Barings BDC, Inc. (BBDC) Q3 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Barings BDC, Inc. Conference Call for the quarter ended September 30, 2026. [Operator Instructions] Today's call is being recorded, and a replay will be available approximately 2 hours after the conclusion of the call on the company's website under the Investor Relations section. Please note that this call may contain forward-looking statements that include statements regarding the company's goals, beliefs, strategies, future operating results and cash flows. Although the company believes these statements are reasonable, actual results could differ materially from those projected in forward-looking statements. These statements are based on various underlying assumptions and are subject to numerous uncertainties and risks, including those disclosed under the sections titled Risk Factors and Forward-Looking Statements in the company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2026, and in other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Barings BDC undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements unless required by law. I will now turn the call over to Tom McDonnell, Chief Executive Officer of Barings BDC.

Thanks, operator, and good morning, everyone. On the call today, I'm joined by Barings BDC's President and Co-Portfolio Manager, Matt Freund; and BBDC's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer, Elizabeth Murray. I will begin with a brief overview of the quarter and then frame how we are viewing the market. Matt will follow with a more detailed discussion of the private credit environment, and Elizabeth will walk through our financial results. Net asset value per share was $10.92 as of September 30, largely unchanged from $10.94 as of June 30. We remained active on the deployment front during the quarter. BBDC funded $196 million of investments, including 20 new portfolio companies, and had $146 million of sales and repayments, resulting in net portfolio growth of approximately $50 million. The investment portfolio increased to approximately $2.5 billion at fair value, and the weighted average yield on debt and other income-producing securities was 10.2%, flat compared to the prior quarter. All told, the combination of a largely stable NAV and the strength of the underlying earnings profile of the portfolio produced a strong quarter. During the quarter, we also continued to strengthen the balance sheet. Subsequent to quarter end, we addressed our November notes maturity ahead of schedule with a new CLO financing. Elizabeth will take you through the details, but I want to put it in context. Over the past several years, we have deliberately built a capital structure designed to hold up through a full cycle, a laddered maturity profile, access to multiple funding markets, and revolver capacity to support our borrowers and pipeline. With this transaction behind us, our team can stay focused on investing and portfolio management. Credit performance remains a key area of focus across the private credit market. For BBDC, nonaccruals increased modestly this quarter, but when excluding assets covered by the Sierra CSA, nonaccruals remained below 1% of the portfolio at fair value at 0.7%, and weighted average interest coverage remains healthy at 2.6x. We are actively managing each of these situations with a focus on maximizing recoveries. One of the themes we have emphasized this year has been our expectation of greater manager dispersion in private credit, and we believe that dispersion is now clearly underway. For several years, abundant capital and a benign credit backdrop allowed most managers to post similar results, masking meaningful differences in underwriting discipline. That is changing. As idiosyncratic credit issues surface and sponsors extend hold periods, differences in nonaccrual trends, NAV stability, dividend coverage, and recovery outcomes are becoming more visible across the industry, and we expect that gap to widen as the cycle matures. Manager selection, underwriting, portfolio construction, and workout experience matters. In our views, the managers who perform from here will be distinguished by a few things: the quality of underwriting and documentation at origination, the depth of sponsor relationships when portfolio companies need additional support, disciplined diversification and position sizing, and the experience and resources to work through stressed credits when they arise. These are not capabilities that can be built quickly in response to a turn in the cycle. Barings has invested through multiple credit cycles, and the credit metrics I just described reflect that approach. We believe investors will increasingly differentiate between managers on these factors and that BBDC will benefit from that scrutiny. With that overview, I will turn the call over to Matt to discuss the market backdrop and the BBDC portfolio in more detail.

