What came first, the advisor or the high-risk, high-priced product?

In the latest case of Wall Street’s version of “the chicken or the egg," the Financial Times over the weekend reported that clients of UBS, many in Asia, started “pulling large sums of money from Blue Owl Technology Income, a $3 billion direct lending fund distributed mainly through UBS wealth management, during the final quarter of 2025."

It’s quite the turnaround for UBS and Blue Owl. In a bit of high-stakes irony, UBS and Blue Owl worked hand in hand a few years ago to launch the fund, and UBS advisors were responsible for a majority of the fund’s sales, according to the Financial Times, which cited two unnamed sources in its report. 

Who's more important, the advisor or the fund manager? 

“Blue Owl launched its technology-focused fund in 2022 after consulting with UBS about creating a vehicle that would be suited to the bank’s clients, according to two people familiar with the matter,” the Financial Times reported in an article with the headline 'UBS helped trigger exodus from Blue Owl private credit fund.'

“At least 60% of the money the fund raised came from UBS clients, most of whom were based in Asia, they added,” acording to the article. 

A UBS spokesperson declined to comment about the article. A Blue Owl spokesperson on Monday did not return a call to comment.

After years of record fund flows or investments by customers into private credit funds like those managed by Blue Owl and others, the market turned last year when investors began questioning what the loans in many funds, particularly those in private software businesses, were really worth.

“That’s the way it goes at the wirehouses,” said a senior industry executive who spoke privately to InvestmentNews about the report. “It’s good until it’s not.”

The Financial Times reports sums up nicely the hand in glove relationship between the wirehouses, the largest and most profitable financial advice companies in the industry, and alternative assets managers like Blue Owl, who typically charge much greater fees than competitors who sell bread and butter mutual funds pegged to stock and bond indexes like the S&P 500.

“UBS’s change in outlook and its impact on the Blue Owl fund illustrate how important wealth channels have become for private credit firms to tap retail investors and the pitfalls they face if they heavily rely on a particular distributor,” according to the report. “It also shows how the boom in retail offerings has shifted power from private credit managers to the banks and wealth platforms that control the flow of client money.”

Of course, big firms like UBS and asset managers working together to create a new fund or investment vehicle with some sizzle is hardly new – it’s part of the DNA of Wall Street.

But such a symbiotic, chicken or egg relationship like the one between UBS and Blue Owl can also create a downside, particularly if one group gets the jitters, as UBS reportedly did here.

“While these arrangements are an important source of fundraising, they can leave fund managers vulnerable to changing recommendations,” according to the article. “Although concerns about private credit valuations and returns have spanned the industry, Blue Owl has found itself in the eye of the storm as one of the first firms to target retail investors.”