The Asset Management Industry and Financial Stability: International Monetary Fund - April 2015

CHAPTER
THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY

AND FINANCIAL STABILITY
SUMMARY
inancial intermediation through asset management firms has many benefits. It helps investors diversify
their assets more easily and can provide financing to the real economy as a spare tire even when banks
are distressed. The industry also has various advantages over banks from a financial stability point of view.
Nonetheless, concerns about potential financial stability risks posed by the asset management industry
have increased recently as a result of that sectors growth and of structural changes in financial systems. Bond funds
have grown significantly, funds have been investing in less liquid assets, and the volume of investment products
offered to the general public in advanced economies has expanded substantially. Risks from some segments of the
industryleveraged hedge funds and money market fundsare already widely recognized.
However, opinions are divided about the nature and magnitude of any associated risks from less leveraged,
plain-vanilla investment products such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. This chapter examines systemic risks related to these products conceptually and empirically.
In principle, even these plain-vanilla funds can pose financial stability risks. The delegation of day-to-day
portfolio management introduces incentive problems between end investors and portfolio managers, which can
encourage destabilizing behavior and amplify shocks. Easy redemption options and the presence of a first-mover
advantage can create risks of a run, and the resulting price dynamics can spread to other parts of the financial
system through funding markets and balance sheet and collateral channels.
The empirical analysis finds evidence for many of these risk-creating mechanisms, although their importance
varies across asset markets. Mutual fund investments appear to affect asset price dynamics, at least in less liquid
markets. Various factors, such as certain fund share pricing rules, create a first-mover advantage, particularly for
funds with high liquidity mismatches. Furthermore, incentive problems matter: herding among portfolio managers
is prevalent and increasing.
The chapter does not aim to provide a final verdict on the overall systemic importance of the potential risks or
to answer the question of whether some asset management companies should be designated as systemically important. However, the analysis shows that larger funds and funds managed by larger asset management companies do
not necessarily contribute more to systemic risk: the investment focus appears to be relatively more important for
their contribution to systemic risk.
Oversight of the industry should be strengthened, with better microprudential supervision of risks and through
the adoption of a macroprudential orientation. Securities regulators should shift to a more hands-on supervisory
model, supported by global standards on supervision and better data and risk indicators. The roles and adequacy
of existing risk management tools, including liquidity requirements, fees, and fund share pricing rules, should be
reexamined, taking into account the industrys role in systemic risk and the diversity of its products.
Prepared by Hiroko Oura (team leader), Nicols Arregui, Jonathan Beauchamp, Rina Bhattacharya, Antoine Bouveret, Cristina Cuervo,
Pragyan Deb, Jennifer Elliott, Hibiki Ichiue, Bradley Jones, Yoon Kim, Joe Maloney, Win Monroe, Martin Saldias, and Nico Valckx, with
contributions by Viral Acharya (consultant), and data management assistance from Min-Jer Lee, under the overall guidance of Gaston Gelos
and Dong He.
International Monetary Fund | April 2015
93
GLOBAL FINANCIAL STABILITY REPORT: NAVIGATING MONETARY POLICY CHALLENGES AND MANAGING RISKS
Introduction
In recent years, credit intermediation has been shifting
from the banking to the nonbank sector, including the
asset management industry.1 Tighter regulations on
banks, rising compliance costs, and continued bank
balance sheet deleveraging following the global financial crisis have contributed to this shift. In advanced
economies, the asset management industry has been
playing an increasingly important role in the financial
system, especially through increased credit intermediation by bond funds.2 For emerging markets, portfolio
flowsmany of which are channeled through funds
have shown steady growth since the crisis. Globally, the
1In this chapter, the definition of the asset management industry includes various investment vehicles (such as mutual funds,
exchange-traded funds, money market funds, private equity funds,
and hedge funds) and their management companies (see Annex 3.1).
Pension funds and insurance companies are excluded, as are other
types of nonbank financial institutions.
2See October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report.
industry now intermediates assets amounting to $76

