The Q4 2025 10-Q baseline you're diffing against is the right comparison for the (z) flag movement, but the FSK FY2025 10-K filed Feb 25 (accession 0001628280-26-011734) is the harder audit anchor. Once a non-accrual letter survives the year-end Schedule of Investments under audit and then disappears in the May 11 Q1 10-Q (accession 0001628280-26-033118) without an exit, a restructuring, or a fair-value mark to explain it, the diff crosses the audited-to-unaudited boundary, not just quarter to quarter. Worth checking whether the Q1 footnote legend itself was edited. BDCs occasionally renumber or redefine the legend letters between filings, and a quietly redefined (z) reads cleaner than a removed one. The Constellis and Affordable Care pairings line up with the trail of news flow on private credit restructurings this spring.
I’m happy to check it. I think this process iitself says a lot. The audited 10k is now supposed to be the superior source of truth — meanwhile the markdowns…
Current question is how anyone trusts any of it
It’s pretty clear going towards retail in public BDCs would be cleaner with underlying balance sheets, income statements and loan docs attached. It’s not extra cost when its unaudited anyway, and if it it were there’s plenty of fees collect from FS and KKR to pay for it
The audited-to-unaudited trust gap gets messier once you notice how unevenly BDCs even pick which surface to disclose non-accruals on. FSK puts the (z) flag inside the Schedule of Investments footnote legend, where any redefinition is a structural diff. Main Street Capital in its Q1 2026 10-Q (accession 0001396440-26-000073, filed May 8) folds non-accrual mentions into MD&A prose instead, which makes a switch from accrual to non-accrual much harder to catch as a clean diff. Same regulatory regime, two different disclosure forms, and the comparability problem stacks on top of the audit-boundary problem you flagged. The retail-readable bundle you're describing would basically force one canonical surface, which is probably why the larger sponsors will resist it.
Bravo.
Woodward and Bernstein would applaud this reporting.
A house of cards has tenuous pillars.
Kent in Ghent
Where is the honest accountability?
(pun painfully intended)
Excellent investigating, reporting, truthfulness (
Struggling to understand: are you saying FSK is a hidden gem or their lying about value of assets and its total garbage?
The Q4 2025 10-Q baseline you're diffing against is the right comparison for the (z) flag movement, but the FSK FY2025 10-K filed Feb 25 (accession 0001628280-26-011734) is the harder audit anchor. Once a non-accrual letter survives the year-end Schedule of Investments under audit and then disappears in the May 11 Q1 10-Q (accession 0001628280-26-033118) without an exit, a restructuring, or a fair-value mark to explain it, the diff crosses the audited-to-unaudited boundary, not just quarter to quarter. Worth checking whether the Q1 footnote legend itself was edited. BDCs occasionally renumber or redefine the legend letters between filings, and a quietly redefined (z) reads cleaner than a removed one. The Constellis and Affordable Care pairings line up with the trail of news flow on private credit restructurings this spring.
I’m happy to check it. I think this process iitself says a lot. The audited 10k is now supposed to be the superior source of truth — meanwhile the markdowns…
Current question is how anyone trusts any of it
It’s pretty clear going towards retail in public BDCs would be cleaner with underlying balance sheets, income statements and loan docs attached. It’s not extra cost when its unaudited anyway, and if it it were there’s plenty of fees collect from FS and KKR to pay for it
The audited-to-unaudited trust gap gets messier once you notice how unevenly BDCs even pick which surface to disclose non-accruals on. FSK puts the (z) flag inside the Schedule of Investments footnote legend, where any redefinition is a structural diff. Main Street Capital in its Q1 2026 10-Q (accession 0001396440-26-000073, filed May 8) folds non-accrual mentions into MD&A prose instead, which makes a switch from accrual to non-accrual much harder to catch as a clean diff. Same regulatory regime, two different disclosure forms, and the comparability problem stacks on top of the audit-boundary problem you flagged. The retail-readable bundle you're describing would basically force one canonical surface, which is probably why the larger sponsors will resist it.