Get your free personalized podcast brief

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Historically, investors demanded an "illiquidity premium" to compensate for the bug of being unable to sell. Now, firms market illiquidity as a feature that enforces discipline. In markets, you pay for features and get paid for bugs, implying this shift will lead to lower future returns for private assets.

For the first time, large numbers of wealthy individuals are pulling money from private credit funds. This follows a period of declining performance, raising questions about the asset class's suitability for non-institutional investors.

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.

Investor Misunderstanding of 'Illiquid' vs 'Semi-Liquid' Is Driving the Current Redemption Wave | RiffOn