Citrus Capital announces that Mr Dave Johnson has agreed to join the firm.
Dave brings over 25 years’ experience across complex and asset-backed transactions, with a focus on capital structuring and cross-border opportunities. His work has involved the assessment of assets, often requiring a combination of financial and operational insight. He has worked with institutional and corporate counterparties on transactions involving capital structuring, asset-level analysis and risk considerations, with experience across the UK and Europe. His background includes working alongside legal, financial and operational stakeholders on multi-jurisdictional matters. Dave will support Citrus Capital across corporate finance mandates, contributing to analysis and structuring. Jayceon Barry, Chief Executive Officer of Citrus Capital, said: “As a growing firm, it is important for us to bring in people who add real depth to what we do. Dave’s experience strengthens our capability, particularly as we continue to build out our corporate finance offering and support a broader range of transactions for our clients“
Geopolitical conflict is widening the valuation gap in M&A
The current situation involving Iran, Israel and the United States is starting to show up in M&A conversations. It is not stopping deals, but it is changing how they are getting done. Sellers are still holding onto pricing based on past performance or where they see the business going. Buyers are looking at the same deal and underwriting it with a lot more caution, factoring in volatility, timing risk and how quickly things can move. That gap is where most deals are getting stuck. In practice: Debt is feeding into this as well. Lenders are tighter on structure and downside, which directly impacts how buyers price and how far they can stretch. In the UK market, this is more obvious. A lot of transactions rely on leverage and forward assumptions. When those assumptions are challenged, valuation follows. So the shift is simple. Valuation is no longer just a number. It is a combination of structure, timing and confidence in execution. The deals that get done are the ones where that is dealt with upfront, not negotiated at the end.
The War Isn’t in the Headlines. It’s in the Cost of Moving a Container
If you want to understand how the Iran conflict is really affecting markets, don’t start with oil charts or defence stocks. Start with a container. A standard shipping container from Asia into the Gulf used to move quietly through the system. Predictable routes, stable insurance, manageable costs. It was just plumbing. No one paid attention. Now it has become a risk asset. Freight rates into the region have jumped sharply in recent weeks. Insurance premiums have followed, in some cases doubling. War risk surcharges are being quoted per shipment, not as an exception but as standard practice. That changes behaviour very quickly. Exporters are not waiting for headlines. They are adjusting in real time. Orders are being delayed. Some are being cancelled outright. Others are being repriced mid-negotiation. Margins that worked a month ago no longer hold. This is how conflict feeds into the real economy. Not through a single shock, but through thousands of small decisions that stop making sense. When the Maths Breaks, Trade Slows Take any mid-market manufacturer exporting into the Middle East. Their model is simple. Input costs, shipping, insurance, margin. It only works if all four stay within a narrow range. The problem now is that three of those four have moved at the same time. Energy costs are higher. Transport is more expensive. Insurance is volatile. The only thing that cannot adjust quickly is the end price to the customer. So the trade just… pauses. Not formally. Not announced. It just slows down. And when enough of those decisions stack up, you move from supply disruption to demand destruction. This Is Not an Oil Story. It’s a Margin Story Markets are still treating this as an energy narrative. Oil up, inflation risk, central banks cautious. That is too shallow. The real issue is margin compression across the system. A 10% move in input costs does not sound dramatic. But for a business operating on mid-single-digit margins, it is the difference between profit and loss. Now layer in higher logistics costs and delayed payments due to uncertainty in the region. Suddenly, working capital becomes the constraint. Not demand. Not strategy. Cash. That is where deals start to fall apart. The Illusion of Resilience From the outside, markets still look functional. Equities are moving but not collapsing. Credit is open. Capital is available. But underneath, activity is slowing. Transactions are taking longer. Investors are asking harder questions. Financing structures are being revisited. Some deals that would have cleared six months ago are now being quietly shelved. This is not a liquidity crisis. It is a conviction crisis. China, Europe, the UK — It All Connects What looks like a regional conflict is already feeding into global trade. China feels it through exports. Europe through energy. The UK through inflation and financing costs. The linkage is simple. Higher energy costs reduce disposable income. Lower consumption feeds back into lower demand for goods. That hits exporters. Which then feeds back into production, employment and investment. It is a loop. And it does not need escalation to continue. It just needs time. The Strategic Misread There is a growing narrative that prolonged conflict benefits some economies. That supply chains will re-route. That new winners will emerge. That thinking is lazy. Short-term dislocation can create opportunity. But prolonged instability raises the cost of everything. Capital, energy, insurance, logistics. That is not a tailwind. It is friction. And friction compounds. What Actually Matters Now The question is no longer whether capital exists. It does. The question is whether the underlying assumptions behind deals still hold. Can costs be predictedCan supply chains be relied onCan revenues be delivered without disruption If the answer to any of those is uncertain, capital does not move. Or it moves slower, and at a higher price. That is the shift happening now. Final Thought Wars used to break markets quickly. Now they weaken them slowly. Not through collapse, but through hesitation. And in capital markets, hesitation is enough to stop everything.
