However, until some of these access issues are ironed out, it means that millions of people saving for retirement and other reasons cannot get a ticket to the main show in town if regulators don't let them. That’s politically, socially and economically foolish, because it will only underscore how “the rich” are seen as getting richer relative to the rest of us. As populations age and birth rates fall, it is particularly unwise.

It’s perhaps unsurprising that one of the big beasts of the private equity jungle, , aka KKR, is banging the drum about the benefits of non-public asset classes. The New York-listed firm has released a study, Regime Change: The Role of Private Equity in the ‘Traditional’ Portfolio. The note, as the title suggests, focuses largely on the presumed benefits of adding private equity exposure to a diversified portfolio, including comparisons with the traditional 60/40 model and KKR’s original 40/30/30 benchmark (40 per cent stocks, 30 per cent bonds, and 30 per cent in “alternatives such as private credit, real estate, and infrastructure.”

The report says that “in almost all instances, adding private equity exposure to a diversified portfolio not only boosts absolute returns but also helps deliver better risk-adjusted returns, especially for investors who are concerned about inflation.”

“From our perch, private equity makes a lot of sense for buy and hold investors, especially retirement focused investors who want to compound capital at more efficient tax rates than many income oriented products provide. We also believe that, if our team is right in our assumptions about lower forward returns across capital markets, the value of the illiquidity premium, especially in private equity, will become more important,” the report’s authors say.

There are several conclusions to draw about reports such as this. One is that advisors must continue to educate themselves and clients about the benefits of such investment – and the risks and challenges.

Another is that regulators and legislators (assuming that today’s politicians understand the issues) must craft structures that give exposure to these investments, without surrendering some protections. In this case, providers should tell people that liquidity comes at a price. As Milton Friedman liked to note, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And finally, the media world that I inhabit must do a better job of reporting on this sector.

I note from my personal experience that more journalists are branching out from covering listed stocks to covering these areas. But the mainstream media still, in my view, gives more coverage than it arguably should to the ups and downs of the Dow Jones Industrial Average etc than to private markets. I suspect that’s because it is easier to talk about an index. Covering private markets is more labor-intensive. But maybe in this age of Artificial Intelligence and the like, tools are multiplying to make it easier for us newshounds to go after value-added stories. So on that note, I hope the coverage adjusts to reflect the realities.

As ever, if you have comments, grouches or suggestions, email me at tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com