When we reviewed the carnage among Business Development Companies, or BDCs, when recapping February 2026's dividend decreases, its concentration within this sub-sector of the financial services sector of the U.S. economy really stood out.

BDCs make their money by loaning money they either raise from investors or borrow themselves to small- and medium-sized enterprises that can't raise money by going public and selling stock and also financially distressed businesses. The business models of most established BDCs involve borrowing money, then loaning it back out at higher interest rates, where they pocket the difference.

That makes the profit margins of BDCs vulnerable to rate cuts. Because their loans are tied to the Federal Funds Rate, when the Fed cuts that rate, it negatively impacts BDC profits. In the last three years, BDCs have gone from a rising or high interest rate environment (March 2023 through August 2025), to a falling rate environment (September 2024 through December 2025).

The performance of the VanEck BDC Income Exchange Traded Fund (ETF: BIZD), which includes over 30 BDCs in its market-cap weighted index, gives a good sense of how BDCs performed in these different environments. The following chart shows BDCs rising or flat in the rising rate environment, but then either stalling or falling as the Fed shifted gears into its rate cutting mode.

But that's not the whole story. During the rate cutting period, which initiated the pressure on BDC profits, BDCs have had to cope with the DeepSeek AI shock, peaking just ahead of that event on 19 February 2025. Then they faced the Liberation Day global tariffs shock event of 2 April 2025, plunging with the rest of the market, before going on to recover. That lasted until August 2025, when the return of rate cuts initiated a new downtrend that was followed in January 2026 with a new AI shock event that undermined the business prospects of the Software-As-A-Service (SaaS) firms. Many of which were getting their funding to grow from BDCs.

With AI technologies seemingly set to destroy any potential profitability these firms had, many BDCs were suddenly faced with having to write down large portions of their portfolios. But, not all BDCs are in that boat.

When we looked at the stock performance of individual BDCs, we found a clear characteristic that divided them. That characteristic is their governance and what quickly became evident was that internally-managed BDCs were generally outperforming BDCs whose investments are managed by external parties.

To illustrate that difference, we randomly selected six externally-managed BDCs to compare their performance against an equal number of internally-managed BDCs over the last three years. Here is a list of the BDCs in our performance sample:

Let's get to the results. The following chart visualizes the relative performance of the stocks of the two kinds of BDCs:

We've shown the 3-year returns for the benchmarks of the S&P 500 (Index: SPX) at 72.01% and BIZD at -10.79% to show how they compare against the range of the two categories. The externally managed BDCs range from a high of +2.79% to a low of -29.22%, with four of the six BDCs having a negative return.

By contrast, the internally managed BDCs range from a high of +44.22% to a low of -16.96%, with two of the six BDCs having a negative return.

But it's not just recent market events driving that outcome. In the next two charts, we show how the sample of internally managed and externally managed BDCs compare with the performance of the S&P 500 over the last three years. The first chart tracks the internally managed BDCs:

The next chart follows the externally managed BDCs over the same period.

We find the internally-managed BDCs have sustained better performance than the externally-managed BDCs over all portions of this three year period, which can be seen in their relative performance being closer to that of the benchmark S&P 500 index. That better performance occurred both in a period in which rising interest rates provided BDCs with a tailwind and the current period in which falling interest rates are providing fierce headwinds against the BDCs.

When we started this exercise, we thought we'd mainly be discussing the role of how changing interest rates have affected the performance of the BDC sub-sector of the financial services industry, leading so many of these firms to cut their dividends in recent months. We didn't expect to run into a more interesting question: how much does management matter in a publicly traded company? In the case of BDCs, whether the people managing their lending business work directly for the firm or are employed outside of it would appear to have a significant impact affecting the returns of the shareholders who own the companies.

Image credit: Microsoft Copilot Designer. Prompt: "A cartoon illustrating a Business Development Company that is internally managed versus a BDC that is externally managed", the result of would appear to succinctly explain at least one reason why the outperformance of internally-managed BDCs over externally-managed ones exists!