Why Capital Exists but Deals Don’t Close
Markets may look open on paper, but money is moving far more slowly, selectively, and defensively than many headlines suggest. If you read the headlines, the market can look surprisingly healthy. Global growth is still projected at 3.3% in 2026. M&A activity has also picked up, with Reuters reporting global announced deal value at about $1.1 trillion year to date, up 23% on the same period last year. On the surface, that does not look like a market starved of capital. IMF Yet that is not how many transactions feel in practice. Across the real economy, businesses are still finding it difficult to raise money, refinance debt, or close acquisitions on terms that make commercial sense. Processes drag. Credit committees hesitate. Investors ask for more protection. Sellers hold on to yesterday’s prices while buyers underwrite tomorrow’s risks. Deals that look viable in a pitch deck stall the moment real money has to commit. That is because liquidity and usable capital are not the same thing. Money can exist in the system without being available in a way that gets transactions done. There may be capital on paper, funds with dry powder, banks willing to look, and lenders still active. But if that capital only comes with lower leverage, tighter covenants, more security, more equity, and longer approval cycles, then the market is not truly liquid in the way most businesses understand it. It is selective. This is the gap many people miss. They hear that markets are open and assume financing should be straightforward. It is not. Capital today is cautious, slower, and far less forgiving than it was when money was cheap and confidence was abundant. Why the Backdrop Still Feels Unsettled Part of the reason is that the macro picture remains far from settled. The IMF’s January update said global growth remains resilient, but also warned about trade disruption, political uncertainty, and supply-side shocks that could raise costs and complicate the outlook. In the UK, the Bank of England kept rates on hold on 19 March 2026, with policymakers facing renewed inflation concerns linked to conflict in the Middle East and higher oil prices. That matters because when inflation risk becomes harder to read, the price of money becomes harder to call, and the willingness to lend becomes more defensive. IMF This is where politics now enters every financing conversation. For years, politics sat in the background while markets took the lead. That is no longer the case. Today, politics affects inflation, rates, trade routes, energy prices, industrial policy, sanctions, fiscal spending, and regulation. In other words, it affects both the cost of capital and the direction of capital. A lender is no longer looking only at cash flow and asset cover. It is also thinking about what a policy shift, a tariff move, an election, a shipping disruption, or a regional conflict might do to the borrower six months from now. That change has made decision-making far more conservative. Not because money has vanished, but because uncertainty now travels faster than conviction. At deal level, this shows up in three clear ways. First, pricing has not fully reset. Many sellers still carry valuation expectations shaped by the era of cheap debt and aggressive growth assumptions. Buyers and lenders do not. They are pricing risk more harshly, using tougher downside cases, and asking harder questions about earnings quality, resilience, and exit value. That gap between expectation and reality kills momentum early. Second, capital now comes with conditions. Even when money is available, it is rarely passive. It wants control, information, rights, buffers, and room for error. More of the structure is being used to protect the capital provider rather than to stretch for the borrower. That changes the economics of a transaction, and sometimes the psychology of it as well. Third, time itself has become a risk. The longer a process runs, the more likely it is that sentiment changes, markets move, counterparties retrade, or fresh concerns emerge. In this climate, delay does not just waste time. It weakens belief. The private credit market is a good example of this wider tension. For several years, private credit was seen as the answer when banks became more selective. In many cases it was. But even that market is now being tested. Reuters reported this month that strains in private credit have begun to ripple through Wall Street, with some banks tightening lending, funds capping withdrawals, and investors growing more cautious. Another Reuters report said BlackRock limited withdrawals from a private credit fund after investors sought about $1.2 billion back. Goldman Sachs’ chief executive also warned that the credit cycle has not been repealed. In other words, even the parts of the market that looked most flexible are being forced to prove how liquid they really are under pressure. That should not be ignored. It tells us the issue is not simply that banks are conservative. The entire capital stack is becoming more disciplined. Lenders, funds, and investors are still active, but they are demanding a stronger case before they commit. Reuters For businesses and dealmakers, the lesson is simple. Being good is no longer enough. Being fundable is no longer enough. A company now has to be easy to understand, realistic on value, well structured, and robust under scrutiny. Management teams need cleaner stories. Sellers need more realism. Advisers need to spend less time selling optimism and more time solving structure. That is the real market condition today. Not a collapse in capital, but a collapse in easy conviction. Money still exists. There is still appetite. There are still transactions getting done. But capital no longer moves on hope alone. It moves when the pricing is right, the risk is understood, the structure is sound, and the wider political and economic backdrop feels tolerable. The problem in today’s market is not that capital is gone. It is that conviction is.
