<p>撰寫者：jsai@金色財經</p>
<p>在 2026 年 3 月，在美伊戰爭的一個不為人知的角落，美國私人借貸市場突然面臨贖回壓力的高峰。</p>
<p>黑石集團的旗艦基金 HPS 企業借貸基金（HLEND），管理資產達 260 億美元，宣佈將嚴格限制季度贖回比例為 5%，儘管投資者的贖回請求達到了 9.3%（約 12 億美元的請求，僅批准了約 6.2 億美元）。</p>
<p>這並不是個別案例；黑石、藍貓資本、Cliffwater 和摩根士丹利等領先機構旗下的基金也面臨類似困境。</p>
<h2>一、哪些基金已經實施了贖回限制？</h2>
<p>目前尚未達到行業普遍強制關閉贖回的地步，但壓力高度集中在針對零售和高淨值客户的 “半開放” 或間隔基金（BDC）上。</p>
<p>這些基金通常每季度提供高達淨資產價值 5% 的贖回窗口。如果申請超過此限制，管理者可以合法啓動限制機制。已知開始限制贖回的基金包括：黑石 HPS 企業借貸基金（HLEND，260 億美元）：2026 年第一季度的申請達到了 9.3%，嚴格限制在 5%，首次觸發了 “結構性上限”。這是近期市場動盪以來，第一家明確限制永久性私人借貸產品的大型機構。黑石 BCRED（約 820 億美元）：申請達到了創紀錄的 7.9%，超過了通常的 5% 上限。公司使用了約 4 億美元的自有資金和高管資金來完全滿足贖回，沒有正式 “關門”，但顯示出顯著的緩衝壓力。藍貓資本的 OBDC II 和其他 BDC（16-19 億美元）：自 2 月起，常規季度贖回停止，取而代之的是定期分配（貸款償還或資產出售），實際上是一種限制。此前，它已回購了 15.4% 的持股，壓力測試顯示出其首次裂痕。Cliffwater 企業借貸基金（330 億美元）：面對超過 7% 的贖回請求，窗口在 3 月 10 日（星期二）剛剛關閉，公司尚未決定是限制在 5% 還是提高到 7%。摩根士丹利北港私人收入基金（80 億美元）：請求約為 11%，北港在設定 5% 贖回上限後返還了約 1.69 億美元，遠低於投資者的贖回請求。其他基金如 Ares 和 Fidelity 也見證了贖回率的上升，但尚未正式實施限制。總體而言，在 1.8-2 萬億美元的私人借貸市場中，面向零售的基金受到的衝擊最大，而機構基金相對穩定，但信心溢出風險已經顯現。</p>
<h2>二、為何限制贖回：根本原因在於結構性不匹配和市場擔憂</h2>
<p>私人借貸的核心賣點是 “高回報 + 低波動 + 季度流動性”，但其基礎資產是長期的、非公開的、難以變現的企業貸款（尤其是 SaaS、技術槓桿收購等）。</p>
<p>儘管許多基金明確規定了高達淨資產價值 5% 的贖回窗口，但在贖回潮來襲時，限制贖回是合規和合法的，基金面臨着 “流動性幻覺” 的破裂。</p>
<p>觸發贖回潮的因素包括：人工智能影響：許多基金重倉投資於軟件公司的抵押貸款；生成性人工智能可能會摧毀它們的商業模式，導致估值下調。摩根大通已經下調了一些軟件抵押貸款的估值並收緊了貸款。期限錯配：投資者可以每季度退出他們的基金，但貸款期限通常為數年。如果超額贖回完全滿足，基金經理只能以虧損出售資產或增加槓桿，這會損害剩餘投資者的利益。黑石明確表示，“如果沒有 5% 的上限，投資者資本與私人信貸貸款之間將存在結構性錯配。” 