Thanks, Tom. After a first half of 2026 marked by a heightened scrutiny of private credit, investors are coming back to direct lending. The reasons are simple, and they're the same ones that have drawn capital to the asset class for years: attractive income, diversification, and defensive characteristics. Capital formation across the Barings platform was strong in the third quarter. As BBDC shareholders know, we focus on the core of the middle market. We believe this segment is less competitive than the mega-cap segment that has drawn so much attention during the past few years. Pricing in our core area of focus continues to offer compelling relative value compared to other credit strategies. New investments in the third quarter carried a weighted average spread of 541 basis points, in line with 540 basis points on repayments. That momentum has continued in the fourth quarter. And since quarter end, we have closed and funded $73.6 million of new investments, almost entirely first lien at a weighted average yield of 9.1%. The scale of our existing portfolio and the breadth of our origination platform give us confidence that we can keep finding compelling risk-adjusted returns. The Barings Global Private Finance platform has deployed more capital year-to-date than it has at this point in 2025. Even so, buyout close rates are still near all-time lows as an uncertain macro backdrop keeps buyers cautious. Our pipeline is robust, but we expect the share of deals that close to stay low by historical standards. There is an upside to this dynamic. Slower deal activity also means slower repayments, which gives us a stable base of existing issuers. Our incumbent positions become a durable source of income and add-on opportunities. Like many in our industry, we are paying close attention to private equity hold periods and the rise of so-called zombie funds. In this environment, the quality of the sponsor matters more than ever. When an exit slips by 2 or 3 years, the outcome depends on whether the sponsor has capital, operating resources, and a willingness to keep supporting the company. It also depends on whether we have the kind of relationship that allows candid early conversations when plans change. Our portfolio is built around sponsors we have worked with through multiple cycles, and that history is often what separates a constructive amendment from a contentious workout. In many instances, extending maturities to align with the sponsor's extended hold horizon may create an optimal outcome for all parties, but that is not always the case. As we approach the maturity walls of 2028 and 2029, investors will be closely evaluating how lenders engage on these opportunities. Underlying all of this, our decisions at Barings start with capital preservation. Our portfolio continues to highlight why selectivity matters. Risk rating migration was modest this quarter. Investments rated 4 and 5, which is where we see the most stress, rose slightly to 7% of the portfolio from 6% last quarter. As Tom mentioned, weighted average interest coverage remains healthy at 2.6x. Nonaccruals ticked up modestly to 11 portfolio companies or 1.1% of the portfolio at fair value. Excluding nonaccrual assets acquired in the Sierra transaction, which are covered by a credit support agreement, nonaccruals were 0.7% at fair value. We don't want to minimize the work these underperforming positions require. We are actively managing each of them with a focus on maximizing recoveries, preserving optionality, and protecting shareholder value. AI remains a focus for our investors in every asset class. Early questions about direct lending centered on the stress and volatility AI could create for existing borrowers. As we've said before, our internal analysis and discussions with industry experts show that BBDC's portfolio has very limited direct exposure to AI disruption. The longer-term effects on every industry are still unclear, but we are comfortable with the direct AI exposure in our current issuer base. More recently, investors have asked whether we would pursue AI-related investments such as neocloud issuers, ABS chip financing, and data center real estate within the context of BBDC. To be clear, we do not believe that these strategies fit within BBDC's expected guidelines. BBDC exists to provide corporate credit exposure to middle market companies, and the opportunity within that mandate is enormous. There are certainly attractive investments in the AI ecosystem, but investors should not look to BBDC for that risk profile. To sum up, credit requires active management, and we remain focused on a small number of specific situations. Overall, the portfolio is diversified, senior secured, floating rate, and positioned to generate attractive current income. And with that, I will turn the call over to Elizabeth.