Private Capital vs Bank Lending
How Companies Are Financing Growth Today For many years the first place a business would go when it needed funding was the bank. Bank lending has long been the backbone of business finance, particularly for established companies with steady income and a clear trading history. In recent years, however, another source of funding has become much more visible: private capital. The two serve different purposes and operate in different ways. Banks generally lend against certainty. They want to see a proven trading record, reliable cash flow and, in many cases, assets that can support the borrowing. Their approach is structured and process driven. If a business meets the credit criteria, bank lending can be a straightforward and cost effective way to finance operations, acquisitions or property. The difficulty is that not every business fits neatly within those criteria. Younger companies, fast growing businesses or firms entering new markets often find that traditional lending models do not fully reflect their potential. This is where private capital often comes into the picture. Private investors tend to take a broader view. Rather than focusing purely on historic performance, they will often look at the long term prospects of the business, the quality of the management team and the opportunity within the market. In return for that flexibility, investors normally expect a share of the business or a return that reflects the risk they are taking. That distinction is important. Bank lending usually allows owners to retain full control of the company, provided they meet the repayment terms. Private capital often involves bringing new partners into the business. Those partners may contribute experience, networks and strategic input, but they will also expect to participate in the value that the business creates. In practice many companies use both. A sensible capital structure might include bank finance to support assets or working capital, alongside private investment to fund growth or expansion. When structured properly the two can complement each other. The funding landscape has also broadened over the past decade. Private credit funds, family offices and specialist investment groups are far more active in providing capital than they once were. For business owners this means there are more options available, but it also means decisions around funding require careful thought.
Citrus Capital Announces Appointment of Soleil Longue as Head of Compliance and MLRO
Citrus Capital is pleased to announce the appointment of Soleil Longue as Head of Compliance and SMF16/17 (Compliance Oversight and Money Laundering Reporting Officer). Soleil brings more than 30 years of experience in financial services regulation, compliance and governance. She spent over 13 years at the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, where she worked across authorisations, approved persons assessments, financial crime investigations and regulatory supervision for banks, investment firms and insurance intermediaries. Following her time at the regulator, Soleil held senior compliance and advisory roles across a number of global financial institutions and regulated firms, including BlackRock, Mercer, AXA, State Street, BGC Partners/Cantor Fitzgerald and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. Her work has included leading SMCR implementation programmes, advising boards and senior management on regulatory governance, and developing compliance and financial crime frameworks across the UK and international markets. Soleil joins Citrus Capital as the firm continues to build its regulatory and governance infrastructure as a newly established FCA authorised firm. In her role, she will be responsible for oversight of the firm’s compliance framework, regulatory engagement and financial crime controls, ensuring the business operates in accordance with FCA rules and wider market regulation. Jayceon Barry, Chief Executive Officer of Citrus Capital, said: “Soleil’s appointment is an important step for Citrus Capital as we continue building the firm. Her deep regulatory background and practical experience across major financial institutions bring strong credibility and discipline to our governance framework. As a newly established firm, it is critical that we build the right foundations from day one, and Soleil’s leadership will play a central role in that.”
Capital Markets Update
The defining feature of the current capital cycle is not volatility but the re-establishment of a meaningful cost of money.
Citrus Capital comments on the BoE’s interest rate decision
“The Monetary Policy Committee’s decision to hold rates at 3.75% reflects the ongoing calibration between moderating inflation and preserving macroeconomic stability. While headline inflation has eased materially from its peak, services inflation and wage dynamics continue to justify a measured policy stance.
Regulatory Update
The FCA has published further guidance outlining the UK’s forthcoming FSMA-based regulatory framework for cryptoassets. The new regime will bring a broad range of cryptoasset activities fully within the FCA’s remit for the first time, replacing the existing anti- money laundering registration framework with a comprehensive authorisation model.
Funding Strategy in a Selective Market
A market that rewards preparation The availability of capital is no longer the defining question. The more relevant question is under what conditions it is available and on what terms. Markets remain open. Transactions continue to complete. However, processes are more rigorous, underwriting is more forensic and valuation negotiations are more grounded in cash flow durability than growth narratives. This shift has placed greater emphasis on preparation and strategic sequencing. Businesses approaching capital markets today are expected to demonstrate operational clarity, funding discipline and credible use-of-proceeds alignment. Investors are less tolerant of ambiguity, particularly around liquidity runway, working capital sensitivity and covenant resilience. Liquidity as strategic infrastructure In previous cycles, liquidity planning was often framed as defensive. In the current environment, it has become strategic. A clearly articulated funding runway provides negotiation leverage. It reduces perceived urgency and strengthens pricing position. Conversely, compressed runway shortens optionality and transfers power to capital providers. Boards are therefore reassessing liquidity in structural terms: Liquidity resilience is now viewed as a marker of governance quality. Sector observations Structural capital continues to favour technology infrastructure, cybersecurity, defence-related innovation and healthcare applications with measurable efficiency gains. However, even within favoured sectors, underwriting standards remain rigorous. Capital-intensive models without staged funding visibility face a higher hurdle rate. Businesses with demonstrable operating leverage and repeatable revenue models remain better positioned to attract institutional support. Outlook As policy rates stabilise and inflation moderates, markets are likely to remain sensitive to earnings durability and liquidity resilience. Multiple expansion alone is unlikely to drive performance in the absence of credible cash flow growth. The environment is not restrictive. It is selective. Preparation, governance quality and funding strategy are central determinants of capital access. Businesses that treat capital structure as strategic architecture rather than episodic financing are better positioned to navigate this phase of the cycle.