As the Financial Times reported on April 2, the U.S. Treasury is urging regulators to convene now on the risks building in private credit—an indication that concerns around governance gaps in the sector are beginning to intensify.
Recent redemption constraints weren’t a sign of failure in private credit, but they did bring a long-standing tension into sharper focus. Semi-liquid structures offer periodic liquidity, yet they’re built on portfolios of inherently illiquid, long-duration loans. That model works smoothly when confidence is strong and pricing remains stable. But as interest rates rise, spreads widen, and refinancing assumptions come under pressure, that balance becomes increasingly delicate.
In this environment, net asset value is no longer a passive reporting outcome. It is an economic signal. How funds value, stress, and communicate their portfolios now plays a central role in whether investor confidence holds — or liquidity evaporates.
For years, semi-liquid private debt vehicles worked because confidence was high, refinancing was easy, and spreads were tight. NAVs were stable. Redemptions were manageable. “Performing equals par” was rarely questioned.
That environment has changed.
Higher rates, widening refinancing walls, and idiosyncratic defaults — Tricolor Auto and First Brands Group — have cast doubt. When doubt enters, redemptions follow. When redemptions follow, gates close. And when gates close, the discount widens regardless of whether the underlying loans are impaired.
Redemptions are rarely triggered solely by losses. They are triggered by doubt.
This is not a credit crisis. It is a confidence crisis.
The evidence lies in markets that reprice in real time. If the BDC selloff reflected genuine corporate credit fear, it would appear in high-yield spreads. The ICE BofA US High Yield OAS closed March 2026 near 309 basis points — essentially unmoved since the redemption wave began in November 2025.
The gap between public price and private NAV is the crisis.
FSK trades at a 32% discount to its stated NAV. OBDC at 25.5%. In a semi-liquid structure, NAV is not just an accounting output—it is the exit price. When investors believe marks are stale, they submit redemption requests today — rationally, defensively — before marks adjust tomorrow. Apollo’s announcement of daily NAV marking is the industry’s clearest acknowledgement that the gap between economic reality and reported marks is the problem. The answer, in every case, is to look harder at the underlying assets.
The next phase of private credit will be defined less by yield and more by credibility.
Three practices that build investor confidence — and help keep gates closed.
Replace backward-looking reports with scenario-based foresight.
Most reporting explains what has already happened. Investor confidence depends on understanding what is likely to happen next.
Eliminate the perception of manager bias through independent oversight.
Allegations such as those raised by Glendon Capital — regardless of their ultimate accuracy — signal a broader issue: trust in manager-determined marks has weakened. Governance is the structural response.
Private credit is not broken. But the era of “liquid illiquidity” demands tighter alignment between economic reality and reported marks.
In semi-liquid structures, NAV is not just an accounting output. It is the exit price. If investors trust it, liquidity holds. If they don’t, gates follow.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of our team.
For more than a decade, Form PF has been one of the more demanding items on the private fund compliance calendar. That may be about to change. On April 20, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly proposed a set of amendments that would pull back a…
For years, businesses and tax advisors have searched for a clear answer to a deceptively simple question: When is a limited partner truly a “limited partner” for self-employment tax purposes? Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit appeared to provide that answer, tying the analysis largely to a partner’s legal status and liability protection. Many taxpayers…
Prediction-market event contracts raise unresolved federal income tax questions because they combine features of wagers and financial instruments. A typical contract may allow a participant to buy a “yes” or “no” position on whether a specified event will occur—such as the outcome of a sports contest, election, weather event or other real-world contingency. Economically, these…
