In this new feature, Charlie Perer sits with commercial finance industry participants to discuss the state of the ABL industry and general market dynamics. Through candid conversations with these industry leaders across lending, turnaround advisory, and capital raising, this feature offers valuable insights into their perspectives, strategies, and how they are positioning their businesses for success. Participating in this discussion are:
Jonathan Zucker, Managing Director and Head of Capital Advisory at Intrepid Investment Bankers
James Garlick, Head of Corporate Finance at Wingspire Capital
Bobby Bans, Managing Director and Western Region Originations Manager at Wells Fargo Capital Finance
Dan Fishman, Managing Director at Riveron Restructuring & Turnaround Services
Charlie Perer: Please briefly introduce yourselves.
Jonathan Zucker: Thanks, Charlie. It is great to be a part of this group. As Head of Capital Advisory at Intrepid, I advise sponsor-backed and non-sponsored businesses on raising capital for growth, refinancings, acquisition, and dividend recapitalizations. My team and I raise capital across the capital structure from bank and non-bank sources and we specialize in deals with substantial complexity. There is often extreme urgency to our transactions, whether for good (i.e., acquisition that needs to close fast) or challenging (e.g., the bank wants out now) reasons.
Bobby Bans:I have spent most of my career in commercial lending both in cash flow and asset-based lending (ABL). Over the years, I have held functional roles in portfolio management, commercial banking relationship manager, underwriting and business development. Today, as the western region originations manager with Wells Fargo Capital Finance, I am proud to lead a team responsible for originating, structuring and executing ABL transactions in a twelve state region.
James Garlick: I am Co-founder and Head of Wingspire Corporate Finance. The business unit that I help lead is responsible for corporate transactions that range in size from $20 – $200 million, and where borrowers (or other lenders in the capital stack) would benefit from ABL Revolvers and Term Loans, First-Out Revolvers and Term Loans, Specialty Finance (or Lender Finance), as well as Healthcare Finance products.
Dan Fishman: Thanks for having me on the panel. I am a managing director with Riveron in our Restructuring & Turnaround group in Chicago. For about 10 years now I’ve been with Riveron, which acquired Conway MacKenzie. In my role, I work with companies, their stakeholders and other professionals—like those on this panel—through periods of distress, underperformance or transition.
Perer: How would you describe the current market environment through the lens of your own business?
Garlick: A combination of (i) highly competitive, (ii) a lot of uncertainty, and (iii) strong potential for growth.
Zucker: I am seeing a bifurcated market. We have well-performing businesses looking to access debt opportunistically, for example, to fund attractively valued acquisitions or dividend recaps. These include clients in less cyclical spaces such as utility services and healthcare. On the other hand, we see a lot of companies in more consumer discretionary businesses that are highly levered with bank debt and seeking an alternative solution.
Fishman: We’re in a unique and complex environment coming out of COVID and dealing with some of the fall-out from the pandemic. Interest rates remain high and, depending on who you speak with, could remain stubbornly high for an extended period. I think another key theme that we’re seeing in this environment is that the pandemic-fueled growth in many industries and across many businesses has subsided, yet companies have been slow to react to right-size the cost structure. Businesses that took on incremental debt to grow and expand to meet higher volumes during COVID are now facing the reality that the increase in demand may have been short lived. Private equity sponsors that have held portfolio companies through COVID with fatigued lenders are now facing pressure to exit in a higher interest rate and a stricter capital underwriting environment. Lastly, certain industries (retail and CPG for example) are also facing a direct threat from new Chinese tariffs. We’ve already seen US-based companies exit their manufacturing operations in China for countries like Vietnam. This will undoubtedly have a disruptive impact on global supply chains.
Bans: Although 2024 was a challenging year given the broader economy, we were prepared and took it in stride. The overall amount of market activity was slow over the first half of the year, as companies evaluated market trends, overall macro-economic dynamics and the ongoing uncertainty in the economy. We did see market activity tick up – particularly late in the year – and believe this increased momentum will continue into 2025.
Perer: Entering Q1 2025, where is deal flow both in terms of quality and quantity compared to this time last year?
Bans: With unprecedented levels of capital available, we believe 2025 will see significantly higher M&A activity resulting in higher financing volume. We saw transaction volume increase in the second half of 2024 with middle-market companies and private equity firms accelerating buy and sell side activity.
