Hank Roberts IV

This is non-sense. PE only makes money when they make a company more valuable. Debt paydown is almost always a small portion of the return. While sometimes cost reductions make a company more valuable, generally business buyers are pretty smart. They aren't going to pay up for a business that has been stripped. They will pay up for business that show top line growth, shifts to segments with more recurring revenue, etc. Most PE investments focus on growth. The idea that PE isn't focused enough on the long term is truly wrong. Talk to anyone that has worked in a public company and there is intense focus on simply the next quarter. When they get to PE they are amazed at the focus on 3-5 years out. And BTW, even if we are going to sell in 3-5 years we also have to make investments so the next buyer has a good return in their 3-5 year hold after that. Way less short term focused. Should we focus on 10-20 years out? While this sounds good, many investments focused on those types of time horizons are just a waste of money. Who knows what the world will look like in 20 years. If an investment can't be justified over the next 5 years then most times it is just a bad investment. I am sure there are limited exceptions but I am very skeptical. The bottom line is PE only makes money if they build better businesses. Not every PE firm is successful and even the successful ones have deals that don't work. But there are also public companies and founder owned businesses that fail. The success and returns of PE suggest that overall they are building better businesses and that is good for society as a whole.

There is a manufacturing boom underway in America.

With Medallia alone Jon Gray’s 3.5% apocalyptic scenario is fulfilled on $BXSL Maybe these guys aren’t the best risk assessors ? Or is everything else perfect and we’re in the apocalypse’s trough ?

Happy Tax Day, New York. We’re taxing the rich.

Job openings for January were revised up, but the three-month moving average continues to gently grind lower through February There were 0.9 vacancies for every worker counted as unemployed in February, near the low for the current business cycle.

Several months ago a major Private Credit fund marked its portfolio down 19% overnight. Sounds bad, because it is bad. Did all of the loans get marked down 19% in a single day. Or did 50% of the loans get marked down 38% in a single day. Or did 25% of the loans get marked down 76% in a single day. Which explanation is worse? All of them.

I feel their pain. 40% redemptions is beyond breaking point for a private credit firm. But gating your investors? In the long run, probably even worse. Private credit funds lend to middle-market companies (in Blue Owl's case, mostly software and SaaS). These are illiquid, multi-year term loans. They can't be sold overnight on an exchange. There is no bid. Now imagine 40% of your investors want out. You have two options: A) Honor the redemptions. To raise cash, you have to sell loans at a steep discount, or worse, call them in early. But your borrowers don't have the cash sitting around either. They took term debt because they needed time. Force-selling a multi-billion loan book at 70-80c on the $ doesn't just hurt your returning investors - it destroys value for everyone who stays. B) Gate redemptions. Which is exactly what Blue Owl did. Cap withdrawals at 5% per quarter. Protect the remaining LPs. Protect the borrowers. But now you've confirmed every investor's worst fear: your money is locked and you can't get it back when you need it. This is the fundamental tension in private credit: you're offering quarterly liquidity on assets that have none. It works beautifully in calm markets. In stress, the math breaks. And here's the part nobody talks about - the borrowers. If a fund were forced to liquidate, those SaaS companies with 3-5 year term loans would face early repayment demands, covenant pressure, or their debt getting transferred to a distressed buyer at punitive terms. The very companies the fund was supposed to support become collateral damage. Blue Owl is in survival mode, so they chose the second option. Which doesn't mean they won't have to go with option A as well, and very soon. But the real question for the industry: should interval fund structures be used for assets this illiquid in the first place?

Looking through the volatility of the first three months of the year, the economy added 15,000 jobs on average over the past six months and 68,000 per month so far in 2026.

BLUE OWL CREDIT INCOME FUND RECEIVED WITHDRAWAL REQUESTS ESTIMATED AT 21.9% OF THE FUND SHARES IN Q1 BLUE OWL OTIC FUND RECEIVED WITHDRAWAL REQUESTS ESTIMATED AT 40.7% OF THE FUND SHARES IN Q1