Which Non-Traded REITs Are Actually Paying Redemptions in 2026 (From the 10-Qs Filed This Month)

Why this page exists, and why today

We maintain a redemption suspension tracker for the crowdfunding platforms. It had a hole in it: the large perpetual NAV REITs, which are where most of the money in this category actually sits, were not on it. This article is that hole being filled, and it is built from documents that are days old.

That timing matters more than usual. A perpetual NAV REIT's liquidity status is the definition of a perishable fact. It is set by a board, it can change in a single 8-K, and almost every roundup you will find online describes the 2023 version of this category. The second-quarter reports for these funds were filed between August 7 and August 12, 2026. Nobody had read them side by side. So here they are. (When this page first went up it said August 7 to August 11; the Ares pair and SREIT all filed on August 12, the same day we published, which is why SREIT's 10-Q is covered in the update below rather than in the original text.)

The table

Seven of eight are open. One is not. That is the whole story of this category in 2026, and it is the opposite of the story most published comparisons still tell. Two of the eight need their wording read carefully: the Ares pair fulfil every eligible request — meaning requests "submitted in good order by the request submission deadline" — which is a narrower promise than it first sounds, and KREST's July tender was oversubscribed and only filled because the board chose to use a discretionary overage on top of the 5% cap.

BREIT: the interesting number is the one that is not there

BREIT's Q2 disclosure is worth reading closely because of what it does not contain.

The cap is 2% per month and 5% per quarter. BREIT ran at 0.6% a month, which is roughly 30% of the monthly ceiling and 36% of the quarterly one. The column headed "Maximum Number of Shares Pending Repurchase" is empty for all three months, and the footnote states every request was satisfied.

For context on how far this has travelled: from November 2022 through February 2024, BREIT received requests above those same caps for sixteen consecutive months and pro-rated them. It now has more than three times the headroom it is using.

Two more figures from the same document. Total NAV was $56.57 billion at June 30, 2026, with Class I at $14.5256 per share and Class S at $14.5134. And the price paid rose through the quarter, from $14.23 in April to $14.40 in June, which is a different picture from the one a reader of 2023 coverage would expect.

A caveat on our own earlier number: our BREIT review was written in June 2026 and carries a $14.25 NAV. That figure was right when written and is now stale. The June 30 Class I NAV is $14.5256. We are noting it here rather than quietly changing it, because a two-month-old NAV on a monthly-marked fund is exactly the failure this page exists to catch.

JLL Income Property Trust: the one that never gated, still not gating

JLL IPT's plan works differently. It is daily, at that day's NAV, subject to a one-year holding period, and limited to 5% of aggregate NAV per quarter rather than a monthly cap.

For the six months ended June 30, 2026 it repurchased 14,180,741 shares for $159.5 million and honoured 100% of requests. That "100%" is doing more work than it looks: an interval fund can honour its offer in full and still turn most sellers away, which is exactly what Apollo's GIREX has done for eleven straight quarters, filling about 27% of what shareholders tendered while never missing an offer. It is no longer alone in that: Blue Owl's $9.7 billion ORENT reported "no unfulfilled repurchase requests" across the whole of H1 2026 and H1 2025 while repurchasing $252.4 million of shares, which is the largest clean redemption record in this table and the reason it is worth reading next to JLL rather than next to BREIT. In Q2 alone it repurchased $69.3 million against a $116.9 million quarterly limit — 59% of the cap, the highest utilisation of any fund here, and still fully met. The Q3 2026 limit is disclosed as $115.5 million, which implies aggregate NAV of about $2.31 billion at June 30 against roughly $2.34 billion at March 31.

The trend is the useful part: six-month repurchases fell from $199.1 million in 2025 to $159.5 million in 2026, a 20% decline. Redemption pressure in this category is not being contained. It is receding.

Invesco INREIT: demand collapsing month by month

INREIT satisfied everything too, and its monthly numbers show why that was easy:

• April 2026: 237,930 shares
• May 2026: 140,491 shares
• June 2026: 54,951 shares

That is a 77% decline across a single quarter, to 433,372 shares for the quarter at an average $26.84. (17,336 of those were Class E shares held by the Adviser and repurchased outside the plan.)