Garlick: Deal flow has been meaningfully better, both in terms of quality and volume, entering Q1 2025 compared to Q1 2024 and it’s not comparable for Wingspire.
Zucker: I would say it is slightly higher in both regards. Entering Q1 2024, it felt like many companies were sitting on the sidelines due to various factors that have since been addressed in one way or another, including election uncertainty and the rate environment. Unless they were being forced to transact, business owners were largely sitting tight. Now, with generational issues on the family-owned business side, and the DPI needs of private equity, among other factors, it seems like more folks are looking to make some sort of transactions happen in 2025.
Fishman: Deal flow picked up for our group in the back half of last year and continues to remain strong heading into Q1 2025. A big driver of this is that it seems that credit markets have tightened, requiring businesses and their stakeholders to address the underlying causes of underperformance rather than solely implement a capital structure solution. I’d also add that our interim management mandates (interim CFO, CEO, etc.) have picked up from this time last year, which could be viewed as a leading indicator of increased activity across the broader restructuring industry. Everyone is looking for management talent right now, both interim and permanent, especially those businesses in the middle market. We are helping businesses execute strategic objectives including top line or gross margin enhancement (looking at the pricing and customer mix), cost takeout and business rightsizing, and shedding non-core operations to help restore profitability and cash flow. We are seeing an increase in calls from lenders (both banks and private credit) to understand options and strategic alternatives as pre-COVID and COVID credits reach their maturities.
Perer: Can you compare and contrast the 2024 credit environment to where we are starting 2025?
Zucker: Based on our live mandates, I would say we are starting 2025 with a more constructive credit environment. Spreads have tightened, leverage availability on the cash flow lending side is up, and we are seeing ABL players push the boundaries on structure.
Garlick: There are a lot of similarities when comparing the 2H 2024 to now, however, the 1H 2024 to now is different. For Wingspire, the biggest difference is the increase in deal flow. Generally speaking, ABL is a transactional product, particularly for the non-bank ABL market. And when deal flow slows down like we saw during the 1H 2024, a ‘feeding frenzy’, or as others like to put it, ‘a race to the bottom’ on decent deals begins to take place by the bank and non-bank ABL markets. In contrast from then to now, the deal flow these past several months has been robust, and we are winning several stronger credits on terms and structure that we were not seeing during the 1H 2024.
Bans: I believe we saw the markets normalize in 2024, including a trend towards credit discipline. As we kick off 2025, I feel a sense of optimism in the markets and a focus on returning to growth.
Fishman: From my viewpoint as a turnaround consultant, the credit markets continue to tighten year over year. There are still pockets of liquidity available, but it’s much more difficult to locate and requires a robust and extended process. Deals that are getting funded have a clear and executable turnaround plan in place, are in a favored industry, and often require some owner equity or equity-like instrument in the capital structure to help get a deal over the finish line.
Perer: How do any lessons learned inform your decision making starting 2025?
Zucker: While the market is constructive for borrowers, the level of diligence – internal and third-party –and overall scrutiny from lenders remains very high. Therefore, going to market with as accurate a package (CIM, projection model, A/R and A/P agings, and fixed asset details) as possible is critical to maintain credibility throughout the process and avoid a broken deal. We are increasingly front-loading work, including sell-side Quality of Earnings and/or asset valuations prior to market launch, that historically had been reserved for confirmatory diligence once under exclusivity with a lender.
Garlick: For me, some of the biggest lessons learned are: first, never take anything for granted, secondly, always understand that we cannot control, nor are we able to time the market or behaviors in the industry. And lastly, the leadership teams need to pay close attention to their employees, making sure they are all continuing to support each other while also continuing to work relentlessly to deliver on our promise to our customers. Because if we do all of that, then I can assure our teams that we will be successful.
Fishman: Each client engagement provides its own unique set of circumstances, which lends itself to a productive post-mortem. I think the biggest takeaway from this past year has been the importance to simultaneously march down parallel paths (turnaround, refinance, sell) earlier in the process to maximize value for all stakeholders involved. There is a lot of uncertainty in the overall economy, and the optionality to execute across multiple paths is critical to the success of distressed situations in this environment.
