[비즈한국] On the 19th (local time), the three major indices of the New York stock market fell together. While geopolitical tensions regarding the possibility of a U.S. military strike on Iran had an impact, the announcement by Blue Owl, a U.S. private equity firm that has been investing in private loans for the IT sector, regarding changes to the redemption structure of some funds, shook investor sentiment toward Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Blue Owl announced that it would effectively terminate the quarterly redemption structure of its fund for individual investors, 'Blue Owl Capital Corp II (OBDC II).' Until now, investors were able to withdraw funds within a limit of 5% of the Net Asset Value (NAV) every quarter. The market became uneasy as this promise of 'predictable liquidity' was broken.
While the media used the expression 'redemption suspension,' experts believe it is closer to a restructuring rather than a total shutdown. Hwang Soo-wook, a researcher at Meritz Securities, explained, "Although the potentially sensational term 'redemption suspension' was highlighted in media reports, it is more of a structural change than a complete freeze." Researcher Hwang added, "It is not cutting off liquidity entirely, but rather a method of returning cash to all investors through asset sales instead of regular redemptions like the previous 5% quarterly redemption."
Of course, the situation remains difficult to reassure investors, as the belief that funds could be withdrawn predictably has been shaken.
However, this incident should be viewed as the result of accumulated pressure rather than a sudden disaster. Lee Young-ju, a researcher at Hana Securities, pointed out, "This decision is more of an extension of the redemption pressure that has continued since 2024 rather than a sudden measure." As redemption requests repeatedly exceeded limits, pro-rata allocation was applied, and a situation where investors could not receive the full amount requested was repeated. While doubts about liquidity were growing, the asset manager eventually chose to sell the loan portfolio to raise cash and change the redemption structure.
The core is a structural contradiction. The model of attaching short-term redemption conditions to long-term, illiquid assets—specifically loans to unlisted mid-sized companies—works fine under normal circumstances, but its limits are revealed the moment redemptions flood in. This is not because asset values have plummeted, but because the speed at which assets can be converted into cash fails to keep up with investor expectations.
Researcher Lee Young-ju forecasted, "For now, it is an adjustment at the level of an individual fund, but if macro slowdowns, increased defaults, and expanded leverage burdens overlap, one cannot rule out the possibility of similar redemption pressure appearing in other private credit funds."
So, is there a possibility that this could spread into a systemic risk like the BNP Paribas crisis that preceded the 2008 financial crisis? Experts see the possibility as low. BDCs are subject to asset coverage regulations, and OBDC II is also evaluated as having remaining leverage capacity. Cash flows centered on large-cap stocks are also more robust than during the past dot-com bubble period. Researcher Hwang also drew a line regarding the possibility of a full-scale spread, stating, "Liquidity concerns are a problem limited to certain industries and companies."
However, the appeal of private credit, which was in the spotlight for providing high dividends based on variable-rate loans during a high-interest rate phase, is showing cracks alongside expectations for interest rate cuts, intensified competition, and the widening of NAV discounts. Investor sentiment is also not as favorable as it used to be.
This situation is not an irrelevant issue for Korean investors either. Recently, interest in alternative investment products such as private loans, real estate bridge loans, and overseas credit funds has been growing rapidly in Korea as well. In particular, interest in U.S. BDCs or private credit ETFs has also increased.
The domestic BDC system, which will be implemented next month, is a closed-end listed fund that allows individuals to invest in unlisted venture and mid-sized companies. While U.S. BDCs have a high-dividend structure centered on private loans, the Korean-style BDC is different in that it is centered on equity investment. However, there are commonalities. Equity investment requires events such as IPOs or M&A to be cashed out, and in a structure without a liquidity provider (LP), concerns about spread widening due to a lack of trading volume are raised.
The names are the same, but the structures are different. However, one thing is the same: liquidity is not a promise, but something created by the market.
The Blue Owl crisis is a test of trust, not a matter of insolvency. Structural weaknesses that were not visible when liquidity was abundant have been exposed under the pressure of redemptions. For individual investors, rather than assuming stability simply because it is 'managed by an institution,' one must meticulously examine the asset's maturity structure, redemption conditions, and cash-out routes. It is an incident that leaves the lesson that the higher the yield of the product, the more one must first check the liquidity conditions.