Key Takeaways
- • Semi-liquid fund structures—including interval funds, tender-offer funds, nontraded BDCs, and nontraded REITs—have democratized access to illiquid alternative assets by offering periodic redemption windows, but this accessibility masks significant liquidity and leverage risks that intensify during market stress.
- • Leverage amplifies returns in favorable conditions but creates acute vulnerability: nontraded BDCs can borrow up to $2 for every $1 of investor capital, driving double-digit yields (Blackstone Private Credit exceeded 10.0% for the 12 months ending August 2025) compared to ~8.6% for interval funds in the same asset class, but this leverage becomes destabilizing when redemptions surge.
- • Blue Owl Capital's February 19, 2026 announcement—suspending quarterly redemptions on Blue Owl Capital Corp II (OBDC II) and liquidating $1.4 billion in assets—exposed critical structural vulnerabilities in semi-liquid private credit vehicles, triggering broader sector concern that illiquid loan portfolios cannot reliably meet investor redemption requests during stressed conditions.
- • Regulatory frameworks vary significantly: interval and tender-offer funds cap debt at 33% of assets, while nontrated REITs face no regulatory debt limits (typically ranging 30–60%), creating uneven risk profiles across semi-liquid vehicles investing in the same underlying asset classes.
- • The tension between illiquid underlying loan portfolios and semi-liquid fund structures that promise periodic liquidity has emerged as a structural fault line in the private credit complex, requiring careful investor due diligence and realistic expectations around redemption certainty.
Summary
Semi-liquid fund structures have fundamentally reshaped access to alternative assets over the past decade, allowing retail and institutional investors to invest in traditionally restricted asset classes including private credit, real estate, infrastructure, and venture capital through vehicles that offer periodic redemption windows rather than the long lock-ups associated with closed-end funds. Interval funds, tender-offer funds, nontraded business development companies (BDCs), and nontraded real estate investment trusts (REITs) straddle the boundary between public and private markets, creating what industry participants describe as "the democratization of alternatives." However, this structural innovation harbors significant risks that crystallized dramatically in February 2026.
The primary risk driver is leverage. Many semi-liquid strategies, particularly nontraded BDCs focused on private credit, employ substantial borrowing to amplify returns. Nontraded BDCs can borrow up to $2 for every $1 of investor capital—a 2:1 debt-to-equity ratio that fuels distribution yields well above comparable vehicles. Blackstone Private Credit, for example, yielded over 10.0% for the 12 months ending August 2025, substantially above the ~8.6% average yield for interval funds invested in identical private credit assets. This leverage works powerfully in benign conditions, but it becomes a destabilizing force when market conditions deteriorate and redemptions accelerate. Regulatory constraints vary: interval and tender-offer funds cap debt at 33% of assets, while nontraded REITs face no regulatory debt ceiling, typically operating with debt-to-assets ratios between 30% and 60%. Private equity and venture capital semi-liquid vehicles employ leverage more sparingly—approximately 30% employ fund-level leverage at all—typically using it to manage liquidity timing rather than amplify returns.
The structural vulnerability became acute in mid-February 2026 when Blue Owl Capital, one of the largest BDC private capital managers in the United States, announced it would permanently halt quarterly redemptions for Blue Owl Capital Corp II (OBDC II) and liquidate approximately $1.4 billion in assets from multiple credit funds. Rather than facilitating quarterly redemptions, the firm would distribute proceeds episodically as assets sell down over time. This decision exposed the central tension in semi-liquid architecture: funds with deeply illiquid underlying loan portfolios cannot reliably meet investor redemption requests during periods of financial stress, particularly when multiple investors demand simultaneous liquidity. The announcement triggered sharp equity price declines across the alternative asset management sector and heightened regulatory and investor scrutiny of private credit vulnerabilities.
The broader private credit landscape compounds these risks. Over the past decade, the asset class—defined as non-bank lending to middle-market companies outside public bond markets—has expanded dramatically as institutions sought higher yields in a low-rate environment. Direct lenders, BDCs, and private credit funds now constitute a major pillar of global finance, yet this rapid growth has outpaced the maturation of infrastructure to manage systematic redemption pressure in stressed scenarios. The Blue Owl episode underscores that semi-liquid fund managers require disciplined marketing and investor communication, as Partners Group executives have emphasized: funds must avoid attracting investors with short-term trading mentalities who treat semi-liquid vehicles as liquid instruments. The doubling of yields via leverage, while attractive in promotional materials, fundamentally obscures the mismatch between fund-level promises of periodic liquidity and portfolio-level asset illiquidity—a duality that leaves investors vulnerable to extended redemption suspensions and forced asset sales at depressed valuations.
The primary risk driver is leverage. Many semi-liquid strategies, particularly nontraded BDCs focused on private credit, employ substantial borrowing to amplify returns. Nontraded BDCs can borrow up to $2 for every $1 of investor capital—a 2:1 debt-to-equity ratio that fuels distribution yields well above comparable vehicles. Blackstone Private Credit, for example, yielded over 10.0% for the 12 months ending August 2025, substantially above the ~8.6% average yield for interval funds invested in identical private credit assets. This leverage works powerfully in benign conditions, but it becomes a destabilizing force when market conditions deteriorate and redemptions accelerate. Regulatory constraints vary: interval and tender-offer funds cap debt at 33% of assets, while nontraded REITs face no regulatory debt ceiling, typically operating with debt-to-assets ratios between 30% and 60%. Private equity and venture capital semi-liquid vehicles employ leverage more sparingly—approximately 30% employ fund-level leverage at all—typically using it to manage liquidity timing rather than amplify returns.
The structural vulnerability became acute in mid-February 2026 when Blue Owl Capital, one of the largest BDC private capital managers in the United States, announced it would permanently halt quarterly redemptions for Blue Owl Capital Corp II (OBDC II) and liquidate approximately $1.4 billion in assets from multiple credit funds. Rather than facilitating quarterly redemptions, the firm would distribute proceeds episodically as assets sell down over time. This decision exposed the central tension in semi-liquid architecture: funds with deeply illiquid underlying loan portfolios cannot reliably meet investor redemption requests during periods of financial stress, particularly when multiple investors demand simultaneous liquidity. The announcement triggered sharp equity price declines across the alternative asset management sector and heightened regulatory and investor scrutiny of private credit vulnerabilities.
The broader private credit landscape compounds these risks. Over the past decade, the asset class—defined as non-bank lending to middle-market companies outside public bond markets—has expanded dramatically as institutions sought higher yields in a low-rate environment. Direct lenders, BDCs, and private credit funds now constitute a major pillar of global finance, yet this rapid growth has outpaced the maturation of infrastructure to manage systematic redemption pressure in stressed scenarios. The Blue Owl episode underscores that semi-liquid fund managers require disciplined marketing and investor communication, as Partners Group executives have emphasized: funds must avoid attracting investors with short-term trading mentalities who treat semi-liquid vehicles as liquid instruments. The doubling of yields via leverage, while attractive in promotional materials, fundamentally obscures the mismatch between fund-level promises of periodic liquidity and portfolio-level asset illiquidity—a duality that leaves investors vulnerable to extended redemption suspensions and forced asset sales at depressed valuations.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.