Abstract Despite its large and increasing size in the United States and Europe, the private debt (PD) market, compared to the bank and syndicated loan markets, has been researched little. In this paper, we survey U.S. and European investors with private debt assets under management (AuM) of over $390 billion. These investors are primarily direct lending funds. We ask the general partners (GPs) how they source, select, and evaluate deals; how they think of private debt relative to bank and syndicated loan financing; how they monitor their investments; how they interact with private equity (PE) sponsors; and how they view the future of the market. Respondents provide primarily cash-flow-based loans and believe that they finance companies and leverage levels that banks would not fund. Direct lending funds target unlevered returns that appear high relative to their risk. They use leverage in their funds, but appreciably less than banks and collateralized loan obligation funds (CLOs). They use and negotiate for both financial and negative covenants to monitor their investments. The presence of PE sponsors helps them lend more and craft more effective covenants. U.S. and European funds are similar along many dimensions, but European funds rely less on PE sponsors and compete more with banks. Overall, the private debt market is both different from and shares characteristics with bank loan and syndicated loan markets. (JEL G23, G30, G32)

Impact investors pursue both financial and social goals and have become an important source of funding for social enterprises. Our study assesses impact investor criteria when screening social enterprises. Applying an experimental conjoint analysis to a sample of 179 impact investors, we find that the three most important criteria are the authenticity of the founding team, the importance of the societal problem targeted by the venture, and the venture's financial sustainability. We then compare the importance of these screening criteria across different types of impact investors (i.e., donors, equity investors, and debt investors). We find that donors pay more attention to the importance of the societal problem and less attention to financial sustainability than do equity and debt investors. Additionally, equity investors place a higher value on the large-scale implementation of the social project than do debt investors. We contribute to the nascent literature on impact investing by documenting how impact investors make investment decisions and by providing a nuanced view of different investor types active in this novel market. Practical implications exist for both impact investors and social enterprises.

We use an experimental conjoint analysis to investigate the investment criteria of 749 private equity investors, distinguishing between family offices, business angels, venture capital funds, growth equity funds, and leveraged buyout funds. Our results indicate that revenue growth is the most important investment criterion, followed by the value-added of product/service, the management team's track record, and profitability. Regarding differences across investor types, we find that family offices, growth equity funds, and leveraged buyout funds place a higher value on profitability as compared to business angels and venture capital funds. Venture capital funds, in turn, pay more attention to companies' revenue growth, business models, and current investors. With these results, our study contributes to the corporate finance literature by deepening our understanding of how different types of private equity investors make investment decisions.