Starwood SREIT: the exception, and what just happened to it

SREIT is the only large fund in this category still refusing ordinary redemptions (while, per its own 10-Q, buying back its adviser's fee shares for $18.6 million outside the plan), and the language in the April 29, 2026 Form 8-K is unambiguous. The board amended the share repurchase plan so that requests arising from death or qualifying disability of a natural-person stockholder are repurchased in full up to $5 million per month, and requests for accounts with a balance below $5,000 are repurchased in full up to a separate $5 million per month. Then: no repurchase requests will be accepted except those two. The same filing cut the monthly distribution.

Then, on August 3, 2026, SREIT closed something much bigger, and it has had almost no coverage.

SREIT formed a joint venture with funds managed by and affiliated with Apollo Global Management, holding roughly 120 of its affordable-housing properties. Apollo invested $1.02 billion for Class B Common Units representing 41.5% of the JV's equity. SREIT keeps 58.5%, consolidates the JV, classifies Apollo's stake as a redeemable non-controlling interest, and books no gain or loss. Proceeds repay "a significant portion" of the credit facility. The company calls it "a critical step in [its] broader plan to improve liquidity."

Now the terms, which is where an investor should slow down. The filing states that SREIT will guarantee Apollo a minimum annual yield on its investment, that this minimum yield increases over time, and that paying it is SREIT's responsibility. SREIT holds a call option to redeem Apollo's interest; if exercised between the fifth and tenth anniversary, the call price is set to deliver Apollo a capped 7% IRR. And, in the company's own words, the longer Apollo stays in, the more financial obligations fall on SREIT.

What that means in plain terms. This is equity in legal form and preferred capital in economic substance. A guaranteed, escalating, company-backed yield sits ahead of common shareholders in the cash waterfall. So the same fund that will not return an ordinary investor's capital has raised a billion dollars of capital that must be paid before that investor sees anything, secured against the portfolio the investor owns a share of.

That is not an accusation of wrongdoing. Recapitalising to repay expensive floating-rate debt can be exactly the right move for a fund under pressure, and reducing interest expense genuinely helps every shareholder. It is a statement about rank. If you are queued for redemption at SREIT, your position moved down on August 3, and the disclosure that says so is a Regulation FD item most investors will never open.

Update, September 17, 2026: the 10-Q we were waiting for, and what it actually says

When this page first went up we wrote that SREIT had not yet filed its Q2 Form 10-Q and that we would update when it did. It filed that same day, August 12, 2026 (accession 0001193125-26-346339). Here is what is in it.

First, the company drops the euphemism. The April 8-K said no requests would be accepted except the two hardship categories. The 10-Q's own management discussion says it straight: "in April 2026, we suspended our share repurchase program to preserve liquidity and help protect net asset value for all stockholders, and reduced our monthly distribution to better align the distribution rate with the portfolio's current income." Suspended is SREIT's word, not ours.

Second, there is no backlog number, and there is not going to be one. We expected the 10-Q to disclose the outstanding-request queue. It does not, and the reason is structural rather than evasive: the "Maximum Number of Shares That May Yet Be Repurchased" column is "—" for April, May and June, and a request this plan does not fill is not carried forward — it simply is not accepted. There is no queue to measure because the plan does not maintain one. Anyone waiting to be told how long the line is should stop waiting for that number.

Third, the quarter's repurchase total is far larger than the hardship figures, and the filing only explains part of the gap.

Read the top row against the fifth. In April the fund repurchased 2.9 million shares, while the amount it accepted under the share repurchase plan — the plan that is suspended for everyone except the dying, the disabled and accounts under $5,000 — was $4.8 million, roughly 243,000 shares at that month's price. Another 941,662 shares were the Advisor's, bought back outside the plan to settle the Advisor's tax bill. That leaves roughly 1.7 million shares, about $34 million, in April alone that the filing places in neither category and does not separately explain.