trillion (100 percent of world GDP and 40 percent of
global financial assets; Figure 3.1).
The larger role of the asset management industry
in intermediation has many benefits. It helps investors diversify their assets more easily and can provide financing to the real economy as a spare tire
even when banks are distressed. The industry also
has advantages over banks from a financial stability
point of view. Banks are predominantly financed with
short-term debt, exposing them to both solvency and
liquidity risks. In contrast, most investment funds
issue shares, and end investors bear all investment risk
(see Figure 3.2, and see Annex 3.1 for a primer on the
industry). High leverage is mostly limited to hedge
funds and private equity funds, which represent a small
share of the industry.3 Therefore, solvency risk is low in
3However, these funds can still be a source of systemic risk, as
shown during the Long-Term Capital Management episode in 1998.
Mutual funds and exchange-traded funds do incur portfolio leverage
Figure 3.1. Financial Intermediation by the Asset Management Industry Worldwide

The growth of investment funds has been particularly pronounced
among advanced economies during the past decade.
The asset management industry intermediates substantial amounts of

money in the nancial system.
1. World Top 500 Asset Managers Assets under Management1
2. Size of Investment Funds in Selected Advanced Economies

AUM, trillions of U.S. dollars (right scale)
AUM, percent of sample economies GDP
Trillions of U.S. dollars (right scale)

Percent of world GDP
Percent of global nancial assets excluding loans
140
120
90
100
80
90
70
100
60
80
50
60
40
30
25
80
70
20
60
50
30
40
20
20
0
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
94
40
10
30
20
10
10
Sources: Bloomberg, L.P.; McKinsey (2013); Pensions and Investments and Towers
Watson (2014); IMF, World Economic Outlook database; and IMF staff estimates.
1
The change of asset under management is determined both by valuation
changes of underlying assets as well as net inows to funds.
15
2001 02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and IMF

World Economic Outlook database.
Note: AUM = assets under management. Economies comprise Canada, Germany,
Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, and United States. Investment funds
include mutual funds, money market funds, and exchange-traded funds.
CHAPTER 3 THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL STABILITY
Figure 3.2. Products Offered by Asset Managers and Their Recent Growth
Plain-vanilla products and privately offered separate account services
dominate the markets as measured by assets under management.
Open-end funds, exchange-traded funds, and private equity funds

have shown strong growth since the global nancial crisis.
1. Asset Managers Intermediation by Investment Vehicles

(Percent of $79 trillion total assets under management, end-2013)
Exchangetraded funds
4%
Private Hedge funds

equity
3%
5%
Other
alternatives
2%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30
25
20
Money market
funds
8%
Closed-end
mutual funds
1%
2. Recent Growth of Selected Investment Vehicles

(Assets under management in trillions of U.S. dollars)
15
Separate
accounts
36%
Open-end
mutual funds
41%
Sources: BarclayHedge; European Fund and Asset Management Association;
ETFGI; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Pensions and
Investments and Towers Watson (2014); Preqin; and IMF staff estimates.
most cases (see October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report). Intermediation through funds also brings
funding cost benefits and fewer restrictions for firms
compared with bank financingit does, however, also
expose firms to more volatile funding conditions, so
the advantages have to be weighed against the risks.
Nevertheless, the growth of the industry has given
rise to concerns about potential risks.4 By now, the
assets under management of top asset management
companies (AMCs) are as large as those of the largest
banks, and they show similar levels of concentration.5
For emerging markets, the behavior of fund flows has
for some time been a key financial stability concern, as
extensively discussed in the April 2014 Global Financial Stability Report. Similarly, risks from hedge funds
through derivatives and securities lending, about which only limited
information is disclosed. However, most publicly offered products
have regulatory leverage caps that are generally much lower than
those for banks (see Table 3.1).
4A report by the Office of Financial Research (2013) summarizing potential systemic risks emanating from the industry spurred an
active discussion among academics, supervisors, and the industry.
A large number of qualitative analyses on this topic (CEPS-ECMI
2012; Elliott 2014; Haldane 2014) are available, but comprehensive,
data-based evidence is still limited.
5In this chapter, the term AMC does not include asset management companies set up to handle distressed assets in the context of
bank restructuring and resolution.
10
5
0
Open-end Money market Exchange- Private equity Hedge funds

mutual funds
funds
traded funds
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Preqin; and IMF
staff calculations.
and money market funds are already well recognized.

