Category: Essentials of Economics 9e

Posted on

Inequality: the ‘defining issue of our day’?

Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham are seeking to become UK Prime Minister in a challenge to Keir Starmer. They have both responded to an essay by Tony Blair, former Labour Prime Minister, where he argued that current Labour policies were holding back business. But the essay never mentioned inequality. According to Burnham and Streeting, inequality and the related issue of poverty are fundamental to the crises facing society in western democracies. Countries’ economic success is typically measured in terms of growth in GDP. But when the benefits of growth go largely to those at the top of the income scale, while people on lower incomes struggle to make ends meet, this feeds resentment. Populist politicians stoke such resentment and offer simplistic solutions, such as protectionism, blaming outsiders and promising a return to better times.

But just what has happened to inequality over recent years and has poverty deepened? How are inequality and poverty affecting people’s lives and what is the impact on the economy? And what policies should governments follow to tackle the problem?

Income inequality

The chart shows UK inequality as given by the Gini coefficient, where 1 represents complete inequality, with one person earning the whole of national income and 0 represents perfect equality, with everyone earning the same. The higher the figure, therefore, the greater the inequality. As you can see, inequality is greatest when looking at original income – that is, income before taxes and benefits. Gross income includes benefits, and disposable income is income after both benefits and taxes. You can see that both benefits and taxes reduce inequality. When we take housing costs into account with the disposable income measure, however, inequality increases.

The chart shows that income inequality rose until the early 2000s, since when there have been only slight changes, although there has been a small decline recently.

The UK has higher income inequality than most high-income countries, although it is not as high as in the USA. It is sixth most unequal of the 38 OECD countries and the most unequal OECD member in Europe.

Globally, in 2025, the top 10% of the world’s population earned 53% of global income, while the bottom half earned just 8%. The reports listed below provide data and analysis on UK and global inequality.

Wealth inequality

When we turn to wealth, inequality in the UK is even greater. The richest 10% of households hold around 41% of wealth, while the poorest 50% hold just under 10%. The Gini coefficient is around 0.6. This has been drive by a rise in property and share prices and the system of inheritance whereby family wealth can accumulate over the generations.

Globally, the top 10% of the world’s population held 75% of global wealth in 2025, whereas the bottom 50% held just 2%. And a tiny group of people – the top 0.001% of the adult population (about 56,000 individuals) – held about 6% of global wealth, up from 4% in 1995. Such extreme wealth inequality has thus increased.

Inequality and poverty

There is no single measure of poverty. It could be measured in terms of basic needs. Here poverty would be where a person is unable to afford basic food, shelter, heating and lighting, clothing, footwear and basic toiletries. Normally, however, it is measured in relative terms. A typical measure, and one used by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is based on a proportion of median income. Poverty is defined as income below 60% of the median income, with deep poverty below 50% and very deep poverty below 40%.

In 2023/24, 14.2 million people were in poverty (20% of the population), of whom around 4.5 million were children. Of the 14.2 million, 6.8 million people (nearly half) were in very deep poverty,

Causes of poverty include one or more of the following: low skills or education, low pay, unemployment, inadequate benefits or a benefit system that is confusing or difficult to access, chronic sickness, disability, unavailability or cost of suitable housing, discrimination, a breakdown of personal relationships, substance abuse, abuse from others, a criminal record. Once in poverty, it becomes difficult to escape as people become deskilled, demotivated and judged by society.

But even if people are not earning less than 60% of median income, they can still struggle to escape inequality. Many people have low skills; many routine jobs are being replaced by automation or AI; many graduates face high debts; people struggle to get on the housing ladder; the rising cost of basic items dampens real incomes, especially of the low paid; people may face discrimination of various sorts; people do not have an option of joining a union in their workplace; people may have a large number of dependants.

