As Access Expands, Two-Thirds of Advisors Plan to Boost Private Market Holdings

Private market adoption appears to be on the rise

As advisors weigh competing demands for portfolio capital, they’re increasingly considering how to make room for less-liquid investments — and what makes the allocation worthwhile.

A survey conducted by Neuberger, a global investment management firm, and Bloomberg Media Studios provides a window into today’s rapidly moving investment landscape, revealing how some financial advisors are evolving their approaches to portfolio construction in order to meet the moment.

The study included 367 financial advisors worldwide and found that they already allocate 23% of their portfolio mix to private markets, on average; that figure is higher than other industry surveys showing allocations of 10% or less. Furthermore, the results show that share is expected to grow: 66% reported that they expect to increase their private market holdings over the next three years.

The growing embrace of private markets isn’t happening in a vacuum. Ross David, National Sales Manager, Broker Dealer at Neuberger, notes that in his experience, home offices have made a real commitment to expanding product offerings with evergreen structures, and to implementing platform enhancements that make it operationally easier for financial advisors to allocate to private markets. At the same time, many private market distributors have invested heavily in advisor education.

“These two forces together appear to have meaningfully raised advisor comfort levels with the asset class,” says David. “The opportunity has been there, and the infrastructure and know-how to allocate for clients seem to have caught up.”

A closer look, however, reveals that the advisors surveyed aren’t all moving in lockstep. Differences emerge across organizations of different sizes and types — both in their appetite for private markets and in what they expect from the asset class.

That next phase is also playing out in how advisors access the asset class.

Evergreen funds held nearly $493 billion in total assets as of late 2025, with continued growth anticipated, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.¹ Yet despite evergreen funds’ rising profile, closed-end commingled funds remain the dominant access route for private markets, used by 74% of advisors and 79% of institutional investors, respectively, according to the Neuberger and Bloomberg survey.

“The choice of structure often comes down to the client,” says Jason Goldberg, National Sales Manager, RIA, Cross Channel and US Offshore at Neuberger. “Evergreen fits a need. Client qualifications, client tax preferences, and client liquidity needs all factor into whether the client should allocate to an evergreen structure, interval fund, or traditional drawdown. But it is also about advisor needs. Building a large, diversified private markets business with multiple vintages and capital calls needs infrastructure.”

Many advisors, he says, prefer the evergreen model for the simplified process.

Advisors increasing private market allocations need to decide how to fund these positions. As private markets become accessible to a wider group of investors, differences in where advisors source capital for new allocations can offer a window into how the next phase of adoption may unfold — and how advisors expect to balance their allocations to public and private markets in client portfolios.

For nearly three quarters of the advisors surveyed by Neuberger and Bloomberg Media Studios who reported increasing their private equity exposure, the money comes from the corresponding public asset class. That compares with 50% of advisors expecting to increase their private markets allocations who cited cash or short-duration instruments as a funding source, and 44% who cited investment-grade fixed income.

Private credit, meanwhile, tends to draw capital from corresponding fixed income allocations, with 67% of advisors citing investment-grade fixed income as a funding source and 51% citing high-yield bonds or credit. Because advisors could identify more than one funding source in their responses, the figures reflect the relative prevalence of each source rather than a single allocation split.

The pattern suggests that advisors may increasingly be thinking about public and private investments within the same asset-class framework — private equity alongside public equity and private credit alongside traditional fixed income.

Jaques Clough, Neuberger Head of Private Markets Specialists and Investor Relations, believes that this is an indication that advisors are showing an increased aptitude and comfort with the asset class.

“Many clients have the wherewithal to take 10% or 15% out of their existing allocation, invest privately and harness returns by going illiquid,” says Clough. “It’s less complicated to talk about going illiquid within an existing allocation bucket and portfolio allocation than a different, new alternatives bucket.”

Growing demand, but different
views on illiquidity premia

Our survey results show that advisors at organizations with $500 million or more in total AUM are among the most eager to increase their exposure to private markets. Among these advisors, 71% expect private market allocations to increase over the next three years, compared with 63% of advisors at organizations below that threshold.