However, the importance of plain-vanilla products
is less well understood (Feroli and others 2014). At
the individual fund level, plain-vanilla funds face
liquidity risk: the shares of open-end mutual funds
and exchange-traded funds are usually redeemable or
tradable daily, whereas assets can be much less liquid.
However, the extent to which such risks at the level
of an individual institution can translate into systemic
risk is subject to ongoing research and debate.
Potential systemic risks from less leveraged segments
of the industry are likely to stem from price externalities in financial markets and their macro-financial
consequences. Systemically important effects may arise
if features of the industry tend to amplify shocks or
increase the likelihood of destabilizing price dynamics in certain asset markets compared with a situation
in which investors invest directly in securities. These
effects can have broader economic implications. For
example, if intermediation through funds raises the
probability of fire sales of bonds that are held by key
players in the financial sector or that are used as collateral, then the risk of destabilizing knock-on effects
on other institutions rises, with potentially important
macro-financial consequences. Similarly, if funds
exacerbate the volatility of capital flows in and out of

International Monetary Fund | April 2015 95
emerging markets or increase the likelihood of contagion, significant consequences will be endured by the
recipient economies.6
Some key features of collective investment vehicles
may give rise to such destabilizing dynamics compared
with a situation without intermediaries. Conceptually,
it is important to distinguish clearly between the types
of risks that result from the presence of intermediaries
and those that are merely a reflection of the behavior
of end investors and would occur in the absence of
intermediaries (Elliott 2014). Two main risk channels
that are important in this context, even for unleveraged funds, are (1) incentive problems related to the
delegation of portfolio management decisions by end
investors to funds, which, among other things, may
lead to herding, and (2) a first-mover advantage for
end investors (that is, incentives not to be the last in
the queue if others are redeeming from a fund), which
may result in fire-sale dynamics. These issues are discussed in detail in this chapter.
In recent years, the importance of such risks is
likely to have risen in advanced economies because of
structural changes in their financial systems. Not only
has the relative importance of the asset management
industry grown, but banks have also retrenched from
6Other risks include operational risks and risks related to securities lending, which are not discussed in detail in this chapter. See
Cetorelli (2014).
Figure 3.3. Key Domiciles of Mutual Funds
(Mutual funds by domicile, percent of total assets under management,

end-2014)
The mutual fund industry is dominated by U.S. and European funds.
Among emerging market economies, Brazil has the largest fund sector.
Other
developed
9%
Japan
3%
Brazil
China
3% 2% Other emerging
markets 4%
Luxembourg 10%
Developed
Europe 31%
Ireland 5%
France 5%
United Kingdom 4%
Other developed
Europe 7%
United States
49%
Sources: European Fund and Asset Management Association; and IMF staff
calculations.
96
many market-making activities, possibly contributing to

a reduction in market liquidity (October 2014 Global
Financial Stability Report). Consequently, large-scale
trading by funds could potentially have a larger effect on
markets than in the past. Moreover, the role of fixedincome funds has expanded considerablyand price
disruptions in fixed-income markets have potentially
larger consequences than large price swings in equity
markets. The volume of products offered to the general
public in advanced economies has grown considerably.7
Finally, the prolonged period of low interest rates in
advanced economies has resulted in a search for yield,
which has led funds to invest in less liquid assets, and
is likely to have exacerbated the risks described above
(October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report).
These considerations have sparked a policy discussion about intensifying oversight across advanced and
emerging economies. In 2014, the Financial Stability
Board (FSB) and International Organization of Securities
Commissions (IOSCO) proposed assessment methodologies to identify investment funds that might be global
systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFIs)
and as such would be regulated differently from the others (FSB and IOSCO 2014). This proposal was revised
in March 2015, and includes approaches for identifying
both investment funds and asset managers as G-SIFIs
(FSB and IOSCO 2015). Market regulators in major
jurisdictions (Figure 3.3), such as the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), are considering revising
their approach to the oversight of asset managers and
the products they offer, including through stress testing
requirements. This is a paradigm shift. Until recently,
securities regulators have mainly focused on investor protection, with limited attention to financial stability risks.
This chapter aims to shed more light on the empirical relevance of these issues, thereby contributing to
the understanding of the systemic risk implications of
the asset management industry. This task is challenging given that the risks of concern have not yet or only
partially materialized in advanced economies; inference,
therefore, often has to be indirect. So far, the literature
has only examined partial aspects of these problems in
individual markets. This chapter provides an account of
key risk profiles of the largest segments in the industry
and an in-depth, original, data-based analysis of some of
7Retail
investors are often seen to be less sophisticated and