The policy agenda

If inequality rises up the political agenda in the UK, especially with a potential leadership race in the Labour party, what might politicians focus on? The government has already done the following:

  • It has raised the minimum wage (the ‘National Living Wage’) substantially from £10.42 in 2023/24 to £11.44 in 2024/25, to £12.21 in 2025/26 and lowered the age limit from 23 to 21. There have been larger percentage rises for 18–20 year-olds and those under 18.
  • The two-child limit to the child benefit element in Universal Credit has been scrapped and so now parents are eligible for benefits for all children.
  • The Employment Rights Act has ended exploitative zero-hour contracts by providing rights to guaranteed hours.
  • It has expanded free school meal entitlements.
  • It has capped Universal Credit debt deductions at 15% of increased incomes (down from 25%) to help the poorest households retain more of their monthly income.
  • It has expanded free school meals and made more money available for free nursery place.
  • Landlords can no longer evict tenants for no reason; they must have a valid reason such as wanting to sell the property or severe rent arrears.
  • Landlords cannot increase rents more than once per year and tenants can appeal excessive or above-market rent increases to an independent tribunal.

But despite these policy measures, many claim that they will do too little to tackle inequality and poverty. Some on the left argue that taxes on property and other forms of wealth will be required to tackle wealth inequality. Others argue that more emphasis on education and training is necessary to provide workers with the skills to earn more in the labour market. Others argue for greater expenditure on public services.

Generally, however, measures to tackle inequality and poverty require government expenditure, which must be funded. This is why many on the centre left argue that economic growth is a necessary condition for any significant redistribution. It is, they argue, the best way of providing the tax revenue to fund redistribution.

Incentives and disincentives

Many on the right argue that redistributing incomes through higher taxes and benefits will act as a disincentive to work and to invest. As we argue in Essentials of Economics, higher income taxes could discourage people from working and investing; higher wealth taxes could discourage people from saving and investing.

The key to analysing these arguments is to distinguish between the income effect and the substitution effect of raising taxes. Raising income tax does two things.

  • It reduces disposable incomes. People therefore are encouraged to work more in an attempt to maintain their consumption of goods and services. This is the income effect. ‘I have to work more to make up for the higher taxes’, a person might say.
  • It reduces the opportunity cost of leisure. Since higher income taxes reduce take-home pay, an extra hour taken in leisure now involves a smaller sacrifice in consumption. Thus people may substitute leisure for consumption, and work less. This is called the substitution effect. ‘What is the point of doing overtime’, another person might say, ‘if so much of the overtime pay is going in taxes?’

The relative size of the income and substitution effects is likely to differ for different types of people. For example, the income effect is likely to dominate for those people with a substantial proportion of long-term commitments, such as those with families, with mortgages and other debts. They may feel forced to work more to maintain their disposable income. Clearly for such people, higher taxes are not a disincentive to work. The income effect is also likely to be relatively large for people on higher incomes, for whom an increase in tax rates represents a substantial cut in income.

The substitution effect is likely to dominate for those with few commitments: those whose families have left home, the single, and second income earners in families where that second income is not relied on for ‘essential’ consumption. A rise in tax rates for these people is likely to encourage them to work less.

Although high income earners may work more when there is a tax rise, they may still be discouraged by a steeply progressive tax structure. If they have to pay very high marginal rates of tax, it may simply not be worth their while seeking promotion or working harder.

What those on the centre and left argue is that tackling inequality and poverty requires more than just changing the tax and benefits system. What is required is policies that encourage greater upward social mobility, greater social cohesion and greater expenditure on infrastructure that will support the poor, such as greater expenditure on education and training, on support for very young children, on preventative healthcare, on social housing and on local public transport.

Articles

Reports

Data

Questions

  1. Is the UK becoming more or less equal? Does the answer depend on how inequality is measured?
  2. Is the world becoming more or less equal?
  3. Summarise the arguments against redistributing incomes from the rich to the poor.
  4. Summarise the arguments in favour of redistributing incomes from the rich to the poor.
  5. Explain the income and substitution effects of making income tax more progressive.
  6. How is the greater adoption of AI likely to affect income distribution?
  7. How does social mobility affect income distribution? What measures can be adopted to increase social mobility?
  8. Compare the relative merits and problems of raising income taxes, wealth taxes and expenditure taxes as means of redistributing incomes more equally.
Posted on

Supply shocks – long-term gain from the short-term pain?