Bans: This is a dynamic industry, so we constantly apply ‘lessons learned’ in how we serve our customers and prospects. We believe that balance and experience – whether it’s industry sector knowledge, structuring acumen or market intelligence – is what resonates with our customers as we partner with them on financing opportunities. It’s also about making sure you are constantly present by calling, calling and more calling! For 2025, my team is focused on staying in front of our prospects and referral sources. Whether it’s a call, coffee meeting or lunch, it is so important to be top of mind with our referral sources.
Perer: Do you anticipate more new deal activity from the sponsor universe or bank transitions/exits?
Garlick: Sponsor activity. I believe where sponsors are with their funds, and with interest rates having stabilized, the banks and cash flow lenders should see an uptick in M&A. I hope that non-bank ABL will benefit as well, but my gut tells me the uptick in sponsor activity that we will end up seeing in 2025 will come from div/recaps less than M&A. But it would be great if we could be a large part of M&A as well if there is an uptick.
Zucker: Yes to both. We have heavily ramped up our efforts supporting financial sponsors who are increasingly outsourcing debt advisory so they can focus on deal origination and execution. This spans regular-way acquisition facilities to complex refinancings to structured junior capital solutions. On the bank transition side, we have seen a decrease in patience among banks regarding challenging credits; the special assets teams are busy and motivated to reduce exposure to non-compliant businesses. As a result, we expect to continue to see new deal activity from this channel.
Bans: We expect more activity from both because we have made significant investment hires in our Commercial Bank and in covering sponsors, and the increased activity in the market should be a tailwind to continue to expand our share.
Fishman: This is a great question. I hope this isn’t a cop-out, but my answer is “both,” but the sponsor activity is oftentimes tied to the broader lender activity. We’ve seen increased activity from sponsors to help get ahead of any potential liquidity issues or covenant issues, and help portfolio companies quickly and efficiently create detailed business plans to provide clearer insight into profitability, performance and liquidity, which in turn helps the sponsor make better informed decisions around capital requirements, lender negotiations, etc. We’ve also seen a sharp increase in our interim management engagements (for both distressed and non-distressed businesses), mainly from sponsor-backed businesses. This is directly related to the ongoing talent gap amongst executive level finance and accounting personnel in the middle market. On the lender side, we have seen an increase in calls to understand strategic options and exit opportunities as lenders face loan maturities and continued underperformance from their borrowers. Similar to the sponsor community, lenders are trying to get ahead of any credit or liquidity concerns.
Perer: Is the narrative surrounding private credit rapidly taking bank market share true or over-stated?
Zucker: In our deal size sweet spot of $50 to $100 million, we tend to agree with this narrative. As I mentioned, we are usually under significant time pressure to close our transactions. Accordingly, even when a client may be a candidate for lower interest rate bank financing, we often end up in the non-bank universe under the age-old mantra of “speed and certainty of closing.” This is particularly valid when we are arranging acquisition financing for financial sponsors operating on short exclusivity timelines. Private credit funds are sitting on hundreds of billions in dry powder and are primarily loan-motivated, whereas banks may have different priorities at different times, including focusing on non-risk lines of business (i.e., deposits, currency hedging, and other ancillary services).
Garlick: Over-stated for asset-based lending (excluding the specialty/lender finance market). I would argue that the banks have been finding ways to take market share from the non-bank ABL lenders (more than non-bank ABLs taking market share from the bank ABL market), at least on larger transactions that have decent availability and are showing signs of turning around. We have too many examples of deals that we lost to a bank where we were left scratching our head and asking ourselves: “How are they able do that as a regulated institution again?”
Fishman: I think that this narrative was true during the past few years; however, it doesn’t appear to hold as much weight today. I’m also not sure you can paint a broad-brush response to this question. I think there are certain banks that are still aggressive in the market and certain private credit participants that have pulled back. It remains very much a case-by-case (or lending-institution-by-lending-institution) situation. We are seeing some national money center banks aggressively attacking the middle market, and we are seeing some private credit institutions become more conservative. All of this goes to support the need for a broad and wide process when raising capital in today’s environment.
Perer: Where will the market be five years from now given the amount of new private credit funds entering the market?
Garlick: I would love to hear the answer/opinion from so many different bank and non-bank leaders out there because there are so many paths that you could this response. From a non-bank perspective, I believe more banks will find ways to form joint ventures with the non-banks. Additionally, you will see more and more insurance companies and large, strategic asset managers make a bigger play in building or acquiring non-banks platforms. What’s uncertain is measuring the impact of AI within our industry, but I am confident that we would be naïve to believe that it won’t be implemented by several of us, someway somehow, over the next several years.
