Redemption gates are critical for managing liability-side risks like investor runs, giving funds time to manage outflows. However, they are ineffective against asset-side problems. If underlying loan portfolios suffer high default rates, the fund's value will still deteriorate, and gates can't prevent those ultimate losses.

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.

Private credit is being sold to retail investors through products that appear liquid like stocks but are not. These "semi-liquid" funds have clauses allowing them to halt redemptions during market stress, trapping investor capital precisely when they want it most, creating a "run-on-the-bank" panic.

The term "semi-liquid" for private asset funds is misleading. Retail investor behavior is procyclical; during a downturn, redemption requests will surge simultaneously. This reveals the assets' true illiquidity, turning a perceived feature into a systemic risk.

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.

Permira's Ian Jackson argues that redemption limits in retail-oriented credit funds are working as intended to manage the mismatch between investor demand for liquidity and illiquid private loan portfolios.

Limiting redemptions in private credit funds, often seen negatively, is a crucial defense. It prevents a run on the fund by stopping a mismatch where illiquid loans would have to be sold to meet liquid redemption demands, which could cause a collapse.

The 5% quarterly redemption limit in non-traded BDCs is not a panic-induced "gate" but a deliberate structural feature. It aligns investor liquidity with the illiquid nature of the underlying loans, preventing forced sales at distressed prices and protecting the fund's integrity for all investors. The term "gate" misrepresents this contractual design.

Many investors mistakenly believed private credit funds offered semi-liquidity, not understanding the underlying assets are fundamentally illiquid. The realization that liquidity is a discretionary feature, not a guarantee, is causing a healthy but painful exodus from the asset class as mismatched expectations are corrected.