We are not going to guess what it was. The most ordinary explanation is timing — requests submitted in March, under the plan as it stood before the April 29 amendment, and settled in April — and if that is what it is, it is unremarkable. But the filing does not say so, and on a page about who can get their money out, a $34 million repurchase that is neither hardship nor disclosed related-party is an open question rather than a finding. It is the first thing we will look for in the Q3 10-Q.

Fourth, the restriction is now five months old and still binding. Supplement No. 8, filed September 16, 2026, reports that SREIT accepted approximately $4.2 million in July and $5.1 million in August, each time "all repurchase requests for such period made upon the death or qualifying disability of a stockholder and for accounts having a balance below $5,000." Nothing else.

And the NAV kept falling while that was true. At August 31, 2026 SREIT's total NAV was $7,911,378,000 across 409,229,000 shares and units, with Class S and Class T at $19.45, Class D at $19.03 and Class I at $19.27 — down from $19.58, $19.59, $19.17 and $19.41 at July 31. Those are also the October 1 transaction prices.

One more thing, which is not about redemptions

Buried in Item 5 of SREIT's 10-Q: on August 11, 2026 it entered into a Third Amended and Restated Advisory Agreement and a Second Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement, in both cases "to make certain updates requested by a state securities examiner."

That is the same sentence, in the same week, as a completely unrelated sponsor. J.P. Morgan's JPMREIT reports in its own Q2 10-Q that on August 10, 2026 it entered into a Fifth Amended and Restated Advisory Agreement and a Fourth Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement, "to make certain updates requested by a state securities examiner." Neither filing names the state, the examiner or the substance of the request. Two of the largest sponsors in this category amending their advisory and partnership agreements on consecutive days for the same stated reason is not proof of anything, and we are flagging it as a pattern to watch rather than a finding. The JPMREIT filing and what else is in it is here.

What "all requests satisfied" does not mean

Four honest caveats, because the headline finding is easy to over-read.

1. A cap only binds when demand exceeds it. BREIT is not satisfying everything because its cap got more generous. It is satisfying everything because requests fell to about 0.6% of NAV a month. If demand returned to 2023 levels, the same 2% cap would bite again on the same terms. Nothing structural has changed.
2. The queue clearing and the assets performing are different questions. These funds mark their own portfolios monthly, with independent valuation advisers reviewing rather than setting the marks. A fund can meet every redemption at a NAV that is later revised down. Liquidity status tells you whether you can get out, not what you get out at. Nor does it tell you what is coming: Cottonwood Communities has paid every request for a year while its own 10-Q says $452.9 million of debt matures within twelve months, more than its cash and other liquidity.
3. Proration can return without a formal suspension. KREST has pro-rated its quarterly tender in at least seven oversubscribed quarters since 2022, filling as little as about 48% of requests in March 2024, then about 81% in December 2025 and 74% in the second quarter of 2026, before satisfying the July 2026 tender in full. None of that required a gate, an announcement or a policy change. It is the ordinary operation of a cap. (An earlier version of this page put the 48% "this year" and described the two prorations as consecutive quarters; both were wrong, and the correction note at the end says so.)
4. A fund satisfying redemptions may be shrinking or growing, and that matters. AREIT's aggregate NAV rose 12.5% from May 31 to June 30, but NAV per Fund Interest barely moved, from $8.19 to $8.22. The difference is new capital arriving, not existing assets appreciating. Always divide.

How to check any of this yourself, for free

Every number above came from a document you can open in under two minutes.

1. Go to SEC EDGAR and search the CIK: BREIT 1662972, SREIT 1711929, AREIT 1327978, AIREIT 1625941, JLL IPT 1314152, Nuveen Global Cities 1711799, Brookfield REIT 1713407, Invesco INREIT 1756761.
2. For repurchase activity, open the most recent Form 10-Q and find Item 2, Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds. The monthly repurchase table lives there, along with the footnote saying whether requests were satisfied.
3. For a policy change, read the Form 8-K filings. A suspension, a cap change or a distribution cut appears there first, usually under Item 8.01.
4. For monthly NAV, these funds file an 8-K with the components of NAV every month. That is the freshest number that exists.

