Syndicated loans aren’t poker, but maybe they should at least follow the same rules.
Highlights
- Only 68% of Q1 2025 capital markets deals required all-lender consent to change pro rata sharing terms.
- Without unanimous consent, majority lenders could redirect payments away from minority lenders in a syndicate.
- Protection levels have held between roughly 60% and 81% over the past two years of deal data.
By Dan Wertman, originally published on the Noetica blog, now part of Thomson Reuters. June 2025.
The 56th annual World Series of Poker starts next week, and at the beginning of the tournament, every player is told the same thing:
- Green chips = $25
- Black chips = $100
- Blue chips = $500
- Yellow chips = $1,000
- Orange chips = $5,000
- Dark green chips = $25,000
- Lavender chips = $100,000
Here’s the critical part: chip values don’t change while you’re playing at the table — if they did, it’d be pretty hard to win.
As absurd as it sounds: in 32% of capital markets deals in Q1, folks effectively permit chip values to change mid-game. Let me explain. 🃏
Jump to ↓
The rule behind pro rata sharing
The takeaway for syndicated deals
Assignment and Participation Clauses
These Standard Clauses provide terms for syndicated loan agreements that specify the conditions for assignments and participations of loans.
Check if your agreement blocks net short lenders ↗
The rule behind pro rata sharing
All lender-consent for pro rata sharing terms in capital markets transactions effectively limit changes in pro rata sharing among lenders to unanimous consent. Without it, majority lenders could vote to pay themselves more of the issuer’s payments, with minority lenders getting less — in other words, lenders thought they had a lavender chip that turns out to be a green chip.
Not all deals need this protection — single-lender facilities and bridge loans get a pass. But in true syndicated deals, it’s a basic protection for lenders.
What the data shows
The numbers for Q1 ’25 tell an intriguing story:
- These protections appeared in only 68% of deals in Q1 ’25.
- That’s up from Q4 ’24, but still below the 81% peak in Q2 ’24.
- Over the past two years, these terms have consistently been in at least ~60% of deals.
The takeaway for syndicated deals
Syndicated loans aren’t poker, but maybe they should at least follow the same rules: once the chips are on the table, their value shouldn’t change mid-hand. For lenders in a syndicate, an all-lender-consent requirement on pro rata sharing is that rule — and the data shows it still isn’t universal.
For more deal-term benchmarking like this, explore Noetica’s Capital Markets Radar Report.