The world has suffered from a number of adverse supply shocks in recent years. First there was the credit supply shock of 2007–9 that led to a default on mortgages, a collapse in confidence in the banking system, the drying up of the inter-bank market, the freezing of lending and a global economic contraction. Then there was the COVID-19 pandemic. This shock to the the global economy led to a a fall in output and breaks in supply chains. As recovery took place, supply-side difficulties led to a surge in inflation.

Then there was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This shock to energy and grain supplies led to rises in fuel and food prices: a cost-push inflationary shock. More recently, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off an important supply route and again sent fuel and other other prices rising.

These supply-side shocks create a dilemma for central banks. They push up inflation, but push output and employment down – a situation of ‘stagflation’.

This can be illustrated with a simple aggregate demand and supply diagram. The shock shifts the aggregate supply curve upwards to the left, illustrated by the move from SRAS1 to SRAS2. The price level rises to P2 and GDP falls to Y2.

But central bank policy is designed to affect aggregate demand, not aggregate supply. If it raises interest rates, aggregate demand will shift to the left. The price level will fall (or at least the rate of inflation will fall), but output will fall further. If it cuts interest rates, aggregate demand will shift to the right. This will help to curtail, or even reverse, the fall in GDP, but will lead to even higher prices.

For countries where their central bank has a simple inflation mandate (e.g. keeping inflation close to 2%), sticking to this target in the short term would result in higher interest rates, lower economic growth and higher unemployment – and possibly even a recession. In such cases, central banks tend to project forward beyond the short-term shock and set interest rates to target inflation in a few months’ time. Indeed, many central banks do explicitly target inflation in the medium term (1 or 2 years) rather than the short term.

Central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, which have a dual mandate of targeting inflation but also maximising employment, the trade-off between these two objectives can be stark. Getting the inflation down requires a higher rate of interest; maximising employment in the face of an adverse supply shock requires a lower rate of interest.

The short-term economic costs, let alone the human costs if the shock involves a war, can be great. People may suffer extreme hardship. The cost to the US Treasury of the first six weeks of the Iran war were estimated by the Pentagon to be some $29bn1 – which translates into higher taxes for US residents, lower government spending on non-war related items, higher government borrowing or some combination of the three. Other estimates put the cost to the US taxpayer as much higher – up to $1 trillion over the longer term.2 Then there are the costs to consumers of higher fuel and other prices, estimated at around $410 per month.3

The costs to Iranian citizens will be much higher in terms of war damage and loss of livelihood, let alone the suffering and loss of life. Then there are the costs to the rest of the world from higher prices of fuel, fertilisers and various industrial materials that are normally shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.

Long-term economic gain?

Supply shocks often expose economic vulnerabilities that can later be addressed, making supply chains more diverse and more resilient. They can give a boost to alternative technologies, such as a switch from fossil-fuels to green energy.

After the 2007–9 financial crisis, banking systems were made more robust under the Basel III system. Capital and liquidity requirements were increased and bank leverage was decreased. Many countries, such as the UK, introduced ‘ringfencing’ to separate retail banking from the riskier investment banking. This increased confidence in the banking system.

The COVID-19 pandemic gave a boost to working remotely and the establishment of more flexible work patterns. What was a necessity during lockdowns, was seen as an effective model by many companies. Fully remote or hybrid working became commonplace for many jobs that were previously done in the office. Time has allowed employers to find the best balance of in-office and remote working, with the optimum balance often varying by type of job being performed.

The rising price of oil and gas following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saw many countries that had been reliant on imports from Russia, accelerating their efforts to switch to renewable energy. Supply chains were re-examined and there was a move towards ‘re-shoring’, ‘near-shoring’, or ‘friend-shoring’: that is, obtaining supplies from countries that are nearer and/or more reliable as trading partners.

