71 semi-liquid funds promise the same thing in their prospectuses: quarterly redemption, capped at five percent. An investor who gives notice on time waits between 35 and 394 days for the money. The difference is not in the cap — it is in the notice period.
By Niko Hatziiosifidis · last reviewed 16 Sep 2026
Redemption frequency appears on every factsheet and is the smallest part of the answer. What counts is the chain of notice period, valuation date and settlement period — and across nominally identical funds that chain is of wildly different length. Across the whole universe it takes 152 days on average from the liquidity need to the money arriving, calculated for 117 of 140 funds — the same figure as the chart on the home page.
Four stretches sit between the decision to redeem and the money arriving: the notice period up to the cut-off, the wait for the next redemption date, the striking of the net asset value and finally the settlement period. Each is governed separately in the prospectus, none appears on the factsheet, and only their sum answers the question an investor actually asks.
For 117 of 140 funds the chain can be assembled from the documents, for 81 of them to the calendar day. If the liquidity need arises at some point in the cycle, it takes 152 days on average for the money to arrive, 131 at the median. A quarter of funds take more than 172 days, nine percent more than a year.
Calendar days from liquidity need to money received — the need arises on average midway between two dates, plus the processing time. With no cap triggered.
n = 117 of 140 funds, 81 of them to the calendar day · the same calculation as the chart on the home page · as at 13.09.2026
At the fast end are funds that redeem daily or weekly and tie settlement to a current net asset value. At the slow end, infrastructure funds with long notice — 3 days against 448. Both sit on the same distribution shelf.
82 of 140 funds cap redemptions per period at five percent; for 73 of them the rate refers to net asset value or net assets, for the rest to available liquidity or a definition of their own. The figure has become the badge of the asset class and carries less information than is attributed to it.
Take the 71 funds with quarterly redemption and a five percent cap — a group that looks identical in any product comparison — and the notice period alone ranges from two business days to twelve months.
Within the group with quarterly redemption and a five percent cap. Median 43 days.
n = 59 of 71 funds with a quantified period; others name a fixed cut-off date instead · as at 13.09.2026
All four redeem quarterly and cap at five percent of net asset value. In a product list they sit side by side carrying the same attributes. The bars show what the wait with notice given on time is made of in each case.
The NAV lag is the time between the valuation date and the published price; the settlement period only starts after it. Where the prospectus ties payment directly to the redemption date, it does not arise. Segment lengths follow the prospectus periods, scaled to the calendar-exact total.
| Fund | Notice period | NAV striking | Settlement | notice on time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAM LSA Private SharesPart II SICAV | 25 calendar days | daily | 7 business days | 35 days * |
| Hamilton Lane PMAELTIF 2.0 | 1 month to quarter end | monthly, 15 bd lag | 3 bd after NAV | 58 days |
| Natixis Multi Private Assets NavigatorELTIF 2.0 | 6 months | quarterly, 30 bd lag | 3 bd after NAV | 232 days |
| PATRIZIA Infrastructure InvestELTIF 2.0 | 12 months | monthly | 20 business days | 394 days |
bd = business days. All four: quarterly redemption, 5 % cap per quarter. Sources: GAM LSA prospectus 16 Apr 2026, pp. 105 f.; Hamilton Lane PPM May 2026, sections “Redemptions, Generally”, “Gate, Other Circumstances” and “NAV Calculation Date”; Natixis prospectus 5 May 2026, p. 139 (notice and cap), p. 141 (settlement), p. 142 (NAV); PATRIZIA prospectus 16 Apr 2026, p. 38 (notice) and p. 39 (cap, “Zahlungsverfahren”). * GAM LSA Private Shares: approximated because the prospectus does not quantify a NAV publication deadline; the other rows are calendar-exact.
The gap between the first and the last row is not an edge case but the span of the whole group: 35 to 394 days with notice given on time, across 64 funds with an evidenced chain, median 94. How this spreads across the whole universe is shown by the dot chart on the home page, where every fund is clickable.
Five percent of what, measured when, and before or after netting against subscriptions: prospectuses answer these three questions differently. The reference base alone splits into five definitions within the group.
A cap on the previous quarter-end net asset value is more generous in falling markets than one on the value at the redemption date.
n = 71 funds in the group · as at 13.09.2026
On netting the group splits as well. 26 funds measure gross and do not offset subscriptions against redemptions — the cap bites correspondingly early. 28 measure net, which means it practically never binds in a growing fund. For 17 funds the document says nothing about it.
