Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Goldman Sachs avoids the term "semi-liquid" because it provides false comfort. The liquidity gates on these evergreen funds are a feature, not a bug, designed to prevent fire-selling assets. They are most likely to be activated when investors are clamoring for redemptions.

Related Insights

The catalyst for a private credit crisis will be publicly traded, daily NAV funds. These vehicles promise investors daily liquidity while holding assets that are completely illiquid. This mismatch creates the perfect conditions for a "run on the bank" scenario during a market downturn.

Firms like Blue Owl showcase their role in the AI boom, raising billions for data centers. This forward-looking narrative masks a critical risk: they are simultaneously blocking investor redemptions in older, less glamorous funds. This reveals a dangerous liquidity mismatch where retail investors are trapped in the illiquid present while being sold a high-growth future.

The key innovation of evergreen funds for individual investors isn't just liquidity, but the upfront, fully-funded structure. This removes the operational complexity of managing capital calls and distributions—a major historical barrier for even wealthy individuals who found the process too complicated.

To combat the misconception of easy access to cash, Goldman Sachs has internally banned the common industry term "semi-liquid" for its alternative funds. This linguistic shift is a deliberate risk management strategy to underscore that while these products have liquidity features, they are fundamentally illiquid and access to capital is never guaranteed.

Offering daily liquidity while pursuing a multi-year investment strategy creates a dangerous duration mismatch. When investors inevitably demand their cash during a downturn, the long-term thesis is shattered, forcing fire sales and destroying value. A fund's liquidity terms must align with its investment horizon.

Funds offer investors quarterly liquidity while holding illiquid, 5-7 year corporate loans. This duration mismatch creates the same mechanics as a bank run, without FDIC insurance. When redemption requests surge, funds are forced to sell long-term assets at fire-sale prices, triggering a potential collapse.

A key benefit of alternative investments is that their illiquidity prevents investors from making emotional, panicked decisions during market downturns. This structure forces them to "stay the course," avoiding the common pitfall of selling at the bottom.

When facing a downturn or redemption pressures, private credit funds cannot easily sell their troubled, illiquid loans. Instead, they are forced to sell their high-quality, liquid assets, creating contagion risk in otherwise healthy public markets.

The firm intentionally structures its private debt funds for institutional investors without redemption options. They view offering liquidity on an inherently illiquid asset as a risky asset-liability mismatch, questioning competitors who promise an "illiquidity premium without the illiquidity."

While competitors rush to offer semi-liquid private equity funds to wealth clients, Apollo has deliberately abstained. They believe the illiquid nature of PE assets creates a profound liquidity mismatch with redemption features, risking a poor client experience in a prolonged downturn.