informed than institutional investors, and more prone to chase
returns (Frazzini and Lamont 2008). This possibly exacerbates the
incentive problems mentioned earlier.
the main issues featured in the public discussion, backed

by interviews with asset managers and supervisors. The
key questions are the following:
What are the potential sources of financial stability
risks from the asset management industry, particularly from the less leveraged, plain-vanilla segments?
What is the empirical evidence on the various specific risk channels?
What existing internal risk management and oversight tools can be used to mitigate financial stability
risks? What needs to be done to better monitor and
mitigate these risks?
The detailed empirical analysis finds evidence for
many mechanisms through which funds can create and
amplify risks, although their importance varies across
asset markets:
Mutual fund investments appear to affect asset
price dynamics, at least in less liquid markets. The
impact, however, does not seem to have risen over
time. Assets that are held in a concentrated manner
by funds perform worse during periods of stress.
Various factors create run risk, including certain
fund share pricing rules. To some extent, however,
risks are mitigated by funds liquidity management.
The evidence points to the importance of incentive problems between end investors and portfolio
managers. Herding among U.S. mutual funds has
been rising across asset markets, particularly among
retail-oriented funds (whose end investors are more
fickle and for whom assessing the skills of portfolio
managers is more difficult). The patterns of fund
inflows by end investors also encourage poorly performing portfolio managers to take excessive risks.
However, larger funds and funds belonging to
larger AMCs do not necessarily contribute more to
systemic risk. The investment focus appears to be
relatively more important than size when gauging
systemic risk.
Overall, the evidence calls for strengthening the
microprudential supervision of risks and adopting
macroprudential oversight of the industry:
Currently, most securities regulators focus on investor
protection and do not intensively supervise risks of
individual institutions with the help of risk indicators or stress tests. This practice needs to be changed,
supported by global standards on microprudential
supervision and more comprehensive data.
Moreover, macroprudential oversight frameworks

should be established to address financial stability
risks stemming from the industry. These stability risks
originate in price externalities that can be missed by
microprudential regulators and asset managers.
The roles and adequacy of existing risk management
tools, including liquidity requirements, fees, and
fund share pricing rules, should be reexamined, taking into account the industrys role in systemic risk
and the diversity of its products.
The chapter first lays out conceptual issues related
to the nature of potential financial stability risks from
the industry. Next, various empirical exercises are
conducted to identify different behavioral patterns
of mutual fund investors and their financial stability
implications. The chapter then examines the industrys
oversight framework and makes recommendations for
reducing financial stability risks.
Financial Stability Risks of Plain-Vanilla Funds:

Conceptual Issues
Plain-vanilla mutual funds and ETFsthe largest
segment of the industrydo not suffer much from
the known vulnerabilities of hedge funds and money
market funds. Reforms are already underway to address
risks related to hedge funds (which can incur high
leverage and engage in complex strategies with few disclosure requirements) and money market funds (some
of which offer redemptions at a constant nominal
value per fund share, making their liabilities similar to
deposits and vulnerable to runs). In general, these specific risks apply less to typical mutual funds and ETFs
(Table 3.1 and Annex 3.1).
Risk Transmission Channels