Fishman: Just like any industry that experiences rapid growth and a rush of new participants, I’m certain that there will be winners and losers within private credit. Overall, I do think that the industry will continue to grow, expand, and reinvent itself with new and unique products. Having dealt with distressed and liquidity challenged businesses for most of my career, I can tell you with great confidence that we will explore any and all options available to unlock incremental liquidity.
Zucker: The only certainty is that it will look a lot different! I anticipate more new entrants as well as more consolidation. We are seeing massive M&A already, with recent deals like Blue Owl’s acquisition of Atalaya and Blackstone’s announced, pending acquisition of HPS.
Perer: How would you define a bank versus non-bank First-out ABL structure, and aside from price, what’s the difference between the two?
Bans: When it comes to ABL, most bank ABLs are focused on “cleaner” opportunities. What we have seen with the non-bank ABLs is the flexibility to finance companies in distress with FCCR less than 1.0x, as long as there is sufficient liquidity (either cash on the balance sheet and/or availability under the revolver) to cover the “cash burn” for a specific period of time. Bank ABLs will evaluate the more distressed situations with a keen focus on ensuing that the business plan is attainable, the collateral is bullet-proof, the liquidity is sufficient, and the management team/ownership is capable of managing and executing the turnaround plan.
Zucker: In my experience, the structures are quite similar. The main difference I see tends to be the increased flexibility provided by non-bank first-out players relative to commercial banks.
Fishman: It comes down to flexibility. Given the regulatory environment of banks, they can’t offer the flexibility that non-banks can offer. And, in many instances for a distressed or underperforming borrower, that flexibility justifies the higher cost of capital.
Perer: How do lenders find blue ocean in a world of increasing competition and an increasingly efficient capital markets system?
Garlick: Continuously invest in the best people with the brightest, most creative minds, and have an open-door policy as part of your culture that encourages everyone to share their ideas/opinions. And most importantly, you and your leadership team should take the time to listen to those opinions. Then, try to measure what the market opportunity could be by leveraging those ideas. You can’t implement every idea, but you need to find ways to explore and implement the ones your team believes in the most and then put the ideas into action. And finally, you should highlight these team members who came forward with their ideas and give them recognition in front of their colleagues because they deserve it, and hopefully that fuels more employees to continue coming forward with more ideas.
Zucker: Make things easier for borrowers, both on the way in and during the hold period. We have seen lenders find success by offering multiple or hybrid products that reduce the need for multi-party solutions. For example, ABL lenders providing stretch, true cash flow term loans in house, or unitranche cash flow lenders providing preferred and/or common equity, to account for nearly all of the third-party capital in an independent sponsor transaction.
Fishman: I won’t overcomplicate this answer. Working on the company side, our clients care most about liquidity, cost, covenants and flexibility. To the extent lenders can differentiate themselves across one of those points, it will go a long way. Also, given the tougher credit environment today compared to prior years, lenders that can get comfortable with businesses that are in the process of turning will separate themselves from the pack. We’ve seen some lenders do extended diligence to underwrite these turnaround scenarios.
Bans: First and foremost, we all need to understand that we are in the relationship business, therefore differentiating your organization based upon the people, products and service, is the only way to succeed. Armed with those items, we must then go to market as one bank and demonstrate that we can deliver whatever our clients need leading to growth.
Perer: Have banks finally shifted to a risk-off mode that should benefit the ABL market?
Zucker: I think this is case-specific, bank-specific, and industry specific. That is why we are constantly keeping tabs on so many banks – their priorities and appetites change all the time.
Garlick: If this is true, then it’s not in the markets that Wingspire competes in. There are significantly more banks than non-banks overall, and it only takes one of these banks to show up and closely match our structure. At that point, the prospect compares the cost of capital and overall liquidity being created, and more often than not, they want to see their bank options playout too in order to determine how ‘real’ their offer is.
Fishman: From what we’ve seen, the most noticeable shift in the credit markets has come from enterprise value (EV) underwriting, with additional scrutiny around add-backs and a reduction in the leverage that EV lenders are comfortable with (the latter of which isn’t surprising given the higher interest rates and cash requirements to service the debt). I would expect that this change benefits the ABL market.