This approach was further boosted by the extensive tariffs imposed by the Trump second administration. One of the responses to the higher tariffs was to seek markets, both for exports and imports, away from the USA. To the extent that there is ‘re-shoring’ (substituting exports and imports for production and consumption within the country), then this amounts to deglobalisation. If this represents a move from low-cost to high-cost production and is contrary to the law of comparative advantage, then there will be a net economic loss. If, however, the reduction in risk of disruption and the boost to domestic industries allows a reduction in costs, there could be a net gain.

The most recent example of the Iran war has led many countries to reconsider sources of supply and to make their supply chains more robust and less risky. Gulf countries are considering expanding their pipeline network to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. For other countries, it is providing a further boost to green energy. Increased investment in the renewable sector will help to bring down costs and make countries less vulnerable to future conflicts involving oil-producing countries or sea passages.

To summarise: if initially adverse supply-side shocks cause a diversification and strengthening of supply chains, a diversification of energy sources, accelerated technological innovation and the adoption of new more efficient techniques, the long-term supply-side effects could be positive. Pain today for gain tomorrow?

But the short run comes before the long run and today’s costs are real and mounting. A shock may stimulate a positive response, but the current shock is persisting, and forecasts are getting more dire by the day. And even when the Iran war is over, there may be more shocks around the corner – ‘unknown unknowns’. As Keynes said: ‘In the long run we’re all dead’.

References

  1. Pentagon’s estimate for Iran war grows to $29B

    2. Politico, Mark Sweney (12/5/26)

  2. World Politics The Iran war could cost the American taxpayer $1 trillion, says Harvard academic

    3. CNBC, Joseph Wilkins (14/4/26)

  3. The Economic Costs of the Iran War

    4. American Enterprise Institute, Roger Pielke Jr. (2/4/26)

Articles

Questions

  1. What policies have central banks pursued during the Iran war?
  2. Paint an optimistic scenario for the global economy five years hence.
  3. Paint a pessimistic scenario for the global economy five years hence.
  4. Compare the sources of supply of oil and gas for Europe directly prior to the Iran war with those directly prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
  5. Compare the relative merits of globalisation and deglobalisation. Does this depend on the nature of globalisation and deglobalisation?
Posted on

Economic games in the Iran war

Economists use game theory to understand decision making where the outcome for an economic actor – individual, firm, government, etc. – depends on the actions and reactions of other actors. It models how rational actors make optimal decisions based on their expectations about such actions and reactions of competitors. Sometimes these expectations will be based on considerable knowledge; sometimes they will be based on hunch or the degree of optimism or pessimism.

Perhaps the most famous game is the prisoners’ dilemma. This is where two or more firms (or people) independently attempt to choose the best strategy, thinking about how their rivals are likely to react. But they end up in a worse position than if they had co-operated in the first place. For example, if a firm is considering cutting price, it would gain market share if the other firm does not cut price; in such a scenario it is likely to gain by cutting price. If, however, the other firm is expected to cut its price, the first firm will have to cut price itself to avoid losing market share; in this scenario it will also cut price. Assuming the other firm reasons the same, the outcome is likely to be a price war, with both firms losing profit. However, if they both colluded to maintain prices or even raise them (assuming they can evade any legal restrictions on collusion), they will both gain.

Another example is the game of chicken. This is where two or more actors engage in brinkmanship, hoping that the other actor(s) will give in first. Take the above example of a price war. Assume that two firms are engaging in price cutting. They know that this will damage their short-term profit. But each hopes that the other will give up first and may then be willing to collude or, better still, be driven out of business. If either firm thinks it can win the game, it will reason that short-term pain is justified by long-term gain.

