produce an ad hoc valuation after a defined trigger event; and exceptions routed and resolved inside SLA. These are the KPIs that turn the modernization story into a board-level business case.

What this means for technology leaders

For CIOs and CTOs, the challenge is to avoid two extremes.

One extreme is treating private-market modernization as a front-end problem. Build a portal, improve the interface, publish more data. That may improve the experience, but it will not fix weak data lineage or manual valuation processes.

The other extreme is treating it as a full core replacement problem. That can become too slow, too expensive and too disruptive.

The middle path is usually the right one: integration, data foundation, workflow governance and user experience, delivered in phases.

That is where technology leaders can create real leverage. They can help the business move from private-market reporting to private-market evidence.

How Andersen can help

Andersen works with financial institutions on complex software development, system integration and platform modernization. In private markets, the role is not to replace every existing system. It is to help institutions build the missing layer between the platforms they already use and the transparency the market now expects.

That can include private-market data architecture, API integration, valuation workflow platforms, AI-enabled document processing, covenant surveillance, investor and advisor portals, reporting automation, cloud engineering, cybersecurity, DevSecOps and quality assurance for high-risk financial workflows.

The opportunity is not technology for its own sake.

It is helping financial institutions make private-market operations more explainable, scalable and ready for the next phase of growth.

Private markets are not becoming public markets. But they are being pushed toward public-market discipline. The firms that move early will be better positioned to price assets, explain risk, serve investors and scale new products without adding operational fragility.

That is where the market is heading.

The technology stack needs to move with it.

Message Ben for More Insights on WhatsApp: wa.me/447458149875

Or directly on +44 745 814 9875

Sources

• IMF, Global Financial Stability Report, April 2024: private credit size, borrower vulnerabilities, valuation opacity and data gaps.

• UK FCA, Private Market Valuation Practices review, March 2025: valuation governance, independence, transparency, consistency and ad hoc valuation process gaps.

• BlackRock 2025 Private Markets Outlook press release, December 2024: private markets growth estimates and private debt AUM.

• BCG, Capturing Wealth Management’s $3 Trillion Private Market Opportunity, March 2025: wealth-channel private markets opportunity and AUM growth estimate.

• Bloomberg, May 2026: Apollo daily-pricing plan and AMAPS-related private-credit market signal.