Trinity Capital and Runway Growth file two more venture debt records

The record

Trinity Capital Inc. and Runway Growth Finance Corp. are a third and fourth publicly traded venture-debt BDC whose own SEC filings add two more documented views of lending terms. Trinity Capital's Form 10-K for the year ended 31 December 2025, filed 25 February 2026, states that total investment income of approximately $293.7 million represented 'an approximate effective yield of 15.3% on the average investments during the year.' Runway Growth's Form 10-K for the same period, filed 12 March 2026, states an investment portfolio of $927.4 million at fair value as of 31 December 2025, including 31 debt-holding portfolio companies with an aggregate fair value of $860.3 million, and a dollar-weighted annualized yield across all investments, on a fair-value basis, of 13.79 percent.

What the sources establish

Neither filing states a single warrant coverage percentage the way Hercules Capital and TriplePoint do. Runway Growth's filing instead describes its equity position by count: as of 31 December 2025 it held 60 warrant positions, five preferred stock positions and several other equity interests across 48 companies, and it states a lending target of 'less than 25% of enterprise value at inception.' Trinity Capital's filing describes warrants as a standard feature of its debt investments without stating a numeric coverage range in the portion of the filing reviewed here. Both filings state that portfolio valuations rely on unobservable, Level 3 inputs determined by each company's own board.

Scope and revision

Trinity's 15.3 percent and Runway's 13.79 percent yields are each one filer's own reported figure for fiscal year 2025, computed on that filer's own stated basis, an 'effective yield' for Trinity and a 'dollar-weighted annualized yield' for Runway, and the two methods are not guaranteed to be identical even where the resulting numbers look comparable. Generalizing from any one of these four BDCs' disclosed terms, Hercules, TriplePoint, Trinity or Runway, to 'venture debt' as a category would overstate what a single filing can support; each lender sets its own coverage, pricing and concentration limits, and each figure carries its own filing date.

The decision in front of you

An analyst building a venture debt benchmark should list each BDC's yield and warrant disclosure separately, with its filing date, rather than compute an average across filers with different definitions. A founder should ask a prospective lender directly for its warrant coverage rather than infer one from a public BDC's disclosed range, since privately negotiated terms are not required to match any filer's disclosed portfolio average.

• Does the filing you are citing state a numeric warrant coverage range, or only describe warrants qualitatively, as Runway's and Trinity's 2025 10-Ks do here?
• Are the yield figures from different BDCs computed on the same basis, effective yield versus dollar-weighted annualized yield, before you compare them?
• Have you named which of the four BDCs in this pack, and which fiscal year, a given venture debt figure actually comes from?

Four lenders serving the same market segment can disclose four different combinations of yield, warrant practice and concentration risk, and a data desk's job is to keep them four, not one.