Blog > Stratégies > Article
L'article en bref
When major names in American asset management activated their gates, some individual investors panicked. Yet behind these decisions lies not a crisis, but a contractual mechanism designed precisely to protect investors. Understanding BDCs, their structure and their liquidity constraints means understanding why these mechanisms are safeguards, not warning signals.
In recent weeks, several major names in American asset management, including Blue Owl Capital, Blackstone and BlackRock, have made headlines in the financial press. The reason: the activation of their "gates," in response to a surge in redemption requests from individual investors. Cause for concern, perhaps. But before yielding to alarmism, it is worth understanding what actually happened with private debt markets.
The funds in question are BDCs (Business Development Companies). These investment vehicles, born in the United States in the 1980s, were designed to bridge the gap between individual investors and the traditionally closed world of Private Equity.
Their regulatory specificity: at least 70% of their investments must be made in private or publicly listed American companies with a market capitalisation below $250 million. Accessible through a standard brokerage account, BDCs directly support the real economy while offering retail participants exposure to private markets, a democratisation that has attracted a growing number of American investors.
A gate is a contractual clause that caps the total amount of withdrawals permitted during a given period, typically a quarter. For most Evergreen (semi-liquid) funds such as those of Blackstone or Blue Owl Capital, this cap is set at 5% of total net assets per quarter.
In practice: if investors collectively request to withdraw 10% of assets under management, the gate is triggered. The fund repays the first 5% on a pro-rata basis and defers the remainder to the following quarter or quarters.
To understand this, one must grasp the structural disconnect at the heart of the matter:
Without a gate, this imbalance becomes problematic. Faced with simultaneous large-scale redemption requests, a fund without such a barrier would be forced to offload its loans at distressed prices: selling 100 euros of Private Debt for 70 euros simply to generate immediate liquidity. A fire sale that would severely penalise remaining investors.
If an investor lends money to a company to build a factory over five years, they cannot demand early repayment a year later simply because they have changed their mind. The gate exists to reinforce this reality.
When Blue Owl Capital, Blackstone or BlackRock temporarily cap their withdrawals, this does not signal a deterioration in their underlying portfolios. It is the mechanical consequence of a structural mismatch: periodic liquidity has been sold against assets that are, by their very nature, illiquid.
Gates are not alarm signals regarding credit quality. They are contractual mechanisms designed precisely to protect the value of these private debt portfolios and, ultimately, to protect the investor themselves.
Faced with these redemption requests, not all General Partners (GPs) adopted the same stance. Some, such as BlackRock, applied the contractual clauses strictly. Others, such as Blackstone, at times chose to inject their own capital to honour requests, out of reputational considerations.
Two different approaches, but one shared underlying observation: a fund that lends over multiple years cannot structurally guarantee full liquidity every quarter. This is an inherent reality of the asset class, not a market anomaly, and gates are its natural safeguard.
To explore this topic further, watch our Chairman, Paul Moreno Blosseville, on the Actu Bourse broadcast. (in French)
Sources: Discussions and reports from: Ares, Apollo, Blackstone, Bridgepoint, Goldman Sachs, KKR, Morgan Stanley, Neuberger Berman, Sixth Street and Tikehau Capital. Studies by Ares / Blackstone Credit / Golub Capital (LTV structures and senior secured). Preqin. Goldman Sachs Investment Research & Preqin, 2025.
Quelques questions en lien avec l'article.
OPALE CAPITAL SAS, a French simplified joint-stock company (société par actions simplifiée), with a share capital of €4,659,164, registered office at 32, rue de Monceau 75008 Paris, registered with the Paris Trade and Companies Register under number 921 277 208, approved by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers and registered with the AMF as a portfolio management company under number GP-20240010.