The war in Iran

A game of chicken is currently being ‘played’ by the USA and Iran. Iran is blocking the Strait of Hormuz; the USA is blockading Iranian ports, preventing ships from arriving or leaving. Both policies inflict economic pain. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz has driven up oil and gas prices and the prices of many other products exported through the Strait – products such as fertilisers, plastics, petrochemicals, sulphur, methanol and helium.

Each side hopes that the economic pain inflicted on the other will cause it to give up first.

But the game is ‘asymmetric’: the costs of continuing the blockades are different for each side and thus the pressures on each side to concede differ. For Iran, the blockade of its ports is massively curtailing its exports and is doing huge damage to its economy, already battered by bombing. But the war has so far seemed to allow the Iranian authorities to tighten their political grip and they may be prepared to play the ‘long game’ by rallying the Iranian population against the US and Israeli assault. The authorities may calculate that the Iranian people will be prepared to endure greater hardship for some time.

The USA is facing a much lower economic cost. Much of the hardship from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz is being borne by other countries. Energy and fertiliser shortages and the resulting rise in price of these critical inputs threaten a humanitarian disaster in some of the poorest countries. Harvests will be down, as will GDP; food prices will soar. There will be widespread economic hardship across Africa and much of Asia, particularly in those countries struggling with existing high debt burdens.

But for Donald Trump and his administration, those costs are likely to be seen as important only in so far as they affect the USA. However, oil prices are determined in international markets and, despite the US economy gaining from higher oil prices as the USA is a net exporter, the price of fuel to the US consumer has risen substantially. Petrol prices in the USA have risen some 45% since the start of the war and jet fuel prices have doubled, driving up air fares. With the prices of other key products, such as medicines, clothing and electronics increasing too, US inflation is now rising – aggravated by the effects of the tariffs on many products. These costs matter to the US consumer and, with mid-term elections approaching and with Donald Trump’s approval rate plummeting, the USA is likely to be more sensitive to short-term economic costs than Iran.

But the USA poses a much greater military threat to Iran than vice versa and this is seen in the USA as a major advantage in this high-stakes game of chicken. But the Iranian authorities’ willingness to endure further military strikes for what they see as long-term gain, may make them unlikely to concede first.

Podcast and video

Articles

Questions

  1. Explain the prisoners’ dilemma game and explain what is meant by the Nash equilibrium in the game.
  2. What is the Nash equilibrium of a game of chicken?
  3. Explain the asymmetries in the ‘game’ being ‘played’ by the USA, Israel and Iran?
  4. What other actors are there in the ‘game’ and do they play any significant role?
  5. How important is information and understanding held by the USA, Israeli and Iran about the likely consequences of their actions?
  6. What can mediators, such as Pakistan, do to de-escalate the situation?
  7. What are the likely long-term costs to the global economy if the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz persists for a number of months?
Posted on

The global economic impacts of the war with Iran – update

With relentless bombing of Iran by Israel and the USA, and with Iranian counterattacks on Gulf states, the costs of the war are mounting. The most obvious are in terms of human lives, injuries and suffering. But there are significant economic costs too. Some of these are immediate, such as the rising price of oil and hence the costs of fuel, or the fall in stock market prices. Some will be longer term, depending on how the war develops. For example, prices could rise more generally as supply chains are disrupted.

The impacts will vary across the world and across markets. The most obvious markets to be affected are those where significant supply comes from the Persian Gulf. Approximately 20% of total global oil consumption passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Oil prices rose considerably in the days following the start of the war on 28 February, with Brent crude, a key measure of international oil prices, rising from $71.3 on 27 February to a peak of $119.4 per barrel by the morning of 9 March – a rise of 67%. It was possible that they would rise even further in the short term. However, prices fell back substantially later on 9 March after G7 finance ministers declared that the group ‘stands ready’ to release oil from strategic reserves if needed. By late in the day, the price had fallen to below $85. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

However, despite the announcement on 11 March that 32 countries had agreed to release 400m barrels of oil reserves, oil prices began rising again and reached $100 on 12 March after three tankers had been struck in the Gulf, two of them close to the Strait of Hormuz. With Iran pledging to keep the Strait closed, there were worries that the release of oil reserves would provide only temporary relief. Just over 20m barrels of oil normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz. The 400m barrels released from storage is the equivalent, therefore, of only 20 days’ worth of lost oil from the Gulf.