Intermediation through plain-vanilla funds is, however,
not risk free (Figure 3.4):8
8Apart from Table 3.1 and Annex 3.1, this chapter does not cover
separate accounts in detail because of data limitations. However,
SIFMA (2014) indicates that these accounts mainly invest in simple
securities portfolios with little leverage. For pension fund and insurance company investors, separate accounts are bound by overall
investment restrictions set by their respective regulators. Redemption
risks appear to be limited as well because institutional investors tend
to internalize the cost of their sales, and large redemptions can be
settled in kind.
Table 3.1. Summary Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Major Investment Vehicles
Vehicle
2013 AUM
(trillions of
U.S. dollars)
Publicly
Offered
Collective
Investment
Schemes
Typical
Redemption
and Trading
Practice
Typical
Settlement
Method
Solvency
Risk
Leverage
Portfolio
through
Leverage2
Borrowing1,2 (Derivatives)
Main
Investor
Clientele
Disclosure
Gap3
Open-End
Mutual Fund
25
Yes
Yes
End of day
Cash
Low
Possible
with cap
Yes with cap
Retail,
institutional
Low
Closed-End
Mutual Fund
0.5
Yes
Yes
N.A.
(primary)
Intraday
(secondary)
Cash
Low
Some yes
with cap
Yes with cap
Retail,
institutional
Low
Money
Market Fund
4.8
Yes
Yes
End of day
Cash
Low
Possible
with cap
Yes with cap
Retail,
institutional
Low
ExchangeTraded Fund
2.3
Yes
Yes
Infrequent
(primary)
Intraday
(secondary)
In kind
(primary)
Cash
(secondary)
Low
Possible
with cap
Yes with cap
Retail,
institutional
Synthetic
ETF
0.14
Cash
Low
Possible
with cap
High
derivative
use
Institutional
Private
Equity Fund
3.5
No
Yes
N.A.
(closed-end
with longterm finite
life)
Cash
High5
Some yes,
no cap
No
information
Institutional
Medium
Hedge Fund
2.2
No
Yes
Quarterly
+ lock-up
period +
90 days
advance
notice
Cash
High5
High no cap
High no cap
Institutional
Medium
Separate
Account6
227
No
No
No
information
Cash or in
kind
Low
No
No
information8 information8
Institutional
High
Low
Sources: BarclayHedge; Deutsche Bank (2014); ETFGI; EFAMA (2014); ICI (2014a, 2014c); McKinsey (2013); Metrick and Yasuda (2011); Morningstar (2012); OFR (2013); Preqin;
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2013); and IMF staff estimates.
Note: AUM = assets under management; ETF = exchange-traded fund; N.A. = not applicable.
1Borrowing includes issuing debt or taking bank loans.
2No cap means no regulatory cap, and with cap means there are regulatory caps on the leverage. For public funds in the United States, leverage is capped at 33 percent of assets
including portfolio leverage. European Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) funds can borrow up to 10 percent of assets, but only temporary borrowing is allowed and it should not be used for investment.
3Disclosure in this column is about securities, borrowing through loans, and cash holdings information. Across all products, there is very little information about derivatives and
securities financing transactions (repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions), their counterparties, and collateral.
4The figure covers European-listed synthetic exchange-traded funds. Synthetic products are mainly seen in Europe and to a lesser extent in Asia. See Annex Table 3.1.1 for a description of synthetic products.
5In addition to taking leverage, these types of funds risk their own capital and balance sheets when investing given that they comingle client investors money with their own money for investment.
6This is different from separate account used among insurance companies. See Annex Table 3.1.1 for description.
7The figure is based on the U.S. data reported in OFR (2013) and the European data reported in EFAMA (2014).
8Investment strategy should be in line with the mandate set by clients and their regulatory requirements (such as insurance and pension fund regulations).
The delegation of investment decisions introduces

incentive problems between end investors and portfolio managers that can induce destabilizing behavior
and amplify shocks. Investors delegate day-to-day
portfolio management to portfolio managers. Investors cannot directly observe managers daily actions
or their skills, and therefore provide incentives to
managers to act in investors interests (Rajan 2005).9
A common (and imperfect) way of establishing
9Legally, asset managers have a duty to act as fiduciaries on behalf
of their clients.
98
incentives is to evaluate funds relative to their peers

and relative to benchmarks. This form of evaluation,
in turn, can lead to a variety of trading dynamics
with potentially systemic implications, such as herding or excessive risk taking (Box 3.1).10,11
10Similarly, the same type of informational issues can make it difficult for investors to distinguish between problems at the fund level
versus problems at the AMC level, possibly leading to brand name
effects, in which operational and reputational concerns about one
fund spill over to others in the same fund family.
11Separate issues arise from passive, index-linked investing.
Increasing investment of this form has been argued to distort asset
Figure 3.4. Unleveraged Open-End Funds and Systemic Risk
Incentive
problems
of
managers
Information gap between managers and investors

