Private Credit M&A in Technology: Financing Recurring Revenue While Constraining Drift

Private credit’s posture toward technology in 2024–2025 reflects a sector that has matured operationally but narrowed financially. Technology is no longer treated as a single risk category within credit portfolios. Infrastructure-like software platforms with demonstrable annuity characteristics are underwritten very differently from fast-evolving products whose economics remain contingent on customer behavior, pricing tolerance, and continued reinvestment. Credit availability has not receded because growth has slowed, but because predictability has become the dominant underwriting priority.

‍

From a capital structure perspective, technology remains attractive for familiar reasons: recurring revenue, asset-light models, and scalability without physical capex. The risk, however, lies in how easily those characteristics can erode when customer budgets tighten or competitive dynamics shift. Credit committees have internalized the lessons of the prior cycle, where revenue labeled as recurring proved far less durable once renewals, usage levels, and pricing concessions came under pressure. As a result, private credit is deployed in technology not to accelerate ambition, but to constrain drift. Financing is structured to preserve cash flow discipline and limit strategic optionality that could dilute credit quality over time.

‍

The distinction between financeable platforms and merely promising ones is drawn quickly in credit committee discussions. Revenue quality outweighs growth rate. Annual recurring revenue is dissected for gross churn behavior, customer concentration, renewal elasticity, and contractual enforceability. Net retention is viewed skeptically if driven by price increases or expanded usage that could reverse under procurement scrutiny. Usage-based models, contracts with termination convenience, or reliance on discretionary spend are discounted aggressively, regardless of reported scale.

‍

Product centrality within customer operations is equally decisive. Software embedded in core workflows, accounting systems, infrastructure layers, or regulated processes is underwritten differently from tools that can be paused, downgraded, or replaced with limited disruption. Credit committees model replacement risk explicitly, recognizing that switching costs matter more than brand strength when budgets are constrained. Cost discipline functions as a proxy for governance. While technology platforms often emphasize variable cost structures, lenders assume that talent, compute, security, and compliance costs reassert themselves under stress. Evidence of sustained margin control through multiple operating environments carries disproportionate weight.

‍

M&A posture further differentiates credit outcomes. Serial acquisition strategies are scrutinized for integration rigor and post-transaction cash flow performance. Platforms that have relied on acquisitions to sustain growth without demonstrating consolidation benefits face rapid leverage compression. Exit assumptions are similarly restrained. Refinancing into public markets or strategic sales is treated as optional, not foundational. Private credit is underwritten on the assumption that it may remain outstanding longer than sponsors anticipate, through multiple budget cycles and product iterations.

‍

Negotiations in technology credit rarely fail on headline pricing. They tighten around trade-offs that reflect differing views on optionality. Customer concentration, even when economically rational, drives conservative leverage because modest churn can translate quickly into covenant pressure. Cash sweep mechanics become central, as lenders prioritize early exposure reduction while sponsors seek to preserve reinvestment capacity for product development. Covenant design increasingly favors liquidity, churn, and margin stability metrics over simple leverage tests, requiring granular reporting that many platforms initially resist. Acquisition capacity is gated tightly, with M&A conditioned on leverage step-downs and demonstrated integration performance. Yield alone is insufficient to compensate for deferred control in a sector where business models evolve faster than debt amortizes.

‍

From an advisory perspective, private credit in technology is about engineering acceptability rather than maximizing leverage. Capital structures that clear efficiently anchor debt service to existing cash flows rather than projected scale, accept early cash capture in exchange for certainty of execution, and limit discretionary M&A until leverage and churn metrics stabilize. Covenants are framed to trigger dialogue early, preserving optionality through engagement rather than enforcement, while amendment economics are priced upfront in recognition that volatility is inevitable. Translating technical roadmaps and go-to-market strategies into lender-relevant risk controls is central to avoiding blunt intervention later in the credit lifecycle.

‍

Private credit remains a viable and often compelling capital source for technology platforms, but only where growth ambition is subordinated to cash flow integrity. The capital is not underwriting product vision or market dominance. It is underwriting behavior under constraint. For boards and sponsors, introducing private credit is a decision to formalize discipline, accepting that liquidity arrives with limits on experimentation, expansion, and strategic drift.

‍

In the current cycle, technology credit does not reward the most aggressive roadmap. It rewards platforms that can demonstrate they will continue to generate durable cash flow when ambition is deferred and optionality is deliberately constrained.