Not only did oil prices rise, but the price became much more volatile as markets reacted to the news on a continuous basis. Intra-day fluctuations in oil prices of several percentage points became typical, reflecting shifting expectations. The second chart shows daily fluctuations, with the highest and lowest prices for each day shown, along with the closing price. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

The biggest fluctuation had been on 9 March when fears of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz saw the price of Brent crude rising to nearly $120 but falling to around $84 later in the day (a fall of around 30%) after the G7 announcement about releasing reserves.

There was another big fluctuation on 23 March. The previous day (Sunday), President Trump threatened to bomb Iran’s power plants if Iran did not allow free passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran threatened to retaliate by striking Gulf countries’ energy and water systems. In early trading on Monday 23rd, Brent crude rose to over $115 per barrel. But later that day, Trump said that there had been constructive talks between the USA and Iran. The oil price immediately dropped to around $96 – a fall of 17% – before settling at around $100.

Rising oil prices will drive up inflation. For those countries with a heavy dependence on Gulf oil, particularly countries in Asia, there could be significant supply problems. For oil exporters in the Persian Gulf, with tankers unable to traverse the Strait of Hormuz, the economic impact is huge. Oil exporters outside the Gulf, such as Russia, Norway and Canada, however, will gain from the higher prices. Clearly the size of these effects will depend on how long the conflict continues and how long the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

And it is not just oil that is affected. Other products, such as liquified natural gas (LNG), petrochemicals, industrial materials, fertilizers for food production, medicines, helium for microchip production, metals and minerals are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. Gulf countries import much of their food through the Strait. On 18 March, Israel struck Iran’s huge South Pars gas field off the Gulf coast. This is the largest gas field in the world and is a major source of export revenue for Iran. Iran responded by striking the Qatari gas hub in Ras Laffan. Donald Trump responded by threatening to ‘blow up’ the entire Iranian South Pars gas field if Iran made further strikes on Qatar. The effect of this escalation was to drive oil and gas prices up further. By the week ending 20 March, the oil price closed at just over $112 per barrel.

Cuts in supplies of oil and other products represent an adverse supply shock. Such shocks push up prices (cost-push inflation), while adversely affecting aggregate output. This can lead to stagflation – a combination of higher inflation and stagnation or even falling output. Central banks with a simple mandate to keep inflation to a target are likely to raise interest rates, or at least delay in reducing them. In the USA, with a dual mandate of controlling inflation but also maximising employment, the response may be less deflationary, depending on the judgement of the Federal Reserve.

Uncertainty

There is great uncertainty about how long the conflict will last. There is also a lack of clarity and consistency from the US administration about its war aims. This uncertainty has affected financial markets, which have seen considerable volatility. Stock markets have seen widespread falls, with airline, travel and AI-heavy stocks being particularly vulnerable.

If the war is concluded relatively swiftly, the economic effects could be relatively small. If the war continues, and especially if the Gulf countries are drawn further into the conflict and if the conflict spreads to other countries, the economic effects could be much more substantial. A prolonged conflict could see oil prices remaining above $100 per barrel, potentially increasing global inflation by 1 percentage point or more. This would slow or halt the move by central banks to cut rates and thereby reduce global economic growth – potentially, as we have seen, leading to stagflation.

The uncertainty was reflected in the decision of the Fed to keep interest rates unchanged at its meeting on 17/18 March. The Fed has the twin targets of keeping inflation close to 2% and maximising employment. Fed Chair, Jay Powell, acknowledged the current tension between the two goals: ‘upward risks for inflation and downward risks for employment, and that puts us in a difficult situation’. He also recognised that the future for inflation and the economy was highly uncertain as the war developed. This made interest rate setting difficult.