If a comparison article does not cite a filing date, assume it is stale. In this category, a chart from six months ago can be describing a fund with an entirely different liquidity policy.

Correction and update, September 17, 2026

Three changes, all ours, found in a line-by-line re-verification of this page against the filings.

The KREST proration history was wrong. We wrote that KREST "pro-rated at 48% and then 74% in consecutive quarters this year." The 48% was March 2024, from the fund's audited N-CSR, not this year; the 74% was the second quarter of 2026; and the tender in between that we did not mention, December 2025, filled about 81%. They were not consecutive quarters. KREST has pro-rated in at least seven oversubscribed quarters since 2022. Corrected above.

The AIREIT row claimed something its cited source could not support. We put "Requests met in full" in the table and cited "Monthly NAV 8-Ks continuing through August 11, 2026." A monthly NAV filing says nothing whatsoever about whether redemption requests were met; we had inferred a liquidity status from a valuation document. The claim happens to be true — AIREIT's Form 10-Q, filed August 12, 2026, reports 8,803,000 shares redeemed for $116.0 million in the half year and states that all eligible requests were fulfilled — but we were citing the wrong document for it. Both Ares rows now cite the 10-Q and carry the filings' actual qualifier, eligible requests.

The filing window was off by a day, and it mattered. We said the quarterly reports landed "between August 7 and August 11." The two Ares REITs and SREIT all filed on August 12 — the day this page published — which is why we wrote that SREIT's 10-Q was "not yet known" and promised to update. That promise then sat unfulfilled for 34 days on a page whose own argument is that this category's facts are perishable. The update is above, and it is the most substantial part of this page now.

The honest summary

If you own one of these funds, the useful question is not "are non-traded REITs gated?" — that question had a yes answer in 2023 and has a no answer in 2026 for six of the seven biggest. The useful question is whether your fund's board has changed the plan, and the only reliable way to know is the 8-K feed. One structure answers the gating question differently: in TIAA's Real Estate Account the sponsor itself buys units when cash runs short, and in 2023 and 2024 it had to, for $911.3 million.

And if you own SREIT, the two developments of 2026 belong together: the board stopped repurchasing ordinary shares in April, and in August it added a billion dollars of capital with a guaranteed escalating return sitting in front of you. Both are in the filings. Neither is in most of the coverage.

Internal links: Redemption Suspension Tracker · Real Estate Crowdfunding Liquidity 2026 · Blackstone BREIT Review · Starwood SREIT Review · JLL Income Property Trust Review · Ares Industrial REIT Review · KKR KREST Review · Non-Traded REIT vs Publicly-Traded REIT · Real Estate Crowdfunding Statistics

On the cost of getting advice about these vehicles, and the share-class trap inside them, see what a financial advisor actually costs a real estate investor.

Several of these sponsors also run DST programmes, whose upfront loads we derived from Form D filings in what DST 1031 deals actually charge.

Last updated September 17, 2026, when every figure was re-verified line by line against the filings and the SREIT section was rewritten from the Form 10-Q filed August 12, 2026 (accession 0001193125-26-346339) and Supplement No. 8 filed September 16, 2026. Originally published August 12, 2026. Every figure is transcribed from SEC filings: BREIT Form 10-Q filed August 7, 2026 (CIK 1662972); JLL Income Property Trust Form 10-Q filed August 11, 2026 (CIK 1314152); Invesco Real Estate Income Trust Form 10-Q filed August 10, 2026 (CIK 1756761); Ares Real Estate Income Trust Form 8-K filed July 17 and August 7, 2026 (CIK 1327978); Starwood Real Estate Income Trust Form 8-K filed April 29, 2026 and August 4, 2026 and prospectus supplement filed August 4, 2026 (CIK 1711929). KREST tender results are from the fund's quarterly tender offer disclosures. Repurchase status in this category can change in a single board action, so check the 8-K feed before acting on anything here. We hold no position in any fund named, take no payment from any sponsor, and none of these funds has an affiliate programme we participate in.