Industry funds urge name veil on private credit disclosures

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor/Publisher, Financial Newswire

2 March 2026

Industry superannuation funds want disclosure requirements around private debt arrangements to mirror those which apply to derivatives.

The Super Members Council (SMC) has told the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that while it welcomes proposed relief around portfolio holdings disclosure and supports greater aggregation being appropriate, the regulator needs to go further in “addressing the legal, commercial and competitive risks associated with private credit disclosure.

“SMC continues to call for a more effective and long-term approach which would mirror the treatment adopted for derivatives,” it said. “This would remove borrower or counterparty names entirely for private credit assets and instead require aggregated disclosure supported by standardised, non‑identifying descriptors.”

“By doing this, ASIC can better achieve its objective of maintaining meaningful transparency without exposing commercially sensitive information or creating unintended harm to members’ long-term investment outcomes.

“This would better balance member transparency with the need to protect commercially sensitive information and avoid unintended harm to Australians’ super savings,” the SMC submission said.

It said that retaining issuer or counterparty names lessened the effectiveness of the relief as borrower-level exposures might still be identified in practice, particularly in concentrated private credit portfolios or those involving a small number of transactions.

“As a result, key confidentiality and commercial sensitivities remain at risk, with potential adverse consequences for members’ long‑term investments. Although the proposed changes do not fully resolve these issues, it is a step in the right direction,” the submission said.

The SMC said that while ASIC’s proposed instrument provides a workable and temporary relief measure until December 2030, ASIC should be progressing towards establishing a permanent legislative solution.

It said a more enduring approach should consider:

1. Remove issuer or counterparty names from private credit portfolio holdings disclosure.
2. Replace borrower identification with standardised, non‑identifying descriptors.
3. Broaden the scope of the relief beyond internally managed private debt.
4. Avoid embedding a narrow, asset‑specific solution within Schedule 8D.
5. Treat the proposed relief as interim and provide a pathway to permanent regulatory amendment.