Financial markets often send subtle signals before major crises erupt. The recent BlackRock case in the private credit sector has raised an uncomfortable question among many investors: to what extent is this market truly liquid?

The sector has grown to exceed two trillion dollars and has become a key component of the global financial system. Yet its functioning hides a structural tension that has now returned to the spotlight.

The news that triggered alarm is apparently technical, but significant. BlackRock decided to limit withdrawals from its HLEND fund after receiving redemption requests worth around 1.2 billion dollars, approximately 9.3% of the fund’s total assets. These types of investment vehicles usually apply restrictions — typically around 5% per quarter — for a very simple reason: the assets they invest in cannot easily be sold. Private credit mainly consists of direct loans to private companies, often mid-sized firms that are not publicly traded and therefore lack a deep secondary market where such loans can be quickly traded.

When many investors try to withdraw their money at the same time, managers face a classic liquidity problem: funds promise some flexibility to investors, but the assets they hold in their portfolios are structurally illiquid. The market reacted immediately to this uncomfortable reminder, and BlackRock’s share price fell by nearly 7% after the decision became known. Beyond this specific movement, what truly unsettled investors was the implicit message: private credit has become a massive market, but it still relies on assets that are difficult to sell quickly when market confidence begins to wobble.

The explosive growth of private credit

The growth of private credit cannot be understood without looking back. After the 2008 financial crisis, regulators strengthened capital and risk control requirements for traditional banking, particularly through the Basel III agreements. These rules forced financial institutions to be much more cautious when granting loans, especially to companies with higher risk profiles. The result was a structural shift in the credit market: part of the financing previously provided by banks began to move toward non-bank actors. Asset managers and large investment funds took advantage of this gap to enter the private credit business aggressively.

Firms such as Blackstone, Apollo Global Management, Blue Owl Capital, and BlackRock itself turned this space into a new financial industry. In little more than a decade, the sector has grown to exceed two trillion dollars in loans, becoming a key source of financing for many mid-sized companies, particularly in the United States. For investors, these funds offer an attractive proposition: higher returns than traditional bonds in a low-interest-rate environment.

However, this model also hides a structural fragility. Many investors provide highly liquid capital, while managers invest it in loans that may take years to be repaid. It is a delicate balance that works as long as confidence remains intact.

Three possible scenarios

The question many analysts are asking today is not whether private credit will disappear, but how it will react if the economic environment becomes more adverse. After a decade of rapid growth, this market has not yet been tested by a deep recession capable of assessing its resilience. In this context, several analysts point to three plausible scenarios for the coming years.

1. Orderly adjustment. The first scenario is also the one many experts consider most likely. The sector could enter a phase of normalization after years of intense expansion. Some corporate defaults and occasional withdrawal restrictions may appear, while returns could moderate compared to the levels seen in recent years. Despite these tensions, the system would continue to function without major disruptions. Private credit would remain an important source of corporate financing, but with more cautious expectations and stricter risk management. The estimated probability of this scenario is high.
2. Sectoral tension. A second scenario could occur if the global economy enters a recession. In that case, rising corporate defaults would pressure fund performance and could generate concern among investors. If this concern translated into a wave of redemption requests, some funds might be forced to limit withdrawals. The consequences would include losses in some investment vehicles, greater financial volatility, and a broader reassessment of sector risk. The market would not collapse, but it would enter a period of tension. The probability of this scenario is moderate.
3. Liquidity crisis. The third scenario is less likely, but not impossible. A crisis of confidence could trigger simultaneous investor withdrawals. In such a case, managers would face a structural problem: the lack of immediate buyers for the loans held in their portfolios. If this happened, funds would not be able to sell assets quickly enough, loan prices would fall, and some vehicles might temporarily suspend withdrawals. Similar situations have already been seen in real estate funds or private equity funds, where apparent liquidity disappears when markets come under stress. The probability is low, but real. 

Why tangible assets return

When financial markets show signs of tension, investors often return to a question as old as trade itself: what has value outside the financial system? 

At such times, interest tends to shift toward tangible assets — those that exist independently of trust in an intermediary or a market.

Historically, this has translated into greater demand for physical gold, commodities, or certain real estate assets. It is no coincidence that in recent years many central banks have increased their gold reserves to strengthen the security of their balance sheets, restoring the role of gold as a global reserve asset. Gold has served for centuries as protection against monetary crises, inflation, or financial instability precisely because it does not depend on any issuer or specific financial system.

In reality, the deeper debate is not whether the financial system will collapse. History shows that markets have enormous adaptive capacity. The key question is another: how to protect wealth in a world with greater volatility, more debt, and more geopolitical uncertainty.

For years, many investors have concentrated their portfolios in highly interconnected assets — stocks, bonds, or investment funds — that depend on the same financial infrastructure. But episodes such as the private credit case remind us that these markets rely on a crucial element: confidence in liquidity.

When that confidence weakens, diversification once again becomes a fundamental principle — not only between financial products, but also between financial assets and tangible assets.

The BlackRock case is not a systemic crisis, but it is a timely reminder. In periods of financial abundance it is easy to assume that liquidity will always exist and that someone will always be willing to buy our assets. Financial history, however, teaches us that when tensions arise, that certainty can disappear quickly.

That is why, beyond market trends, the question many savers ask today remains the same one investors asked centuries ago: what is truly mine… and what depends on the system?

For the 11Onze Community, understanding this difference is essential. Because protecting wealth is not about predicting the future of markets, but about building a savings and investment strategy capable of resisting when the system comes under strain.

If you want to discover the best option to protect your savings, enter Preciosos 11Onze. We will help you buy at the best price the safe-haven asset par excellence: physical gold.