Bans: I can often be heard saying that we are all salespeople, regardless of the functional role in originations, underwriting, portfolio, field exam, etc. Conversely, we are also all credit and risk officers, as we work for a large bank. While the goal is to grow, we only do so in a responsible way.
Perer: Has the approach to workouts changed as large-ticket ABL has migrated to an enterprise value product in many cases?
Zucker: We are almost always tasked to explore multiple solutions and structures for clients in workout. So, our approach has not changed too much, but the migration you reference has been a net positive in some situations and a negative in others.
Garlick: Any time that we are evaluating a situation that would entail us providing a term loan that goes beyond the working capital assets, one of the first questions we challenge ourselves with is what the true workout would look like if the business fails to perform. Not just for deals where we may provide a cash flow or IP term loan in conjunction with the revolver, but also when we are lending on M&E and real estate. I don’t know if our behavior has changed based on the types of structures we are looking at. Instead, the biggest change is the third-party costs once these deals go into restructuring or need to file bankruptcy. Third-party costs have skyrocketed over the past few years, and they are absorbing so much of the liquidity that’s essential to these borrowers having success on the other side of the restructuring. In the past, you could execute a structure that had a 10 to 12.5% availability block with the idea that the block will generally cover the third-party costs and help create a buffer on your recovery. I don’t know how true that is anymore with how much these third parties are charging the borrowers.
Fishman: I don’t think the underlying analysis that lenders require to make informed decisions has changed. Lenders still need to understand the strategic alternatives available to them in a work-out scenario. The answer to this question really depends on the collateral available to that lender in each specific circumstance. A lender with an EV loan that’s wildly undercollateralized and who is almost entirely relying on the cash flows of the business for recovery will have a different approach than a lender with an EV loan that’s covered by the assets (or an ABL lender that’s comfortably within the assets). If there is one specific thing to point to, it’s that we are seeing a lot more “test-the-market approaches” to see if a sale or refinance can support the workout.
Bans: Not for Wells Fargo. The mindset is still to serve as advisors to our clients, offering support and guidance, while highlighting the importance of relationships.
Perer: Is there enough supply to meet the pent-up finco demand, especially given there are more new entrants?
Zucker: When I read the press, it seems like the answer is “no.” However, when I talk to lenders, the majority of them have extremely full pipelines, implying a different answer. The real question is whether this abundance of supply is true “qualifying” supply, or if the majority of it is noise and the true supply of deals the fincos can actually transact upon is limited.
Garlick: There is no question that new entrants make it more difficult to sustain prudent growth. But I do believe the best firms in the industry will continue to find ways to evolve and expand the supply of opportunities available to them.
Fishman: I’m always surprised that we still see some new clients who haven’t previously considered the finco market. There’s definitely untapped potential for fincos to go after those “diamonds in the rough!”
Perer: Where are we in this market cycle?
Zucker: It feels like we are early to mid-cycle, as I am looking at 2023 as the start of the current cycle, where lenders started ramping up aggressiveness and lowering spreads.
Garlick: I think it’s too difficult to determine where we are in the cycle right now, and a major reason is the new administration that’s coming in. What’s going to happen with tariffs? With China? How will these changes impact the dollar, inflation and interest rates? And how many companies are prepared for whatever changes are looming ahead? Additionally, we are all expecting less regulation and a more pro-business environment that should spur an increase in M&A. All of that uncertainty gives every one of us a lot to think about and plan for, especially while we evaluate new business opportunities as well as ongoing portfolio activity/requests.
Fishman: I wish I had the crystal ball to tell me this answer. From everything we’re seeing and hearing from our trusted network and partners, it seems like we’re in for a steady increase in restructuring activity through FY 2025, and our group is prepared internally for that increase in activity. Our team of professionals continues to monitor the market closely and is poised to respond quickly, helping companies and stakeholders simplify complexities and navigate distress.
Bans: While we could delve into topics like interest rates, politics, trade wars, or the current economic environment, the truth is that, as an originator, the market cycle doesn't define us—it works in our favor regardless. In the 1990s, ABL was often seen as a last-resort option, sometimes perceived as a punitive form of credit. However, over time, ABL has evolved into a sophisticated financial product. During challenging times, our products and expertise are tailored to address turnaround and distressed financing situations. In better times, we're actively engaged in financing growth and acquisition opportunities for businesses. The resilience and flexibility of ABL were demonstrated during both the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. These events underscored ABL as a reliable financing solution to navigate the ups and downs of the market cycle. As the economy reopened post-shutdowns, businesses leveraged ABL credit facilities to adapt to surging customer demand and growth.
