When three vulnerabilities meet
For a company, a more expensive loan, a rising energy bill, and a nervous market can be enough to break a project. For a family, this quickly translates into higher prices, heavier repayments, and less margin at the end of the month. The real issue is not a single bubble. It is the possibility that several shocks may respond to and reinforce each other.
In this story, non-bank finance is as important as the stock market. European regulators are seeing a rise in risks associated with non-bank intermediaries, while energy prices remain very sensitive to the conflict in the Middle East. In France, public debt reached 115.6% of GDP at the end of 2025, with a deficit of 5.1% of GDP. When growth slows, this combination leaves little room for improvisation.
Private credit, useful for some, risky for all
Private credit is simply credit granted by funds rather than banks. It is mostly used by medium-sized companies, or those deemed too risky for banks. The market has grown rapidly: the BIS estimates that it now exceeds $2 trillion worldwide. In Europe, private credit funds had around 0.1 trillion euros in assets under management in March 2025, far behind the United States, but with rapid growth.
This financing has real merit. It provides a breath of fresh air to SMEs or midcaps that do not always have access to bond markets. It also benefits investors seeking returns. But the downside is clear: the loans are long, illiquid, and opaque. The BIS warns that the arrival of retail investors through more accessible vehicles could exacerbate tension in case of a downturn. ESMA, meanwhile, speaks of a small but more interconnected and opaque universe in Europe. In this scheme, the winners are the managers who capture fees and the investors who receive returns. Potential losers are the most fragile companies and shareholders if exits accelerate.
However, not all authorities say that the bomb is already armed. The FDIC estimates that default rates for private credit in the United States are around 2% to 5%, still within a contained range. ESMA also adds that European institutions’ direct exposures to American private credit remain limited. In other words, the risk exists, but it is not an automatic collapse. The real question is elsewhere: how far can funds promise liquidity for assets that remain illiquid?
AI is not just a promise, it’s also a bill
Another source of tension comes from artificial intelligence. The issue is not just innovation. It’s also the scale of investments and how to finance them. The International Energy Agency estimates that data centers consumed around 415 TWh of electricity in 2024, about 1.5% of global consumption. It foresees around 945 TWh in 2030 in its central scenario, with a rapid but still limited increase on the global electric system scale.
For now, AI is supporting activity. The IEA notes that major tech companies continue to increase their spending. The IMF goes further: it sees private investment in AI as a growth driver, but also a classic breeding ground for excessive optimism. Its message is simple. Markets love technological breakthroughs. They are less fond of the corrections that follow when profits are slow to come. The IMF also recalls that the history of major innovations often resembles a mix of enthusiasm and disillusionment.
The software sector is already sending an alert signal. The BIS observes that software companies dropped by around 30% between October 2025 and February 2026, while private credit companies highly exposed to software publishers underperformed. This does not prove a widespread crisis. But it shows that AI does not impact everyone in the same way. Software providers, the funds that finance them, and investors seeking rapid growth do not bear the same risk. Executives and employees in administrative functions already know that AI can improve productivity as much as destabilize certain professions.
The oil shock that goes beyond energy
The third stage of the rocket is the Middle East. In March 2026, the IEA spoke of the largest disruption in global oil markets in history, after the almost complete halt of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Member countries decided to release 400 million barrels from their emergency reserves. In 2025, about 20 million barrels of crude and petroleum products passed through this passage daily, nearly a quarter of global oil maritime trade.
The shock is not only affecting gasoline. The IEA also underlines the pressure on diesel, kerosene, LPG, and liquefied natural gas. When these prices rise, the bill goes up for transportation, agriculture, industry, and ultimately households. This complicates the task of central banks. They must monitor inflation but also avoid further weakening activity. The IMF also warns that major geopolitical shocks can lower stocks and raise sovereign risk premiums.
Why France cannot remain a bystander
France enters this sequence with limited margins. By the end of 2025, the state’s public debt stood at 115.6% of GDP. The Bank of France also points out that the spread between French and German bonds remained higher in June 2025 than before the dissolution of 2024. In other words, France is borrowing in a more costly and closely monitored climate. If the external shock continues, the cost of public financing may rise further.
Companies are not all in the same boat. The Bank of France indicates that in December 2025, the average cost of new financing for non-financial companies was 3.52%, with a rate of 3.54% for bank loans. SMEs are more exposed to rate hikes than large companies, as they have fewer alternatives. In France, the debt-to-GDP ratio of non-financial companies reached 75.7% in the third quarter of 2025, compared to 53.3% in the Eurozone. It’s not a collapse. It’s a fundamental vulnerability.
What needs to be monitored now
The political debate that is unfolding is twofold. On one hand, proponents of financial relaxation point out that private credit and AI finance investment, startups, and future growth. ESMA also says that private finance can support expanding companies, especially in tech, defense, health, and green transition. On the other hand, the IMF, BIS, and European regulators emphasize opacity, leverage effects, and risk correlations. The choice is not between regulating and doing nothing. It is between letting the system grow without safeguards or setting limits before stress.
The next concrete milestone to watch is: ESMA is awaiting contributions until May 31, 2026, on private credit ratings before potential regulatory adjustments in the second quarter of 2026. In other words, the battle over transparency, liquidity, and limits to non-bank financing is just beginning. If a broader shock arrives, the question will not only be who foresaw the crisis. It will mainly be about who will bear the cost.
