The Wall Street Journal editorial board warns that recent private‑credit turmoil is prompting some 401(k) savers to question access to private‑market funds. Private‑market investing, by design, aligns with the long‑term horizon of retirement accounts, and illiquidity is an intended feature, not a flaw. Yet investors are increasingly demanding liquidity that these assets cannot provide, and investors risk locking away funds they may need for emergencies.

Problems arise when fund managers embed liquidity windows into inherently illiquid structures or when participants assume cash can be withdrawn on short notice. The former reflects a structural mismatch; the latter signals an education gap among retirement planners. Both dynamics have fueled a wave of redemption requests, but they do not prove a fundamental conflict between private markets and retirement capital, especially in volatile market conditions.

Investors should treat illiquidity as a risk parameter rather than a defect, matching asset duration with their cash‑flow needs. Advisors who clarify these constraints can curb premature withdrawals and preserve portfolio integrity. As long as retirement funds respect the long‑term nature of private assets, the market’s core appeal remains intact. Regulators have long cautioned against mismatched product design, reinforcing the need for clear disclosure.