貸款質量擔憂：違約率在 2025 年上升至 9.2%（惠譽數據）。高調的違約事件（如英國的 MFS 欺詐破產，風險敞口超過 20 億英鎊）加劇了恐慌。散户投資者撤資：在過去幾年中，散户投資者的入市推動了市場規模的增長。現在，隨着美聯儲降息、人工智能的影響和宏觀經濟的不確定性，散户投資者是首批撤資者，形成了 “先到先得” 的困境。面對贖回潮，基金經理也面臨困境。完全滿足贖回將損害他們的聲譽和長期紀律；嚴格限制可能會引發更多的恐慌贖回。黑石選擇 “自掏腰包” 來緩衝損失，黑巖堅持條款，而 Cliffwater 仍在權衡其選擇。三、對金融市場的影響：系統性風險正在顯現，類似於 2007 年的前夕？私人借貸已成為 “影子銀行” 的核心，規模接近 2 萬億美元。如果流動性危機蔓延，將產生以下影響：資產管理巨頭股價暴跌：黑巖在公告後股價下跌超過 7%，黑石、KKR 和 Ares 等另類資產管理公司集體承壓，標誌着它們今年表現最差。資產拋售和去槓桿化：如果更多基金被迫以低價出售貸款，將壓低公共債券市場的估值，銀行將收緊對私人借貸的槓桿融資（摩根大通已經採取行動）。信心危機溢出：散户投資者信心的崩潰可能會影響整個另類資產類別，導致二級市場折扣交易增加。分析師將此比作 2007 年次貸危機的 “金絲雀時刻”——流動性枯竭和估值不透明的早期信號。在短期內，基金經理可以通過使用自有資金或出售資產作為緩衝來避免立即崩潰；然而，如果違約率持續上升或經濟放緩，系統性風險將被放大。四、對加密市場的影響：間接傳導佔主導，RWA 成為關鍵渠道 私人借貸危機對加密市場的直接影響有限，但有兩條溢出路徑：宏觀經濟風險厭惡和去槓桿化：私人借貸去槓桿化可能引發更廣泛的風險資產拋售，高貝塔資產如比特幣首當其衝。歷史經驗表明，傳統金融流動性收緊通常伴隨着加密市場的 “去風險化”。RWA 和 DeFi 中的鏈上傳導：當前鏈上私人借貸規模接近 50 億美元，主要以代幣化借貸的形式進入 DeFi。如果基礎的傳統貸款受到損害或違約，RWA 淨值的波動將觸發 DeFi 清算和流動性收緊。分析師警告稱，這可能通過兩個渠道傳導到加密生態系統：“宏觀去槓桿化 + 代幣化信用產品。” 然而，總體而言，加密市場受到的影響更多是 “情緒傳染”，而非直接資產關聯。短期內波動性可能增加，但長期表現取決於美聯儲政策和人工智能經濟的實際實施。這也提醒加密市場在將真實世界資產（RWA）上鍊的過程中必須密切關注基礎資產。一旦基礎資產出現問題，所謂的 RWA 代幣化和 DeFi 將是空中樓閣。結論：警惕 “流動性幻覺”，私人借貸進入壓力測試期。這波贖回潮不是私人借貸的終結，而是其快速擴張後的首次真正流動性測試。雖然像黑巖這樣的巨頭堅持上限在短期內保護了基金，但從長遠來看，這考驗了投資者的信任。金融市場需要關注後續的季度報告（更多基金將在 3 月和 4 月披露其業績），而加密市場應密切監測 RWA 違約信號和宏觀流動性。對於投資者，建議仔細評估自身的流動性需求，避免追逐 “高收益幻覺”。監管機構可能會加強對散户投資者的准入審查，以防止過度風險轉移到散户投資者。這個危機是 “煤礦中的金絲雀” 還是 “暫時的痛苦”，將在 3-6 個月的數據中得到答案。市場總是在波動中尋求平衡——私人借貸的下一個篇章可能是一個更加透明和可持續的篇章。</p>