Perer: What are the primary market drivers your team focuses on most?
Zucker: We start with the macro – how does equity view the particular industry and business model – and then go from there. Even if we are raising debt, lenders want to understand enterprise value, equity cushion, and demand drivers for a potential borrower.
Bans: While we stay attentive to broader market trends, our primary focus remains on understanding and addressing the specific needs of businesses at any given time. For instance, back in 2014, I worked with a private equity firm to finance their acquisition of a target in the auto sector using a $75 million ABL alongside a $450 million Term B loan. During the Term B credit committee discussions, concerns about a potential recession were prevalent. One committee member even likened the situation to being in the "8th inning of a baseball game," fearing imminent economic decline. However, as it turned out, there was no recession, and the company thrived for many years thereafter.
Fishman:We tend to focus on both macroeconomic and industry-specific drivers. For example, our Automotive and Industrials team has a specific set of KPIs that they regularly review to get a current pulse on the market, and the same goes for our Retail & Consumer Products team, Engineering & Construction, Aerospace & Defense, and other industry-focused teams. From a broader, macro perspective, we’re closely watching the interest rates environment, the M&A markets, and the overall health of the economy and underlying indicators. We also track public information around debt placement activity, credit metrics, and deal activity. I think our best and most real-time intelligence comes from the informal conversations that we are constantly having with our network across the lending, banking, and legal channels.
Perer: Do you face more competition from banks or non-banks?
Garlick: Far more competition from banks based on the types of transactions/borrowers we prefer to lend to.
Bans: On non-PE owned companies, our competition is primarily large commercial banks. In the PE-owned space, the competition is significantly more diverse, including private credit with unitranche solutions to bank pro-rata structures. As we have talked about earlier, this is where having our own private credit solution through Overland Advantage allows Wells Fargo to offer clients even more options.
Perer: How busy is the turn-around consulting industry given it’s a leading indicator or future ABL deal flow?
Fishman: Our team remains busy and active across sponsor- and lender-driven engagements. As the capital structure levers have tightened over the past 12-18 months, we’re seeing our mandates in the turnaround consulting world revert back to what we do best: identify root causes of underperformance and execute on a plan to return to profitability. Another theme that we’ve seen in the past year or so is an increase in bankruptcy activity, which, at times, is driven by complex or misaligned capital structures.
Zucker: While this is obviously best answered by Dan, I can say that anecdotally, every time I run into or catch up with a turnaround professional these days, they seem extremely busy. Relatedly, the special assets folks at commercial banks and credit funds seem to be busier than they have been in years.
Perer: What is a perception you have about today’s ABL market that is not widely shared?
Garlick: I believe the supply of ‘good deals’ can be dictated by what the banks are willing to do. This is because of how the banks have been willing to structure their deals, primarily around advance rates, but also around the size of their stretch term loans they are willing to provide. I believe there is only one way to navigate around these banks, and that is by making sure we have the best talent that fits our company’s culture and by continuously reinsuring our organization that we are going to fight and win these battles in the trenches together.
Zucker: I find ABL lenders like the organizations Bobby and James represent to be quite dynamic and creative. Conventional wisdom may say that ABL is a commodity – a company has assets equaling X and can borrow an amount equaling Y percent of those assets. There is so much more to the story and many folks would be amazed at how different the inputs and outputs actually end up depending on the lender and situation.
Fishman: I personally think we’ll see an increase in liquidations and distressed M&A activity in FY 2025, specifically across companies that have been in workout or on the “watch list” for some time. From talking to various lenders, I get the sense that patience is starting to wear thin, and, given the more challenging debt capital markets environment, there will inevitably be a push to monetize collateral through other means.
Bans: While it’s not a perception that isn’t widely shared, I do believe that AI and technology are going to have sweeping effects to how we do business over the next five to ten years. Having been in lending since the late 1990’s, the biggest change I see is that we print less (no more huge credit committee folders) and a substantial part of our communication is done via email and video calls. Technology over the next several years will focus to create the ability to reduce operating expenses, increase speed and accuracy of transactions, and provide for the ability to have real-time data and information.
This article first appeared on ABL Advisor: https://www.abladvisor.com/articles/40163/abl-industry-state-of-the-union-q1-2025
Comments