Liquidity Isn’t Free

July 27, 2026 | Chloe Ariss, Associate Research Analyst

Column chart showing redemption volume for business development companies (PDCs) in billions of dollars by quarter, 1Q 2022 to 2Q 2026. Filled redemptions are shown in solid orange, but 1Q and 2Q 2026 also include stacked lighter orange for Unmet Redemptions data (-$6.5B and -$9.7B, respectively). Up to the second half of 2025, volume hovered at less than -$2B, but has since increased. For full dataset, please contact marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

The rapid growth of non-traded business development companies (BDCs), which are investment vehicles that pool investor capital to make loans to privately held companies, has broadened access to private credit. As a result, retail investors have gained exposure to an asset class that was historically available mostly to institutional investors. However, recent redemption activity highlights a key structural consideration of the asset class: the underlying investments are inherently illiquid. Consequently, periods of elevated redemption requests can create challenges that require careful portfolio and liquidity management.

As shown in this week’s chart, redemption volumes remained relatively muted from 2022 through the third quarter of last year, then accelerated over recent quarters. Indeed, redemption requests now exceed the amount that BDCs are required to fulfill (5% of assets), resulting in a growing level of unfilled redemptions. While this may appear concerning at first glance, redemption limits are a key feature of non-traded BDC structures and are intended to protect the remaining investors in the fund from forced selling of illiquid assets. In many cases, unmet redemption requests reflect the operation of these safeguards as designed, rather than an indication of any deterioration in portfolio quality. While there are signs that BDC redemption requests may have peaked, it is likely that redemptions will remain elevated in the coming quarters as the non-traded BDCs work through queues based on underlying liquidity.

This trend also highlights a key distinction between publicly traded and non-traded BDCs. Publicly traded BDCs provide daily liquidity via the secondary market, with discounts and premiums to NAV reflecting changes in investor sentiment. In contrast, non-traded BDCs generally seek to maintain a more stable NAV, instead relying on repurchase programs and redemption limits to manage liquidity. The recent widening of discounts among publicly traded BDCs may also be contributing to redemption activity in non-traded vehicles, as public vehicles can be viewed as relatively attractive from a valuation perspective.

It is important to note that continued redemption pressures could have an impact on portfolio construction. Managers may hold additional cash, utilize additional fund-level leverage, or slow deployment to preserve liquidity, potentially reducing exposure to newly originated investments and leaving portfolios more concentrated in older vintage loans. For investors, the widening gap between filled and unfilled redemption requests is a reminder that private credit was not designed to function as a daily liquid asset class. Non-traded BDCs can provide valuable access to private markets for certain investors, but liquidity ultimately remains constrained by the underlying assets. As a result, investors should carefully consider whether a semi-liquid structure aligns with their needs and objectives. Manager selection also remains a critical consideration in this space, as approaches to portfolio construction, valuation, liquidity management, and performance can vary meaningfully across strategies.

Print PDF

Chloe Ariss
Associate Research Analyst

Get to Know Chloe

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

Related Content

Bar chart comparing October and year-to-date 2026 returns for Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, India, China, and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. October returns are below zero for most markets, while year-to-date returns range from negative to positive. For full dataset, please contact marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

11.02.2026

The Haunting of Emerging Markets

Emerging markets faced a challenging October, with the space declining by around 8.3% amid renewed concerns over the sustainability of…

Stacked bar chart showing U.S. private equity deal value by deal size from Q1 2022 through Q2 2026. The y-axis shows percentage of total deal value from 0% to 100%, and the x-axis shows quarters by year. Stacked bar chart showing the percentage of U.S. private equity deal count by deal size from Q1 2022 through Q2 2026. The y-axis ranges from 0% to 100%, and the x-axis shows quarters by year. For full dataset, please contact marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

10.26.2026

Smaller Deals, Larger Appeal

Private equity activity is increasingly shifting toward smaller transactions, with total deal value for transactions of $100 million or less…

10.08.2026

3Q 2026 Market Insights

This video is a recording of a live webinar held October 22 by Marquette’s research team analyzing the third quarter…

Line chart comparing S&P 500 Index cumulative returns for midterm and non-midterm election years since 1980. The x-axis shows October through December, and the y-axis shows S&P 500 Index cumulative return, ranging from -1% to 8%. For full dataset, please contact marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

10.19.2026

Divided We Rise?

Since 1980, the S&P 500 Index has generally performed well in the weeks surrounding U.S. midterm elections. Specifically, the index…

Chart #1 - Line chart showing PJM summer peak load estimates in gigawatts (GW) from 2015 to 2045. The chart compares historical peak load, current capacity, and forecasts from 2024, 2025, and 2026, showing projected demand rising above current capacity over time. Chart #2 - Stacked bar chart showing U.S. power demand in terawatt-hours (TWh) for 2025 and estimated demand in 2030. The chart compares data center and non-data center demand, showing total power demand increasing over the period.

10.12.2026

The Power Demand Supercycle

This week’s chart highlights the accelerating growth of electricity demand in the U.S., which has been driven primarily by the…

Bar chart showing average monthly VIX levels from 1990 through October 2026. The x-axis displays months of the year from January through December, and the y-axis displays VIX level. October has the highest average VIX level among all months, while April has the lowest. The chart also includes a current VIX level and a long-term average VIX level for comparison. Source: Bloomberg as of October 2, 2026. Data series begins in 1990. For full dataset, please contact marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

10.05.2026

Spooky Season

For investors, the spookiest thing about October might not be the ghosts and monsters that are bound to show up…

More articles

Subscribe to Research Email Alerts

Research Email Alert Subscription

Research alerts keep you updated on our latest research publications. Simply enter your contact information, choose the research alerts you would like to receive and click Subscribe. Alerts will be sent as research is published.

We respect your privacy. We will never share or sell your information.

Thank You

We appreciate your interest in Marquette Associates.

If you have questions or need further information, please contact us directly and we will respond to your inquiry within 24 hours.

Contact Us >