LatestAll news

Home / Use cases / PCT-036

Report · PCT-036 · Sourced card

Tender queue by BDC

An analyst covering semi-liquid credit wants each non-traded BDC's quarterly requests, cap, amount paid and proration, straight from the tender-offer filings.

BDCsResearch & ratingsPublic dataBuildable in-house
INPUTTender-offer filingsAI STEPSFetch tender filings · Table requests vspaid · Show prorationOUTPUTRequests vs paid and proration by fundHUMAN CHECKWhat the trend means for a fund'sliquidity or deployment

Today vs automated

TODAY
  1. Find each tender filingAnalyst · manual
  2. Read requests and capsAnalyst · manual
  3. Type into a sheetHead of research / IR · manual, re-keying
  4. Email / meeting hand-offAnalyst → Head of research / IR
AUTOMATED
  1. Quarter-end, or a new filing is publishedTrigger: starts on its own
  2. Fetch tender filingsAutomated · Data store
  3. Table requests vs paidAutomated · LLM
  4. Show prorationAI draft, human review · Reporting template
  5. What the trend means for a fund's liquidity or deploymentApprove / override · Head of research / IR

AutomatedAI draft, human reviewHuman onlyTools: Filing feeds, Data store, LLM, Reporting template

Estimated valueestimate

8–66 analyst hours a year
$1k–$16k of time, vs an assumed $10k–$40k tool cost

Net: −$39k to $6k a year net of tool cost; at the low end of the assumptions it does not cover the tool cost.

Manual3–6 h per quarterly reviewWith AI0.5–1 h per quarterly review, review included
Assumptions
  • 3–6 analyst hours per quarterly review today; 0.5–1 hours with an agent, including review
  • 4–12 quarterly reviews a year for one team
  • $150–250 per hour loaded cost
  • Tool or build cost $10,000–40,000 a year (in-house)

Estimate, based on the assumptions shown; your numbers will differ. How we estimate

What else it can do for the team

  • Track redemption pressure trend
  • Compare proration across managers
  • Feed liquidity signals into LP research
  • Draft the quarterly note
  • Alert on new tender filings
How you get thereFour steps from prompting to an agentic workflow; most teams start at step 2.
1 · PromptingAn analyst asks a chat tool about one quarterly review.
Needs: an approved AI tool, a confidentiality policy.
Risk: unchecked answers, data pasted outside policy.
2 · WorkflowA fixed pipeline extracts the same fields into your template every time.
Needs: field definitions, a template, document parsing.
Risk: breaks silently when formats change.
Typical starting point
3 · AgentIt watches the inbox or data room, runs the checks and drafts the output.
Needs: inbox/doc-store access, system write-back, logging.
Risk: acting on a misread; needs review gates.
The automated lane above
4 · Agentic workflowSeveral agents work across the deal or book; people approve exceptions.
Needs: shared data model, permissions, audit trail, exception queue.
Risk: errors compound across steps; needs monitoring.
Solution optionsBuy, build or hybrid, with the trade-offs of each.
Buy
No vendor verified for this workflow in our directory yet.
Fastest start; you adapt to the product's data model and pricing.
Build
An LLM API, a document parser, a vector or document store, your data warehouse, and a review queue.
Fits your definitions exactly; you own maintenance and controls.
Hybrid
Vendor extraction feeding your own checks, templates and systems.
Common middle path; two things to integrate and govern.

Listing is not endorsement.

What changes for the team3–6 h → 0.5–1 h per quarterly review (estimate); coverage goes from the names someone had time to pull to the full set, refreshed when sources change.
ROLESAnalysts move from collecting data to writing the view.
CYCLE TIME3–6 h → 0.5–1 h per quarterly review (estimate)
COVERAGEFrom the names someone had time to pull to the full set, refreshed when sources change.
CONTROLSEvery output cites its source; approvals and overrides are logged.
How it works

Full title: Who's prorating? A non-traded BDC redemption tracker from tender-offer filings

“Requests at 39% of shares for one tech BDC, 5% caps everywhere. Read it from the SC TO-I yourself.”

Scenario

Public: an analyst covering semi-liquid credit wants each non-traded BDC's quarterly requests, cap, amount paid and proration, straight from the tender-offer filings.

What the human still decides

What the trend means for a fund's liquidity or deployment. The agent reports filings, not judgments on any manager.

Why it matters

Stanger's Q3 tally: 19 NAV BDCs saw $13.8bn of requests (11.5% of NAV), met about 40% and left $8.2bn unmet. Redemption pressure affects which co-lenders keep deploying.

What the record shows

Checked 2026-10-15.

Per Stanger via AltsWire, 19 NAV BDCs got $13.8bn of Q3 2026 redemption requests (11.5% of NAV, down from 12.7% in Q2) and met about 40%, leaving $8.2bn unmet. BCRED held repurchases to its 5% cap against about $4.3bn of requests; Blue Owl Technology Income Corp. requests were 39% of shares. Proration ratios come straight out of the tender-offer filings.

Try it: prompt and data
For each non-traded BDC in {list}, find the Q3 2026 SC TO-I and final amendment on EDGAR. Extract shares tendered, accepted, the cap and the proration ratio, with links. Do not characterize any fund.

Data

Public inputs only (SEC/EDGAR filings, published methodologies, public signals). Every figure is cited.

Who uses it, vendors and build
Segments
BDCs, Research & ratings
Who uses it
LP / credit research, Wealth platform analyst, Capital markets
Build
Buildable in-house
In-house
EDGAR full-text search plus extraction. Estimate: 3–5 days.
Last verified
2026-10-15

Vendors that claim this capability

  • No vendor claim verified for this workflow yet.

Tags reflect each vendor's own public claims at the linked page (checked 2026-10-15). Not tested, ranked or endorsed.

Sources and related
In the news.

Next step

Get new walk-throughs

Subscribe to the newsletter

Not investment advice. Names marked SAMPLE are fictional. Found an error? See the corrections log.