Thanks, Matt. As Tom mentioned, the third quarter was a steady one. And subsequent to quarter end, we took a significant step in our liability management strategy with the pricing of a $400 million CLO financing, which I will cover in some detail. I'll begin with our financial results and key balance sheet metrics for the third quarter. Turning first to our results. NAV per share at September 30 was $10.92 compared to $10.94 at June 30. The modest decline was driven by net realized losses of approximately $0.05, partially offset by net unrealized appreciation of approximately $0.02 per share, while NII fully covered the dividend. Net investment income was $27.2 million or $0.26 per share compared to $0.28 last quarter. The decrease was primarily due to lower dividend income from certain equity positions that made elevated distributions in the second quarter and an increase in the income-based incentive fee. NII of $0.26 per share covered our third quarter dividend of $0.26 per share, and year-to-date NII has fully covered our dividend. We continue to maintain undistributed taxable spillover income of approximately $0.80 per share, and our Board declared a fourth quarter dividend of $0.26 per share, unchanged from the prior quarter. Looking ahead, we believe the dividend remains well supported. Our predominantly floating rate portfolio benefits from the recent rise in base rates, which we expect to help offset the higher cost of refinancing our 3.3% notes. Together with our spillover income, we believe we are well positioned to maintain this $0.26 quarterly dividend. We'll continue to evaluate dividend levels as conditions evolve. Moving to portfolio valuations and realized activity. Net realized losses for the quarter are primarily associated with the exits of Bariacum and Biolam, and were largely offset by the reversal of previously recorded unrealized depreciation. Net unrealized appreciation reflects gains in our foreign currency positions and hedges, which more than offset modest net depreciation on the portfolio, including markdowns on a small number of names. Turning now to the CLO financing that Tom mentioned. As many investors are focused on, our $350 million of 3.3% unsecured notes mature on November 23. On October 30, we priced a $400 million CLO financing, which we intend to use to fund the repayment of those notes at maturity. The CLO is expected to close mid-November, and the floating rate notes carry a weighted average interest rate of SOFR plus 1.64%. Strategically, the transaction removes our largest near-term refinancing risk ahead of maturity, adds long-dated floating rate funding that is well matched to our 93% floating rate portfolio, diversifies our funding base, and preserves revolver capacity for new investments and unfunded commitments. Because the 3.3% notes were issued in a very different rate environment, any refinancing will carry a higher cost. We believe the CLO is attractive relative to the alternatives available today. Turning to the balance sheet. We ended the quarter with net leverage, which is defined as regulatory leverage, net of unrestricted cash and net unsettled transactions of 1.24x, up from 1.18x at June 30, driven by net portfolio growth during the quarter as we funded $196 million of investments against the $146 million of repayments and sales. Leverage remains within our target range of 0.90x to 1.25x. We were comfortable operating toward the upper end of the range this quarter given the attractive investment opportunities we were seeing and because we had visibility into a repayment pipeline that we expected to be weighted toward year-end. Looking ahead, we expect leverage to move back toward the middle of our target range by year-end, driven by anticipated sales of portfolio investments to our joint venture with Jocassee and expected repayments. Approximately 77% of our debt was unsecured at quarter end. That percentage will decline as we address our maturities to approximately 53% pro forma for the CLO. We believe that trade-off is the right one. And following the refinancing, our next maturity will not be until November 2027. In closing, the third quarter delivered stable earnings and NAV. And with the pricing of our CLO, we have addressed our November maturity while further diversifying our funding sources. We believe our balance sheet is well positioned as we head into 2027. And with that, I'll turn the call back to the operator for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question today is coming from Robert Dodd from Raymond James.

Congrats on the quarter. A couple of questions not really related to quarter, but kind of topics you brought up. Matt said that sometimes it makes sense to extend the maturity on an outstanding loan to match up to the expected kind of exit for a sponsor, which makes a lot of sense, right? You don't want to extend beyond the sponsor's fund life necessarily or be sure. I mean, how would you characterize the portfolio maturities today versus the expected sponsor fund lives, Because that also kind of ties in with one of your comments, Tom, the strength of the sponsor relationship and do they actually have the capital to support a business if it has issues. I mean, it's all that together in the same kind of concept of where are you relative to the equity holder in the positions, just expected life in the portfolio. That was a bit of a rambling question.

