Summary
- By April 18, 2026, retail‑heavy funds like Blue Owl OTIC faced 40.7% redemption requests, while Goldman Sachs GSCRED survived at 4.999% and fulfilled all withdrawals.
- Blue Owl leaned on SaaS recurring revenue with thin buffers, while Goldman emphasized diversified industrial exposure, hard collateral, and a thick 6× EBITDA cushion.
- Goldman pivoted into Asset‑Based Finance — buying hardened data center debt, significant risk transfers from European banks, and subordinated infrastructure debt with defensive cash‑flows.
- Survival now favors those who move from fragile SaaS seat‑counts to hardened assets. Goldman’s asset‑based fortress positions it as both liquidity provider and buyer of last resort in private credit.
As of April 18, 2026, the K‑shaped divergence has hardened into a hierarchy. Retail‑heavy funds like Blue Owl OTIC saw nearly half their investors rush for the exits (40.7% redemption requests), while Goldman Sachs Private Credit Corp (GSCRED) not only survived the quarter’s pressure (4.999%) but is now buying aggressively.
Why Goldman Dodged the Exodus
Goldman’s $15.7B GSCRED fund survived the April redemption wave by a hair (4.999% pressure), allowing it to fulfill 100% of requests. The divergence from Blue Owl is rooted in their underlying portfolio DNA:
- Tech Exposure: Blue Owl OTIC is ~80% concentrated in software and healthcare, while Goldman Sachs GSCRED keeps tech exposure below 15%, with a diversified industrial tilt.
- Underwriting Focus: Blue Owl leaned on recurring SaaS revenue as its underwriting metric. Goldman instead emphasized hard collateral through Asset‑Based Finance (ABF).
- EBITDA Buffer: Blue Owl lent at 7×–9× EBITDA, leaving thin cushions. Goldman maintained a thick buffer, with loans around 6× EBITDA, giving resilience against valuation shocks.
- Redemption Outcome: Blue Owl faced 8× more redemption pressure and gated withdrawals. Goldman stayed liquid, fulfilling all requests — a confidence premium that widened the divergence.
(EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization)
Goldman’s March 2026 research, Will AI Eat Software?, warned that agentic AI tools would erode SaaS seat‑based revenue. While Blue Owl stayed software‑heavy, Goldman pivoted into the physical infrastructure powering AI itself.
The ABF Shift: What Goldman Is Buying
Goldman’s hardened strategy is defined by Asset‑Based Finance (ABF) — lending against discrete, cash‑generating assets rather than fragile SaaS cash flows.
- Kinetic Data Center Debt
- Goldman expanded FICC (Fixed Income, Currencies, Commodities) financing to $11.4B in 2025.
- Now buying first‑lien senior notes of hardened data centers in the U.S. and EU.
- These assets are physically protected and backed by “take‑or‑pay” energy contracts.
- Significant Risk Transfers (SRTs)
- In April 2026, Goldman became a top buyer of SRTs from European banks.
- Banks like HSBC and Barclays sell the “first‑loss” risk of loan books to Goldman.
- Goldman earns double‑digit coupons while effectively nationalizing bank capital efficiency and cherry‑picking collateral.
- Infrastructure as Stabilizer
- Infrastructure is now a core allocation.
- Goldman is buying subordinated debt in energy‑transition projects — power grids, subsea cables.
- These assets provide defensive cash‑flow profiles, a hardened floor for private wealth clients.
The Truth for 2026
The divergence is no longer just about liquidity gates. It’s about who controls hardened collateral.
- Blue Owl is trapped in the “software eating software” spiral.
- Goldman has repositioned into data centers, infrastructure, and risk transfers, turning private credit into a sovereign‑anchored, asset‑based fortress.
The new law is clear: survival favors those who pivot from seat‑count SaaS to hardened cash‑flow assets.