Benchmark-based evaluation
Excessive risk taking
Herding
Brand name effects (spillovers of redemption
within fund family)
Macronancial
consequences
Price
externalities
re sales,
contagion,
volatility
Run risk
First-mover advantage
Liquidity mismatch
Managers sell liquid assets rst
Some fund share pricing rules impose cost of
liquidity risk unfairly on second movers
Source: IMF staff.
Easy redemption options can create run risks due

to a first-mover advantage.12 Investors can have an
incentive to exit faster than the others even without
constant net asset value (NAV) or guaranteed returns
if the liquidation value of fund shares declines as
investors wait longer to exit. This decline in value
could happen for various reasons. First, asset managers may use cash buffers and sell relatively more
liquid assets first in the face of large redemptions.
Second, certain funds have fund share pricing rules
that pass the costs of selling assetspossibly at firesale priceson to the remaining investors (Box 3.2).
Such effects are intensified when funds are investing
in relatively less liquid assets, and thereby create large
mismatches between the market liquidity of assets
and liquidity offered to end investors (October 2014
Global Financial Stability Report).13
prices and risk-return tradeoffs (Wurgler 2010 and Box 3.1). This
chapter does not explore these issues.
12The incentive to redeem quickly is often referred to as strategic
complementarity, and is similar to the mechanism behind bank
runs (as in Diamond and Dybvig [1983]). More generally, problems
related to the delegation of investment decisions or first-mover
advantage are also present in other forms of financial intermediation,
albeit to different degrees. For instance, pension funds and insurance
companies face much lower redemption risks.
13A related issue concerns the pricing of infrequently traded
securities. The October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report discusses some of the issues related to the so-called matrix pricing.
A large proportion of funds issue easily redeemable shares, and liquidity mismatches have been rising
(Figures 3.5 and 3.6). Open-end funds are exposed
to redemption risk because investors have the ability
to redeem their shares (usually on a daily basis) while
funds have increasingly been investing in relatively
illiquid securities such as high-yield corporate bonds
and emerging market assets.
Large-scale sales by funds may exert significant
downward asset price pressures, which could affect
the entire market and trigger adverse feedback loops.
The effects on asset prices could have broader macrofinancial consequences, affecting the balance sheets
of other actors in financial markets; reducing collateral values; and reducing credit financing for banks,
firms, and sovereigns. The effects could also be spread
unevenly across jurisdictions. For instance, the main
impact of trades by funds domiciled in advanced
economies could be felt in emerging markets (see
April 2014 Global Financial Stability Report for
details).
Although these potential risks and propagation
channels are recognized as theoretical possibilities,
there is disagreement about their importance in practice. Advanced economies have experienced few cases
in which asset management activities outside of hedge
funds and money market funds triggered or amplified

Box 3.1. Possible Incentive Problems Created by Delegated Management

The delegation of investment decisions introduces
incentive problems between end investors and fund
managers, which can induce destabilizing behavior
and amplify shocks. As discussed in the primer on the
asset management industry (Annex 3.1), end investors
delegate day-to-day control of portfolios to managers.
Investors cannot directly observe managers abilities, nor
do they see every single trade and portfolio position.
Investors, therefore, provide incentives to asset managers
to act in investors interests (Rajan 2005). A common
way of providing incentives is to evaluate asset managers
relative to their peers and to benchmarks. This evaluation can take direct or indirect forms: (1) managers
compensation can be linked to relative performance
(Ma, Tang, and Gomez 2013) or (2) investors inject
money into funds that perform well relative to their
benchmarks. The effect of the latter is similar to the
effect of the former if compensation increases with
assets under management (AUM). These incentive
problems, in turn, can lead to a variety of dynamics
with potentially systemic implications (Stracca 2006).
More specifically, they can lead to the following:
Excessive risk takingIf a funds AUM grow more
with good performance than shrink with poor
performance, incentives are created to incur more
risk when the fund is falling behind (Chevalier
and Ellison 1997; Ferreira and others 2012; see the
example in Table 3.1.1). Similar incentives exist in a
tournament setting, in which funds are evaluated
based on their interim performance (say, in the
middle of the year) compared with peers (Basak,
Pavlova, and Shapiro 2008).1
ContagionBy contrast, if fund managers become