CVMC

MSSM

MSLC

<p>在 2026 年 3 月，美國私人貸款市場面臨重大贖回壓力，像貝萊德的 HPS 企業貸款基金等主要基金將贖回限制在 5%，儘管請求超過 9%。其他基金，包括黑石和摩根士丹利的基金，也遇到了類似的問題。這波贖回潮歸因於結構性不匹配、市場擔憂和上升的違約率。這種情況提高了金融市場的系統性風險，讓人想起 2007 年危機前的情形，私人貸款規模接近 2 萬億美元，可能影響資產管理公司的股價</p>

<p>Written by: jsai@Jinse Finance</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>撰寫者：jsai@金色財經</p>
</div><p>In March 2026, in a corner unseen by the US-Iran war, the US private lending market suddenly faced a peak in redemption pressure.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 2026 年 3 月，在美伊戰爭的一個不為人知的角落，美國私人借貸市場突然面臨贖回壓力的高峰。</p>
</div><p>BlackRock's flagship fund, the HPS Corporate Lending Fund (HLEND), with $26 billion in assets under management, announced that it would strictly limit quarterly redemptions to 5%, despite investor redemption requests reaching 9.3% (approximately $1.2 billion in requests, with only about $620 million approved).</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>黑石集團的旗艦基金 HPS 企業借貸基金（HLEND），管理資產達 260 億美元，宣佈將嚴格限制季度贖回比例為 5%，儘管投資者的贖回請求達到了 9.3%（約 12 億美元的請求，僅批准了約 6.2 億美元）。</p>
</div><p>This is not an isolated case; funds under leading institutions such as Blackstone, Blue Owl, Cliffwater, and Morgan Stanley have also faced similar predicaments.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這並不是個別案例；黑石、藍貓資本、Cliffwater 和摩根士丹利等領先機構旗下的基金也面臨類似困境。</p>
</div><h2>I. Which funds have already implemented redemption restrictions?</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>一、哪些基金已經實施了贖回限制？</h2>
</div><p>Currently, it has not reached the point of a &#34;general&#34; industry-wide mandatory shutdown of redemptions, but the pressure is highly concentrated on &#34;semi-open&#34; or interval funds (BDC) targeting retail and high-net-worth clients.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>目前尚未達到行業普遍強制關閉贖回的地步，但壓力高度集中在針對零售和高淨值客户的 “半開放” 或間隔基金（BDC）上。</p>
</div><p>These funds typically offer a redemption window of up to 5% of net asset value each quarter. If applications exceed this limit, the manager can legally initiate a restriction mechanism. Funds known to have begun restricting redemptions include: BlackRock HPS Corporate Lending Fund (HLEND, $26 billion): Applications in Q1 2026 were 9.3%, strictly limited to 5%, triggering the &#34;structural cap&#34; for the first time. This is also the first large institution to explicitly restrict perpetual private lending products since the recent market turmoil. Blackstone BCRED (approximately $82 billion): Applications reached a record 7.9%, exceeding the usual 5% cap. The company used approximately $400 million of its own funds and those of its executives to fully meet redemptions, without officially &#34;closing the gate,&#34; but demonstrating significant buffering pressure. Blue Owl Capital's OBDC II and other BDCs ($1.6-1.9 billion): Starting in February, regular quarterly redemptions ceased, replaced by periodic distributions (loan repayments or asset sales), effectively a restriction. Previously, it had repurchased 15.4% of its holdings, and the stress test revealed its first cracks. Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund ($33 billion): Facing redemption requests exceeding 7%, the window just closed on Tuesday (March 10th), and the company has not yet decided whether to limit it to 5% or increase it to 7%. Morgan Stanley North Haven Private Income Fund ($8 billion): With requests around 11%, North Haven returned approximately $169 million after setting a 5% redemption cap, less than half of the investor redemption requests. Other funds such as Ares and Fidelity have also seen increased redemption rates, but have not yet officially imposed restrictions. Overall, in the $1.8-2 trillion private lending market, retail-oriented funds are the hardest hit, while institutional funds are relatively stable, but the risk of confidence spillover has already emerged.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這些基金通常每季度提供高達淨資產價值 5% 的贖回窗口。如果申請超過此限制，管理者可以合法啓動限制機制。已知開始限制贖回的基金包括：黑石 HPS 企業借貸基金（HLEND，260 億美元）：2026 年第一季度的申請達到了 9.3%，嚴格限制在 5%，首次觸發了 “結構性上限”。這是近期市場動盪以來，第一家明確限制永久性私人借貸產品的大型機構。黑石 BCRED（約 820 億美元）：申請達到了創紀錄的 7.9%，超過了通常的 5% 上限。公司使用了約 4 億美元的自有資金和高管資金來完全滿足贖回，沒有正式 “關門”，但顯示出顯著的緩衝壓力。藍貓資本的 OBDC II 和其他 BDC（16-19 億美元）：自 2 月起，常規季度贖回停止，取而代之的是定期分配（貸款償還或資產出售），實際上是一種限制。此前，它已回購了 15.4% 的持股，壓力測試顯示出其首次裂痕。Cliffwater 企業借貸基金（330 億美元）：面對超過 7% 的贖回請求，窗口在 3 月 10 日（星期二）剛剛關閉，公司尚未決定是限制在 5% 還是提高到 7%。摩根士丹利北港私人收入基金（80 億美元）：請求約為 11%，北港在設定 5% 贖回上限後返還了約 1.69 億美元，遠低於投資者的贖回請求。其他基金如 Ares 和 Fidelity 也見證了贖回率的上升，但尚未正式實施限制。總體而言，在 1.8-2 萬億美元的私人借貸市場中，面向零售的基金受到的衝擊最大，而機構基金相對穩定，但信心溢出風險已經顯現。</p>
</div><h2>II. Why Restrict Redemptions: The Root Cause Lies in Structural Mismatch and Market Concerns</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>二、為何限制贖回：根本原因在於結構性不匹配和市場擔憂</h2>
</div><p>The core selling point of private lending is &#34;high returns + low volatility + quarterly liquidity,&#34; but the underlying assets are long-term, non-public, and difficult-to-liquidate corporate loans (especially SaaS, technology LBOs, etc.).</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>私人借貸的核心賣點是 “高回報 + 低波動 + 季度流動性”，但其基礎資產是長期的、非公開的、難以變現的企業貸款（尤其是 SaaS、技術槓桿收購等）。</p>
</div><p>Although many funds have explicitly stipulated a redemption window of up to 5% of net asset value, restricting redemptions is compliant and legal, when a wave of redemptions hits, funds face the shattering of their &#34;liquidity illusion.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>儘管許多基金明確規定了高達淨資產價值 5% 的贖回窗口，但在贖回潮來襲時，限制贖回是合規和合法的，基金面臨着 “流動性幻覺” 的破裂。</p>
</div><p>Factors triggering the redemption wave include: AI Impact: Many funds heavily invest in software company mortgage loans; generative AI could destroy their business models, leading to valuation downgrades. JPMorgan Chase has already downgraded the valuation of some software mortgage loans and tightened lending. Duration Mismatch: Investors can exit their funds quarterly, but loan terms are often several years. If excess redemptions are fully met, managers can only sell assets at a loss or increase leverage, harming the interests of remaining investors. BlackRock explicitly stated that &#34;without the 5% cap, there will be a structural mismatch between investor capital and private credit loans.