Yes. Robert, thanks for the question. I appreciate you dialing in this morning. And so I think that you're touching on a theme that is very top of mind for us as we evaluate any request to modify the duration of an existing position. And so maybe let me just offer a couple of statistics for you to reinforce how we're thinking about that. And so within the BBDC portfolio, approximately 8% of the underlying investments have a stated maturity in 2027. The largest one is actually an affiliate in Security Holdings. And so obviously, we have a lot of control over that structure itself. And then as we tick through the other handful, we have reasons to believe that either sale processes are underway and/or the sponsors are looking on refinancing options where we've declined to provide incremental flexibility. And so it's something that is incredibly important for us as we think about managing the duration in the book as well as candidly working towards a credit risk profile that we think is appropriate for our underlying LPs. And as part of that evaluation, the underlying fund life, the sponsor characteristics, where the sponsors are in their fundraising capacities, all inform the degree of receptivity that we have whenever these kinds of requests are making their way through our respective committees.

Got it. That's very helpful. Another one also kind of related to a comment made rather than the actual quarter. On the diversification side, obviously, the BBDC portfolio is not generally the control investor. That doesn't mean Barings systems though, right? So could you give us any color -- I mean, obviously, as you point out, credit trends are kind of, I think, going to be the key diversifier over the next several years, and being in control of a process, or at the very least being at the top table on a process can have a significant influence on an outcome there. So what proportion of the portfolio today, and I probably knew this 2 years ago, but what proportion of the portfolio today are you Barings, not necessarily BBDC, the control investor or control lender in a position?

Yes, Robert. Yes, roughly 90% of our investments were either the lead or co-lead. And you're exactly right, being in that position does allow us to, in effect, somewhat control the outcome and help us inform decisions as to whether or not we want to extend the runway for the sponsor, et cetera. So I think that, again, that's extremely important as we work through some of these situations, and certainly being in that position gives us, like I said, that element of control, which we think is really important as we move forward.

Next question today is coming from Finian O'Shea from Wells Fargo.

I wanted to ask about Eclipse. It's been several, 5 to 10 or so years, I think, since you bought it from another private equity firm, just seeing where that sort of is in its sort of half-life under your stewardship? Is it something you continue to seek to grow over the long term or maybe move out of?

Yes. Fin, great question. I appreciate you dialing in this morning. So the reason that Eclipse exists within this portfolio is to provide a combination of compelling kind of risk-adjusted return to the underlying shareholders, but also to provide a little bit of countercyclical exposure in the context of cash flow lending. It's long been our belief that asset-based strategies are likely to outperform if and when broad-based cash flow strategies experience a little bit of a wobble. And we have seen that in origination pipelines of the respective business units over the course of the past couple of years, where whenever we start to experience periods of economic volatility, Eclipse has really attractive opportunities for deployment. And perhaps interestingly, we're on the precipice of one of those periods now based on recent conversations we've had with the management team there. In terms of our expected hold horizon, it's an asset that we have long badged as being willing and able to hold into perpetuity. I do think that over periods of time, different shareholder expectations may evolve and different return expectations on a forward basis may change. But as we sit here today in October of 2026, we don't have any change of our plans with respect to the ownership structure as it exists.

Yes. Fin, I would just say, we don't expect our investment there to increase in size. So it's going to be a sizable position here. But again, it's been one that's been a great performer for us, but not one we intend on increasing exposure in BBDC with.

Okay. Great. Can you guys update us on your spillover?

Yes, Fin. So the spillover this quarter is about $0.80. And I anticipate that will likely decrease as we head into the year-end. But we feel comfortable with where it is. And it's something that we monitor, but we feel comfortable with where it is and comfortable with where our dividend is at this point.

How will it decrease?

There's just some various book-to-tax differences relative to our 2025 return that will flow through in the fourth quarter.

Our next question is coming from Jason Stewart from Compass Point.

In terms of leverage and portfolio repayment activity, I guess just one, if you could clarify, I get about $0.01 of fee income from repayments in the third quarter, if that seems right to you, if you could just clarify that. And then is it your expectation that repayment activity is going to stay somewhat elevated in the fourth quarter? Or do you see opportunities for back leverage to bring leverage down?