Yet greater appetite doesn’t necessarily come with greater return expectations. Advisors at lower AUM organizations are more likely to expect private equity and private credit to outperform their public market counterparts by 5% or more annually, according to our survey results.

The findings suggest that greater appetite for private markets doesn’t necessarily depend on expectations of higher returns. Advisors at higher AUM organizations are more likely to expect allocations to grow, even as advisors at lower AUM organizations are more likely to expect larger return premia.

Advisors are comfortable with illiquidity

Limited liquidity doesn’t appear to be a dealbreaker for most advisors. Approximately 84% of advisors say limited liquidity in evergreen or open-ended vehicles is acceptable.

Broader access to the asset class adds another wrinkle. Some 67% of advisors worry that democratization is bringing in investors whose liquidity expectations don’t match the asset class, a concern shared by 64% of institutional investors.

With increased access comes an increased need for education.

“Advisors should be diligent and transparent, and lay out possible liquidity outcomes in advance, keeping investors focused on the long-term nature of the private markets investment,” says David.

Full liquidity should not be a financial planning assumption, he says. IRAs and other qualified accounts typically have long time frames, making them a natural fit for a long-term asset class like private markets.

Advisor differences extend to what they want to own. Banking and insurance advisors tend to lean more heavily toward infrastructure, while asset and wealth managers show greater interest in alternative credit and secondaries.

Manager selection reveals another divide. Across the survey, proven track record across market cycles ranks as the top criterion for choosing a manager, followed by deep specialist expertise. But priorities vary among advisors: Asset and wealth managers place slightly more emphasis on track record, while advisors at banking and insurance organizations place more emphasis on transparency and timely reporting.

At the same time, the survey reveals some common ground: Whatever their priorities, advisors consistently put proven experience and expertise at the top of the list. These metrics may shift as the asset class evolves.

“What you’ve seen to date is that a number of firms raise a lot of money off very appealing track records that are, as an asset class, no longer sustainable,” says Clough. “One of the things I would encourage everybody to be mindful of is the quality of the return, how it was generated historically and the repeatability of that going forward.”

For all the differences in how advisors approach private markets, the survey points to a common challenge: As access expands, advisors have more choices about where private assets fit, but also more decisions to make about which opportunities justify illiquidity, how they complement public market exposures and which managers are equipped to deliver.

“Our perspective is that a focus on the asset class's features, rather than selling a product, can support long-term success for advisors,” says David. Advisors who keep learning as the asset class innovates and adapts will likely be better placed to succeed.

¹Reza Hasan, “Bigger Checks, Fewer Deals: General Partner Stakes Reach Scale,” Bloomberg Intelligence, April 1, 2026.

Methodology

Data for the Reframing Private Markets study was collected through a 10-minute online survey of 732 investment professionals globally, including 367 financial advisors and registered investment advisors (RIAs) and 365 institutional investors, across the US, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Singapore and Hong Kong. The study was conducted by Bloomberg Media Studios in partnership with Neuberger between June 2 and July 9, 2026.

All respondents were employed full-time, had at least two years of relevant professional experience and were directly involved in investment decisions or financial advice. Financial advisors and RIAs were required to advise individual or retail clients and have at least $50 million in assets under management (AUM). Institutional investors were required to invest on behalf of an organization with at least $100 million in investment assets, including corporations, family offices, insurance companies, consultants, government entities, sovereign wealth funds, foundations, endowments and other nonprofits.

The survey explored current and anticipated private markets allocations, asset classes and access structures, liquidity, valuations, transparency, retail access and manager selection. Respondents received compensation of approximately $60 to $80 for their participation.

Statistical significance testing of differences between subgroups was conducted at the 95% confidence level. For the full sample of 732 respondents, the maximum margin of error is approximately ±3.6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, using the standard worst-case proportion. Margins of error are larger for smaller subgroups, and findings from smaller sample cuts should be considered directional.