Carlyle CEO Acknowledges Misstep in Labeling Certain Retail Investment Vehicles

Harvey Schwartz, the chief executive of Carlyle, recently offered a candid assessment regarding the private equity industry’s past characterizations of certain retail-focused investment products. Speaking at the SuperReturn International conference in Berlin, Schwartz openly stated that firms had “erred” in labeling some of these funds as “semi-liquid.” His remarks underscore a growing recognition within the private capital sector concerning the expectations set for individual investors venturing into historically institutional domains.

The term “semi-liquid” often implies a degree of accessibility to capital that, in practice, may not align with the underlying illiquid nature of many private market assets. While these products are designed to offer more frequent redemption windows than traditional closed-end private equity funds, they typically come with significant limitations, including gates that can restrict withdrawals during periods of market stress or high demand. Schwartz’s acknowledgment suggests a move towards greater transparency and a more realistic portrayal of these investment structures to a broader retail audience.

This introspection from a leader at Carlyle, one of the world’s largest and most prominent private equity firms, is particularly salient given the industry’s increasing push into wealth management. Private equity has long been the exclusive domain of large institutions, pension funds, and endowments, but a concerted effort is underway to tap into the vast pools of capital held by high-net-worth and even affluent individual investors. This expansion requires careful consideration of how products are marketed and how their true liquidity profiles are communicated.

The distinction between true liquidity and the managed liquidity offered by these retail private market funds is crucial. Unlike publicly traded stocks or bonds, private assets—such as direct investments in companies, real estate, or infrastructure—cannot be easily bought or sold on an open exchange. Their valuation can be less frequent and more subjective, and exiting positions often requires finding a willing buyer, which can take time, especially for significant stakes. Labeling such products as “semi-liquid” without robust qualification risks creating a perception of greater ease of access than is genuinely available.

Schwartz’s comments align with broader regulatory scrutiny and investor education efforts. Regulators globally are increasingly examining the suitability and transparency of complex financial products offered to retail investors. The private equity industry’s pivot to individual wealth necessitates a recalibration of marketing language and a commitment to ensuring that investors fully comprehend the unique characteristics, risks, and potential redemption limitations associated with these funds. The long-term success of this expansion hinges on trust, which can be eroded by misaligned expectations about liquidity.

For Carlyle and its peers, the path forward involves not only refining product design but also enhancing investor communication. This could mean more explicit disclosures about redemption policies, clearer examples of how gates might operate in various market conditions, and a more conservative approach to describing the ease with which capital can be accessed. Ultimately, the goal is to bridge the gap between the institutional world of private capital and the expectations of individual investors, ensuring that the allure of potentially higher returns is balanced with a clear understanding of the accompanying illiquidity.

Ruth Forbes

See Full Bio