&#34; Loan Quality Concerns: The default rate has risen to 9.2% in 2025 (Fitch data). High-profile defaults (such as the UK's MFS fraud bankruptcy, with risk exposure exceeding £2 billion) exacerbate panic. Retail investor runs: In the past few years, retail investors' entry into the market has driven up its size. Now, with the Fed's interest rate cuts, the impact of AI, and macroeconomic uncertainty, retail investors are the first to withdraw, creating a &#34;first come, first served&#34; dilemma. When faced with a wave of redemptions, fund managers also face a dilemma. Fully satisfying redemptions would damage their reputation and long-term discipline; strict restrictions could trigger more panic redemptions. Blackstone chose to &#34;pay out of its own pocket&#34; to buffer the losses, BlackRock adhered to the terms, and Cliffwater is still weighing its options. III. Impact on financial markets: Systemic risks are emerging, similar to the eve of 2007? Private lending has become the core of &#34;shadow banking,&#34; approaching $2 trillion in size. If a liquidity crisis spreads, it will have the following impacts: Asset management giants' stock prices plummet: BlackRock's stock price fell more than 7% after its announcement, and alternative asset management firms such as Blackstone, KKR, and Ares are collectively under pressure, marking their worst performance in a decade this year. Asset sell-offs and deleveraging: If more funds are forced to sell loans at bargain prices, it will depress valuations in the public bond market, and banks will tighten leverage financing for private lending (JPMorgan Chase has already taken action). Confidence crisis spillover: The collapse of retail investor confidence may affect the entire alternative asset class, leading to increased discounted trading in the secondary market. Analysts have likened this to the &#34;canary moment&#34; of the 2007 subprime crisis—an early sign of liquidity depletion and valuation opacity. In the short term, managers can avoid an immediate collapse by using their own funds or selling assets as a buffer; however, if the default rate continues to rise or the economy slows down, systemic risks will be amplified. IV. Impact on the Crypto Market: Indirect Transmission Predominates, RWA Becomes a Key Channel The direct impact of the private lending crisis on the crypto market is limited, but there are two spillover paths: Macroeconomic Risk Aversion and Deleveraging: Private lending deleveraging may trigger a wider sell-off of risky assets, with high-beta assets such as Bitcoin bearing the brunt. Historical experience shows that traditional financial liquidity tightening is often accompanied by a crypto &#34;de-risking&#34; market. RWA and On-Chain Transmission in DeFi: The current on-chain private lending scale is close to $5 billion, mainly entering DeFi in the form of tokenized lending. If the underlying traditional loans are impaired or defaulted, fluctuations in RWA net worth will trigger DeFi liquidations and liquidity tightening. Analysts warn that this could be transmitted to the crypto ecosystem through two channels: &#34;macro deleveraging + tokenized credit products.&#34; However, overall, the crypto market is more affected by &#34;emotional contagion&#34; than by direct asset linkages. Short-term volatility may increase, but long-term performance depends on Federal Reserve policy and the actual implementation of AI economy. This also serves as a warning that the crypto market must pay close attention to the underlying assets of RWA during the process of putting real-world assets (RWA) on-chain. Once the underlying assets encounter problems, the so-called RWA tokenization and DeFi will be castles in the air. Conclusion: Beware of &#34;liquidity illusion,&#34; private lending enters a stress test period. This wave of redemptions is not the end of private lending, but rather its first real liquidity test after rapid expansion. While the adherence to caps by giants like BlackRock has protected funds in the short term, it tests investor trust in the long run. Financial markets need to pay attention to subsequent quarterly reports (more funds will disclose their results in March and April), while the crypto market should closely monitor RWA default signals and macro liquidity. For investors, it is advisable to carefully assess their own liquidity needs and avoid chasing the &#34;high-yield illusion.&#34; Regulators may strengthen retail access scrutiny to prevent excessive risk transfer to retail investors. Whether this crisis is a &#34;canary in the coal mine&#34; or a &#34;temporary pain&#34; will be answered by data in 3-6 months. Markets always seek balance amidst volatility—the next chapter in private lending may well be a more transparent and sustainable one.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>觸發贖回潮的因素包括：人工智能影響：許多基金重倉投資於軟件公司的抵押貸款；生成性人工智能可能會摧毀它們的商業模式，導致估值下調。摩根大通已經下調了一些軟件抵押貸款的估值並收緊了貸款。期限錯配：投資者可以每季度退出他們的基金，但貸款期限通常為數年。如果超額贖回完全滿足，基金經理只能以虧損出售資產或增加槓桿，這會損害剩餘投資者的利益。黑石明確表示，“如果沒有 5% 的上限，投資者資本與私人信貸貸款之間將存在結構性錯配。” 貸款質量擔憂：違約率在 2025 年上升至 9.2%（惠譽數據）。高調的違約事件（如英國的 MFS 欺詐破產，風險敞口超過 20 億英鎊）加劇了恐慌。散户投資者撤資：在過去幾年中，散户投資者的入市推動了市場規模的增長。現在，隨着美聯儲降息、人工智能的影響和宏觀經濟的不確定性，散户投資者是首批撤資者，形成了 “先到先得” 的困境。面對贖回潮，基金經理也面臨困境。完全滿足贖回將損害他們的聲譽和長期紀律；嚴格限制可能會引發更多的恐慌贖回。黑石選擇 “自掏腰包” 來緩衝損失，黑巖堅持條款，而 Cliffwater 仍在權衡其選擇。三、對金融市場的影響：系統性風險正在顯現，類似於 2007 年的前夕？私人借貸已成為 “影子銀行” 的核心，規模接近 2 萬億美元。如果流動性危機蔓延，將產生以下影響：資產管理巨頭股價暴跌：黑巖在公告後股價下跌超過 7%，黑石、KKR 和 Ares 等另類資產管理公司集體承壓，標誌着它們今年表現最差。資產拋售和去槓桿化：如果更多基金被迫以低價出售貸款，將壓低公共債券市場的估值，銀行將收緊對私人借貸的槓桿融資（摩根大通已經採取行動）。信心危機溢出：散户投資者信心的崩潰可能會影響整個另類資產類別，導致二級市場折扣交易增加。分析師將此比作 2007 年次貸危機的 “金絲雀時刻”——流動性枯竭和估值不透明的早期信號。在短期內，基金經理可以通過使用自有資金或出售資產作為緩衝來避免立即崩潰；然而，如果違約率持續上升或經濟放緩，系統性風險將被放大。四、對加密市場的影響：間接傳導佔主導，RWA 成為關鍵渠道 私人借貸危機對加密市場的直接影響有限，但有兩條溢出路徑：宏觀經濟風險厭惡和去槓桿化：私人借貸去槓桿化可能引發更廣泛的風險資產拋售，高貝塔資產如比特幣首當其衝。歷史經驗表明，傳統金融流動性收緊通常伴隨着加密市場的 “去風險化”。RWA 和 DeFi 中的鏈上傳導：當前鏈上私人借貸規模接近 50 億美元，主要以代幣化借貸的形式進入 DeFi。如果基礎的傳統貸款受到損害或違約，RWA 淨值的波動將觸發 DeFi 清算和流動性收緊。分析師警告稱，這可能通過兩個渠道傳導到加密生態系統：“宏觀去槓桿化 + 代幣化信用產品。” 然而，總體而言，加密市場受到的影響更多是 “情緒傳染”，而非直接資產關聯。短期內波動性可能增加，但長期表現取決於美聯儲政策和人工智能經濟的實際實施。這也提醒加密市場在將真實世界資產（RWA）上鍊的過程中必須密切關注基礎資產。一旦基礎資產出現問題，所謂的 RWA 代幣化和 DeFi 將是空中樓閣。結論：警惕 “流動性幻覺”，私人借貸進入壓力測試期。這波贖回潮不是私人借貸的終結，而是其快速擴張後的首次真正流動性測試。雖然像黑巖這樣的巨頭堅持上限在短期內保護了基金，但從長遠來看，這考驗了投資者的信任。金融市場需要關注後續的季度報告（更多基金將在 3 月和 4 月披露其業績），而加密市場應密切監測 RWA 違約信號和宏觀流動性。對於投資者，建議仔細評估自身的流動性需求，避免追逐 “高收益幻覺”。監管機構可能會加強對散户投資者的准入審查，以防止過度風險轉移到散户投資者。這個危機是 “煤礦中的金絲雀” 還是 “暫時的痛苦”，將在 3-6 個月的數據中得到答案。市場總是在波動中尋求平衡——私人借貸的下一個篇章可能是一個更加透明和可持續的篇章。</p>
</div>

How will the wave of redemptions from private credit funds affect the financial and crypto markets?

CoinLive

Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF

Morgan Stanley Pathway Sm-Md Cp Eq ETF

Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Eq ETF

Calvert US Large-Cap Diversity Equity & Inclusion Index ETF

黑石集團

貝萊德

全球上市私募股權 ETF - ProShares

Calvert US Select Equity ETF

美國經紀商&證券交易所 ETF - iShares

摩根士丹利

金融業 ETF - Vanguard

金融業 ETF - SPDR

金融指數 MSCI ETF - Fidelity

Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF

黑石抵押信託

私人信貸基金的贖回浪潮將對金融市場和加密市場產生怎樣的影響？