Then there is the issue of a potential new international refugee crisis. If the economic and political system in Iran deteriorates rapidly, this could trigger a wave of migration to neighbouring countries, such as Turkey, already hosting large numbers of refugees. Many could seek sanctuary further afield in Europe, with several countries already facing a backlash against immigration. The political and economic effects of this on host countries could be significant – but as yet, highly uncertain.

Articles

Data

Report

Questions

  1. Who are the biggest gainers and losers from disruption to oil supplies from the Persian Gulf?
  2. Illustrate the effect of the current oil price shock on an aggregate demand and supply diagram (either static or dynamic).
  3. Why is the Iranian war likely to be less damaging to the European economy than the Ukrainian war has been?
  4. Why have AI-related stock prices been vulnerable to the uncertainty caused by the Iranian war?
  5. How have the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank responded to higher oil prices and the broader economic effects of the war? Why might their responses be different in the coming months?
  6. What is the likely impact of the Iranian war on global economic recovery?
  7. How might the Iranian war affect global economic alliances?
  8. How is the current oil price shock likely to affect the eurozone? Will it be different from the oil price shock that followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
  9. What are the likely economic effects of large-scale migration caused by the war?
Posted on

The liquidity – return trade-off: Lessons from private credit funds

Wobbles in the private credit market in the fourth quarter of 2025 spooked those retail investors with investments in private credit funds – a significant segment of the growing shadow banking sector. These funds use investors’ money to finance lending to businesses and individuals who struggle to, or do not want to, access credit from banks and the public market. Therefore, the risks are higher.

The failures of two auto parts suppliers in the USA last year have highlighted the risks involved. Retail investors are exiting such funds in significant numbers. Bcred, Blackstone’s $82 billion private credit fund, saw money equivalent to 8% of its net asset value (NAV) withdrawn. The firm, and employees, put $400m in to maintain confidence.

Blue Owl, another credit manager, closed investors’ usual quarterly redemption window, largely due to unprecedented demand. The fund’s managers have decided that they will wind down the fund and return money back to investors over time, whether that want it or not.

Several other listed funds run by big names, such as Blackrock and KKR, have slashed dividends and written down asset values. This week, both Morgan Stanley and Cliffwater limited withdrawals from their credit funds.

So, what has happened? In recent years, there has been a big growth in private credit funds in the USA aimed at individual retail investors. With interest margins low and fees from public investment products diminishing due to the shift to passive investing, financial institutions spied an opportunity for chunky fees by offering private credit investment to retail investors.

The liquidity–return trade-off

Such investors are attracted by the potential for higher returns that private credit funds offered compared to public funds. The need to provide higher returns was related partly to the higher credit risk associated with the lending, but also to the illiquidity of the private credit assets that the funds invested in.

While much attention in the financial media has focused on the heightened credit risk in private funds, less attention has been given to the liquidity issue. At the heart of the private credit business model is a level of illiquidity that individual retail investors would not be comfortable with. The liquidity–return trade-off is one of the fundamental concepts in finance. Investors must be prepared to trade-off liquidity for higher returns, and vice versa. They cannot have both.

This blog will discuss that trade-off in the context of private credit funds and its lessons for retail investors, particularly in Europe where institutions are gearing up to offer such investment products.

Liquidity preference

One of the fundamental concepts in finance is the maturity mismatch between the preferences of ultimate lenders (typically households) and the requirements of ultimate borrowers (typically firms, but also households and governments too). Typically, lenders want to ‘lend short’ while borrowers want to ‘borrow long’. The financial system reconciles this mismatch by providing two important economic functions – maturity transformation and liquidity provision.

Banks offer maturity transformation by offering current and other accounts to individuals where deposits can be redeemed at short notice. These institutions use the deposits to finance long-term lending for a variety of purposes; examples include property, investment in capital or day-to-day spending. Their effective management of this process is important economically for the smooth running of the payments mechanism and for economic growth.