Yes. No. So I think, yes, we do expect repayments in the fourth quarter to be basically flat at this point. So we did run leverage a little higher in the third quarter, as you can see there. That was done on purpose with visibility towards a flattish repayment. We also, as you know, have the ability to sell loans down to Jocassee. We did not do that in the third quarter. We anticipate likely doing that in the fourth quarter. So as we've stated our target leverage, we look to bring that down probably to the 1.15x, 1.16x as we move through the fourth quarter, something very similar that we did last year at this time as well.

Okay. And then just looking at spreads on new investments versus repayments, we were basically flat this quarter. Any thoughts on where that's trending into the end of the year?

Yes. I think that if we look at the trend in spreads over the course of the past 6 quarters, there was certainly an opportunity for more spread in Q1 and Q2 in light of broader private credit volatility. And I would say that, that has started to normalize in Q3. Our base case at this point is going to be that spread levels look very similar in Q4 as they did this particular quarter. But I would acknowledge that it wouldn't surprise me if a limited amount of LBO activity increases a bit of competition, and we could see a little bit of a narrowing of spreads as we move into the end of the year and the beginning of 2027. But very few data points to evidence that at this stage.

Next question is coming from Derek Hewett from Bank of America.

So PIK increased to 10% of revenue from a little over 7% last quarter. Could you provide any additional color on that movement? And then just overall, what percentage of PIK revenue was built into the original underwrite versus amendment PIK?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Derek. Yes. And so really, that for us really results from one investment called Policy Services. It's a nonstandard auto insurer investment that we have. And really, the market for that is primarily based in Florida. So just seeing a real softening in the rates that they charge on their insurance policies. It's really had an impact on the company's revenue and EBITDA line items. And we made the decision to allow them to PIK interest for that third quarter in an effort to preserve liquidity and evaluate some of our options there. So we thought that was the prudent thing to do. I will note that, that company in that market has a 40-year history of having balance of volatility, if you will. And so quite a cyclical industry. And we do believe, ultimately, we feel like we bottomed out in terms of rate, and win rate and buying rate there, and we do believe ultimately that, that will come back. But we thought it would be the prudent thing to do to have that go on PIK for the quarter as we evaluate our options. And then in terms of your question on, I think you're probably referring to whether good PIK, bad PIK, overall the portfolio. Roughly 60% of the PIK in that line item is that which was structured at origination. And I would say 40% of that line item will be things we've had to do in terms of working with some of our investments that have had credit issues. And so call that kind of a 60-40 split between good and bad PIK.

Okay. And in terms of my follow-up, could you provide additional color on the dividend sustainability just given that you're going to have some headwinds from a funding cost perspective as those low-cost bonds get refinanced? And then also in your analysis, are you assuming any additional movements in SOFR?

Yes. So Derek, it's a great question. It's something that we're spending a lot of time on currently with our modeling. And yes, good point, top of mind for me is the fact that our funding costs do increase because we're moving from a 3.3% fixed to closer to SOFR 1.64%. The other thing that we're taking into account that both Matt and Tom have discussed in the past is the fact that we're in the process and looking to exit Security Holdings likely in the first quarter of 2027. And that currently is a big equity position that really doesn't generate any income-producing -- it's not really income-producing. And so as we're able to turn around and invest that into income-producing assets, that should help offset the higher funding cost. At the same time, if there are credit issues of any kind in the future, that could impact the dividend. At this point, we don't anticipate that. But if there are any, and to your point, we do believe the uplift and where rates are going could have a positive impact. I say all this that if, for whatever reason, there are credit issues, we will decrease the dividend if we have to. We will not eat into NAV just to preserve a dividend.

We've reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over to Tom for any further or closing comments.

All right. Thank you, operator, and thank you to everyone for joining us today. This was a quarter in which we earned our dividend, kept NAV stable, and addressed our largest debt maturity ahead of schedule. We believe the dispersion emerging across private credit will increasingly reward disciplined managers, and we intend to be one of them. We look forward to updating you next quarter.

Thank you. That does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your line at this time, and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.