Monitor portfolio · PCT-034 · Sourced card · live demo
Evidence pack for Level 3 marks
A BDC valuation committee wants, for each loan marked below 95, the market evidence behind the mark before Q3 sign-off.
Today vs automated
- List Level 3 positionsAnalyst · manual
- Search peer 10-QsAnalyst · manual
- Write the memoPM · manual
- Email / meeting hand-offAnalyst → PM
- The quarter-end valuation cycle opensTrigger: starts on its own
- Pull peer marksAutomated · Document store
- Flag outliersAutomated · LLM
- Check the disclosuresAI draft, human review · Monitoring model
- The markApprove / override · PM
AutomatedAI draft, human reviewHuman onlyTools: Inbox / portal, Document store, LLM, Monitoring model, Loan system
Estimated valueestimate
100–1,480 analyst hours a year
$15k–$370k of time, vs an assumed $10k–$40k tool cost
Net: −$25k to $360k a year net of tool cost; at the low end of the assumptions it does not cover the tool cost.
Assumptions
- 2–4 analyst hours per position today; 0.3–1 hours with an agent, including review
- 100–400 positions a year for one team
- $150–250 per hour loaded cost
- Tool or build cost $10,000–40,000 a year (in-house)
Estimate, based on the assumptions shown; your numbers will differ. How we estimate
What else it can do for the team
- Draft the mark rationale paragraph
- Flag positions far from peer marks
- Assemble the valuation committee pack
- Track mark changes vs peers each quarter
- Support auditor requests with citations
How you get thereFour steps from prompting to an agentic workflow; most teams start at step 4.
Needs: an approved AI tool, a confidentiality policy.
Risk: unchecked answers, data pasted outside policy.
Needs: field definitions, a template, document parsing.
Risk: breaks silently when formats change.
Needs: inbox/doc-store access, system write-back, logging.
Risk: acting on a misread; needs review gates.
The automated lane above
Needs: shared data model, permissions, audit trail, exception queue.
Risk: errors compound across steps; needs monitoring.
Typical starting point
Solution optionsBuy (6 vendors listed), build or hybrid, with the trade-offs of each.
The LoanEdge, Chronograph, Cobalt, 73 Strings, Oxane Partners, WhaleBlue
Fastest start; you adapt to the product's data model and pricing.
An LLM API, a document parser, a vector or document store, your data warehouse, and a review queue.
Fits your definitions exactly; you own maintenance and controls.
Vendor extraction feeding your own checks, templates and systems.
Common middle path; two things to integrate and govern.
Listing is not endorsement.
What changes for the team2–4 h → 0.3–1 h per position (estimate); coverage goes from a sample of borrowers, quarterly to every borrower, every delivery.
Which other BDCs lend to this borrower? →
How it works
Full title: The SEC asked how you calibrate your marks. An agent builds the evidence pack for every Level 3 loan
“Your loan at 96, two other BDCs at 88 and 85. The SEC staff statement says you should be able to explain that.”
Scenario
Public: a BDC valuation committee wants, for each loan marked below 95, the market evidence behind the mark before Q3 sign-off.
What the human still decides
The mark. The agent assembles evidence and flags gaps. The valuation designee and committee decide what the fair value is, and why.
Why it matters
The SEC staff statement of 28 Sep 2026 reminds BDCs to calibrate models to transactions and current market evidence and warns against boilerplate Level 3 disclosure. WilmerHale notes it may inform Exams and Enforcement.
What the record shows
Checked 2026-10-15.
The SEC staff statement of 28 Sep 2026 asks for calibration to transactions and current market evidence and for disclosure of non-accrual, non-performing and PIK where material. The pressure point is software: per BlackRock citing Cliffwater, weighted first-lien software marks fell from near par at end-2025 to about 97% of cost in Q2 2026, while 68% of software borrowers grew LTM adjusted EBITDA (Lincoln data). The evidence pack has to explain marks moving without fundamentals.
Try it: prompt and data
For each holding below, list every other BDC holding the same borrower in the June 30, 2026 SOI data with cost, fair value and FV/cost, linked to each 10-Q. Flag where our FV/cost is more than 5 points above the median of other holders. Do not opine on the correct value.
Data
Public inputs only (SEC/EDGAR filings, published methodologies, public signals). Every figure is cited.
Who uses it, vendors and build
- Segments
- BDCs, Direct lending
- Who uses it
- Valuation team, Portfolio manager, CFO / fund finance
- Build
- Buildable in-house
- In-house
- Reuses this site's SOI pipeline. Estimate: 1 week, plus valuation-team review of the flag thresholds.
- Last verified
- 2026-10-15
Vendors that claim this capability
- The LoanEdge: fair-value-benchmarking
- 73 Strings: valuation
- Chronograph: valuation
- Cobalt: valuation
- Oxane Partners: valuation
- 1 more vendors claim related capabilities. See all vendors for this stage →
Tags reflect each vendor's own public claims at the linked page (checked 2026-10-15). Not tested, ranked or endorsed.
Sources and related
- SEC staff statement on fair value of private assets (28 Sep 2026)
- Alternative Credit Investor: BlackRock on software markdowns (9 Oct 2026)
- Main Street Capital pre-releases Q3 2026 results ranges and sets Nov 5–6 earnings schedule
- SEC staff statement on fair value of private assets puts private credit marks, PIK and non-accrual disclosure in focus
- 73 Strings acquires Callisto, a Paris AI firm that automates private-markets diligence and DDQ work
Next step
Get new walk-throughs
Not investment advice. Names marked SAMPLE are fictional. Found an error? See the corrections log.