But, to fulfil this, banks have to hold a mixture of assets with varying degrees of liquidity – some highly liquid, such as cash and short-term government debt instruments, and some illiquid, such as long-term loans. Liquidity is such an important issue for banks that their assets are listed on their balance sheet in order of liquidity – from most liquid to least liquid.

However, there is an inverse relationship between liquidity and expected return. Banks and their customers have to sacrifice return if they want higher liquidity. Therefore, liquid assets tend to offer a low rate of return and illiquid assets a higher rate of return. Consequently, in order to retain sufficient liquidity, the overall return banks can generate is limited compared to a situation where they invest wholly in illiquid assets.

If individuals want to invest directly in long-term financial assets, such as debt and equity, there must be a secondary market where these can be bought and sold – the stock market. Without this mechanism providing liquidity, individuals are less likely to invest in these assets in the first place. Few would want to wait for a debt security to mature or hold a share in perpetuity. Secondary markets mean they don’t have to.

Liquidity and private credit

Private credit funds have existed for a long time as part of the shadow banking sector and have grown in scale. Such funds invest in non-tradable, long-term illiquid loans as a parallel to the better-known private equity sector. Traditionally they have been targeted at institutional investors, who are more comfortable with the higher credit risk and illiquidity involved.

However, while institutions are prepared to forgo liquidity for many years in expectation of higher returns, individual retail investors are not – they have a higher liquidity preference. Funds tailoring private credit funds acknowledged that individual investors required a liquidity incentive to invest. Since there is no liquid secondary market to facilitate liquidation, private funds aimed at such retail investors offered quarterly redemption opportunities. The industry standard settled on around 5% of a fund’s value.

However, offering these ‘liquidity windows’ creates a tension in the private credit business model. Private credit operates on the basis of illiquidity in return for higher returns. This includes borrowers prepared to pay a higher interest rate on debt to avoid exposure to the glare of public market scrutiny.

Further, the prices of private loans are not ‘marked-to-the-market’ like publicly traded debt, so they are not correlated with public markets. This enables fund managers to work out credit problems over time rather than be forced into fire sales to meet the liquidity needs of investors.

Offering liquidity confounds that. To do so, private credit funds end up operating like quasi-public funds. They have to hold sufficient liquid assets to cover redemptions. Indeed, regulations for such funds in Europe are proposing a minimum of 20% of assets in liquid investments so there is a reserve to meet redemptions. But, by doing so, funds will not be able to generate the promised returns. Indeed, returns may be not much higher that that offered by public traded funds.

Further, providing quarterly redemption windows requires fair and timely valuations of the fund. Irrespective of perceptions around credit risk, if investors feel that the valuation is generous then many will want to take advantage of the liquidity window to redeem and no limit on withdrawals, be it 5%, 10% or whatever, is sufficient. However, with no secondary market mechanism to remove the excess demand, those told they cannot redeem their investment will only increase their demands for liquidity further and exit at the next available opportunity.

This irreconcilable tension in offering private credit funds to retail investors is being recognised. Not only are funds like Blue Owl being wound up, but the share prices of providers in the USA have fallen sharply as markets realise that the anticipated returns from selling private credit to retail investors are unlikely to be realised. Blackstone’s market capitalisation has halved from $250 billion at the end of 2024 to $134 billion on 11 March 2026.

But this is the moment when private credit funds are being offered to retail investors in Europe. The lesson for European retail investors from the US experience is that you can’t have high liquidity and high return. As with most allocation decisions, there is a trade-off.

Articles

Questions

  1. What is maturity transformation? Explain how banks conduct maturity transformation.
  2. What is liquidity provision? Explain how secondary financial markets provide liquidity.
  3. Explain why private credit funds offer a higher expected return than public ones?
  4. Analyse the pressures on profit margins in public markets which led financial institutions to offer private credit funds. In doing so, consider the ethics around offering such a product to retail investors.
  5. Explain why offering such funds to individual (retail) investors has not worked.