DFX-RESEARCH-2026-0028: Nine lenders marked down their loans to Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc in the second quarter, nine of them to 70% of cost or below

Interpretation and confidence

The records so far do not settle this reading: The loan is being amended or restructured, and the accounting change follows the negotiation rather than signalling a new problem. The records so far do not settle this reading: The borrower's industry or rate exposure is under pressure and this is one case among many. The records so far cut against this reading: One lender's own view or accounting policy, not a change at the borrower. The records so far do not settle this reading: Lenders report on different fiscal calendars, so marks and accrual status can differ for a quarter without disagreeing.

Confidence: Tentative. The interpretation is DFX's reading of the evidence, not an established fact. What cuts against it: Evidence for another reading: Non-accrual placements across all BDCs rising this quarter against the prior four, and peers in the same industry marked down together. Evidence for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility. Evidence for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility. Evidence for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility. What would change this assessment: It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: Non-accrual placements across all BDCs rising this quarter against the prior four, and peers in the same industry marked down together. It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility. It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility. It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.

The 4 inferences in detail

The records so far do not settle this reading: The loan is being amended or restructured, and the accounting change follows the negotiation rather than signalling a new problem. (tentative)Against it: Evidence for another reading: Non-accrual placements across all BDCs rising this quarter against the prior four, and peers in the same industry marked down together.Assumes: The schedules are read as filed; each lender's mark is its own estimate at its schedule date.Would be invalidated by: It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: Non-accrual placements across all BDCs rising this quarter against the prior four, and peers in the same industry marked down together.
The records so far do not settle this reading: The borrower's industry or rate exposure is under pressure and this is one case among many. (tentative)Against it: Evidence for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.Assumes: The schedules are read as filed; each lender's mark is its own estimate at its schedule date.Would be invalidated by: It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.
The records so far cut against this reading: One lender's own view or accounting policy, not a change at the borrower. (tentative)Against it: Evidence for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.Assumes: The schedules are read as filed; each lender's mark is its own estimate at its schedule date.Would be invalidated by: It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.
The records so far do not settle this reading: Lenders report on different fiscal calendars, so marks and accrual status can differ for a quarter without disagreeing. (tentative)Against it: Evidence for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.Assumes: The schedules are read as filed; each lender's mark is its own estimate at its schedule date.Would be invalidated by: It would not hold against evidence of this kind for another reading: PIK interest added or raised in the same quarter, an amendment or maturity extension in the filings, or a new lender appearing in the facility.

Nine lenders marked down their loans to Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc in the second quarter, nine of them to 70% of cost or below

Supporting observations

Statistics

Interpretation and confidence

Method

Scope and sample

Limitations

Sources (14)

Related entities

Revision history

Cite this record