Private Credit Titans Pitch New ‘Golden' Moment at Milken
Welcome to Going Private, Bloomberg's twice-weekly newsletter about private markets and the forces moving capital away from the public eye. Today, we look at how private credit managers are refining their pitch at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills. Plus, Bill Ackman's battle against his alma mater Harvard University. Read our day one newsletter here. If you're not already on our list, sign up here. Have feedback? Email us at goingprivate@bloomberg.net — Alicia Clanton, Isabella Farr and Silas Brown
Trump's economic policies and their potential impact on the private credit market remained front and center during day two of the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, where industry leaders traded theories on how lenders may benefit as companies seek more financing — and how less vigilant investors may get burned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Don't See This Crypto as a Risk? ‘You're Dumb,' According to Dave Ramsey
Personal finance expert Dave Ramsey says a sole investment in bitcoin without seeing the risk is a dumb idea. He might not be entirely off the mark, either. Explore More: Check Out: Bitcoin is fundamentally volatile, but less so than many large and popular stocks such as Netflix (NFLX). Bitcoins' realized volatility over a 90-day timeframe averaged 46%, while Netflix averaged 54%. However, while investors this year have been moving from gold to bitcoin, gold remains the better performer year-to-date — up 23.8%, according to Bloomberg — outperforming bitcoin and hitting a new all-time high earlier this year. From 2020 to 2024, bitcoin has been three to nearly four times as volatile as various equity indices, which is especially notable as 'equity indices are typically considered the riskiest part of modern traditional portfolios due to their historical volatility', according to Fidelity. Ramsey said he comes across young people who say they've invested everything they have in bitcoin and they don't have anything else. He equates it to the same deal as gambling in Vegas. 'If you chart bitcoin and you don't see risk, you're dumb,' he said on a recent podcast. 'It's all over the freakin' world and that tells you it's a highly volatile, short-term play and you're trying to ride this thing out.' Read Next: Ramsey added it's got the 'cool factor' because it's related to technology and people want in on it because it's a fad. He advised, however, that you just need to be comfortable with the amount of money you put into bitcoin and its potential loss, saying, 'Just be able to burn the amount of money you put in there, in the middle of the kitchen table, and not miss it.' More From GOBankingRates 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks This article originally appeared on Don't See This Crypto as a Risk? 'You're Dumb,' According to Dave Ramsey
Bloomberg
7 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Vance: If Elon Chilled Out, "Everything Would Be Fine"
In a podcast interview with Theo Von "This Past Weekend", Vice President JD Vance share his thoughts on Musk's exit from the Trump administration saying Musk "everything would be fine" if Musk chilled out a bit. (Source: Bloomberg)