For every fund we recorded which fields could be evidenced from the document and which could not. The result is itself a finding: in 98 of 140 cases at least one point of the redemption mechanics remained open. Only 27 prospectuses are complete in this sense.
The most serious gap concerns not the level of a limit but its duration.
| Provision | Population | not stated |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum duration of a suspensionhow long redemption may rest entirely | 134 | 120 |
| Maximum duration of a caphow long the reduction may apply | 134 | 115 |
| Netting against subscriptionswhether the cap bites early or never | 131 | 31 |
| Ceiling on the price adjustmenthow far the redemption price may deviate from NAV | 41 | 16 |
| Length of the lock-upfrom when redemption is possible at all | 71 | 5 |
Counted only where the instrument is provided for in the document but the associated quantity is not quantified. Funds without a lock-up therefore do not appear in the last row. The six funds without a publicly available document are excluded throughout.
The first two rows weigh heaviest because they leave open the only question that counts in earnest. A cap that bites for one quarter is liquidity management. A cap that bites for eight quarters is a closure in all but name. Most prospectuses do not distinguish the two.
On fees the picture is better than the reputation — as long as the types are kept apart. 45 funds charge a redemption fee that falls away after a holding period, a median of 3 percent and at most 10; the holding period is quantified almost everywhere. 53 funds charge no fee at all.
Alongside sit two categories regularly confused with the fee in product comparisons. Seven funds levy a permanent charge — it never falls away but applies to every redemption at any time and covers the transaction costs of realising assets. A further 21 funds reserve a fee at their discretion: the maximum rate is in the prospectus, the condition is not.
Prospectus mechanics and lived practice are two different things. The universe documents four funds where redemptions were in fact restricted: two ongoing, two with a concluded episode. All four are evidenced in full text — by an ad-hoc release, a manager communication or an annual report.
Pro-rata reduction
restricted since 3 Jun 2026
The prospectus quarterly limit of five percent of net asset value was applied for a second consecutive time in September 2026. It is the first known activation since the fund launched in 2007 — earlier quarters carry no disclosure duty and are therefore neither evidenced nor ruled out. The fund remains open for new subscriptions.
Trigger and limit: ad-hoc release under Art. 53 LR, 4 Jun 2026. * Fulfilment rate from the investor update of 2 Sep 2026, relayed in the Equity Trustees fund manager notification of the same day; additionally Citywire, 2 Sep 2026. Not published as an ad-hoc release.
Suspension / redemption gate
suspended since 4 Dec 2025
The manager calls the measure a redemption gate; in effect redemptions have been fully on hold since. To restore liquidity, 14 properties are being sold, around 13 percent of the portfolio; seven of them had completed by the end of July 2026, and a second package has been on the market since.
Manager communication 4 Dec 2025; the July 2026 monthly update still lists the queued requests. The AGM on 17 Sep 2026 is to set out a plan for settling them.
The second ongoing case demonstrates the finding from the previous chapter. The restriction was designed for twelve months and is running in its tenth; the July 2026 monthly update still lists the queued requests, and the lifting has since been signalled for 2027. There is no binding maximum duration in the prospectus to be exceeded here — for this fund, as for most others, it simply does not exist.
How long a restriction can really run only becomes visible in the cases that are over. Both involve real estate funds, both are evidenced by the annual report, and neither ever made a headline.
Pro-rata reduction + queue
concluded · 12/2022 – 12/2025
Requests exceeded the 5 % quarterly limit and the 2 % monthly limit in every quarter of 2023, 2024 and 2025. The end is reported but not confirmed.
Partial deferral
concluded · 12/2023 – 12/2024
Target funds paid out very slowly because of liquidity requests of their own, while subscriptions declined at the same time.
The first case answers the question chapter 3 leaves open. A cap that bites for one quarter is liquidity management; here it bit for twelve consecutive quarters — in every single quarter from 2023 to 2025 requests exceeded the limit. No prospectus had to be breached for that: it names no maximum duration, so there was none to exceed.
The aggregated figures in this report are available under CC BY 4.0. Citation, dataset and press contact are on the Using the data page.
semiliquid.info (2026): ELTIF Liquidity Report 2026. Redemption mechanics of 140 semi-liquid private markets funds. Data as at 13.09.2026. https://semiliquid.info/en/marktberichte/eltif-liquiditaetsreport-2026/