Cox Capital bids $10 million for Blue Owl Credit Income shares at 20% below NAV

Cox Capital is offering $7.31 per Class I share of Blue Owl Credit Income, about 20% below its reported August 31 NAV of $9.14, Alternatives Watch reported. Cox Capital Retail Secondaries Fund I, managed by a Cox affiliate, initially seeks to purchase up to $10 million of shares. The discount is approximately 20% when calculated as one minus $7.31 divided by $9.14.

The tender offer began October 5 and expires at 5 p.m. Eastern on November 25 unless extended or terminated earlier, according to Alternatives Watch. Cox reserved the right to accept up to an additional 2% of outstanding Class I shares without extending the offer. Cox and the purchaser are not affiliated with Blue Owl Credit Income or its advisers.

Blue Owl Credit Income will fill about 30% of third-quarter repurchase requests against a 5% quarterly cap. Shareholders asked to redeem 16.8% of shares outstanding; dividing the cap by the request gives roughly 30%. The third-party tender offer and the fund’s quarterly repurchase program are separate routes to liquidity, with different pricing, timing and limits.

Across 19 reporting nontraded NAV BDCs, Stanger counted $13.8 billion of third-quarter redemption requests, with nearly $5.6 billion returned and $8.2 billion unfilled, a fill rate of about 40%. Stanger says the tally covers 98% of the market. Requests at Blue Owl fell from 18.8% of shares outstanding in the second quarter to 16.8% in the third, and Stanger's reading of the data is that redemption demand may have peaked in the prior quarter.

The board of Blackstone Private Credit Fund urged shareholders to reject an unsolicited tender offer for Class I shares at 12.5% below NAV, according to Blue Vault Partners. VineBrook Homes Trust expects to buy 909,090 Class A shares at $33, a 37% discount to NAV, after roughly 2.75 million were tendered, leaving a one-in-three proration. Cox's 20% sits between Blackstone's 12.5% and VineBrook's 37%, but the vehicles hold different assets and the offers have different terms, so the discounts alone do not establish which offer provides better value.