Goldman, Phoenix form credit partnership; Japan PFA lifts alternatives to $19bn
Phoenix Financial gains access to Goldman Sachs Alternatives' private investment-grade, senior direct lending and opportunistic credit capabilities.
At a glance
Goldman Sachs and Phoenix Financial have formed a partnership giving the Israeli asset manager access to three Goldman Sachs Alternatives credit strategies: private investment-grade, senior direct lending and opportunistic credit.
Phoenix will deploy more than $4bn through the arrangement; the coverage does not say how that figure divides among the three strategies, or over what period the capital will be committed.
Japan's Pension Fund Association lifted its alternative holdings to about $19bn, with alternatives reaching 21.3% of its basic pension portfolio and 31.7% of its corporate pension portfolio in the year to March 2026.
Goldman Sachs and Phoenix Financial have formed a partnership giving the Israeli asset manager access to three Goldman Sachs Alternatives credit strategies: private investment-grade, senior direct lending and opportunistic credit.
Phoenix will deploy more than $4bn through the arrangement; the coverage does not say how that figure divides among the three strategies, or over what period the capital will be committed.
The three strategy labels describe different mandates. Private investment grade and senior direct lending both point to secured lending with a senior claim; opportunistic credit is the widest remit of the three. An agreement spanning all of them is a broader relationship than a commitment to a single fund, which means Phoenix is buying access across the credit spectrum in one arrangement rather than through separate subscriptions. That breadth is the practical content of the deal.
Japan's Pension Fund Association
Japan's Pension Fund Association lifted its alternative holdings to about $19bn, with alternatives reaching 21.3% of its basic pension portfolio and 31.7% of its corporate pension portfolio in the year to March 2026.
The 10.4-point gap between the two portfolios means the PFA does not report a single alternatives number; the corporate figure is the larger of the two. Alternatives is also the category reported, not private credit: the coverage does not break out how much of the $19bn sits in credit, or how it divides between the basic and corporate portfolios. For a lender looking at Japanese pension money, that credit slice is the relevant figure, and it is not quantified here.
Save this analysis and keep the funds you follow together in My Desk.
Sign in to save articles or follow funds.