more risk averse in response to past losses, and if
they are evaluated against their peers or benchmarks, they may be induced to retrench to the
benchmark in response to losses. This behavior, in
turn, can induce the transmission of shocks across
assets and result in momentum trading (Broner,
Gelos, and Reinhart 2006). See Calvo and Mendoza
(2000), Chakravorti and Lall (2003), and Ilyina
(2006) for other types of models linking benchmark-based compensation to contagion.
Herding, return chasing, and incentives to runEvaluation relative to average performance tends to induce
risk-averse portfolio managers to mimic the behavior
of peers (Scharfstein and Stein 1990; Arora and
Ou-Yang 2001; Maug and Naik 2011). Incentives
to herd are reinforced because end investors can exit
funds quickly, and mutual fund managers cannot
afford to wait until their peers private information is
revealed and incorporated fully in asset prices (Froot,
OConnell, and Seasholes 2001). Vayanos (2004)
shows that when fund managers lose AUM because
of poor performance, flights to quality may occur.
Feroli and others (2014) construct a model in which
performance evaluation relative to benchmarks creates incentives for fund managers to join sell-offs
during downturns and chase yield during upturns.
Buffa, Vayanos, and Woolley (2014) discuss theoretically how such benchmark-centric assessments can
contribute to the buildup of bubbles.
Churning and noise tradingDelegated portfolio
management may induce managers to churn (engage
Table 3.1.1. An Illustrative Example of Asset Managers Incentives for Risk Taking
Because investors reward winners more than they punish poor performers, it pays to take risks.
Options
Benchmark Portfolio
Gamble
Likelihood (percent)
Outcome: Change in Net

Asset Value
Net Inflows to Fund

(millions of
U.S. dollars)
Additional Fee Income

(1 percent of assets
under management, in
millions of U.S. dollars)
100
Same as benchmark
50
10% in excess of
benchmark
100
50
10% below benchmark
20
0.2
Same as benchmark
40
0.4
Expected outcome
1This is also known as the risk-shifting problem. More generally, risk shifting arises when earnings for managers are convex based
on their compensation. Limited liability also contributes to the convexity of manager earnings. See Ross (2004) for a qualification of the
payoff convexity argument. See also Massa and Patgiri (2009).
100
Box 3.1 (continued)

in noise trading) to signal their talent and superior
knowledge, given that it is difficult to identify talent
and effort (Allen and Gorton 1993; Dow and Gorton 1997; Dasgupta and Prat 2006).
Market depth and volatilityPerformance evaluation relative to a benchmark may lead to higher
price volatility of securities that are included in
the benchmark. Since information acquisition may
be hindered by these relative-performance-based
contracts, the depth of the market may be reduced

(Igan and Pinheiro 2012). Basak and Pavlova
(2014) develop a general-equilibrium asset price
model that incorporates incentives for institutional
investors to do well relative to their index. The
induced investment patterns create excess correlations among stocks belonging to an index. It also
increases the volatility of index stocks and of the
overall market.
Box 3.2. Fund Share Pricing Rules and First-Mover Advantage

Certain forms of fund share pricing can give rise to
a first-mover advantage for investors to run. The key
factor is how investment losses and trading costs are
distributed between buy-and-hold and redeeming fund
shareholders. If these are borne by the fund and therefore by the buy-and-hold shareholders, investors can
recover more cash by redeeming early.
Inflexible net asset value (NAV) pricing can generate a first-mover advantage for an open-end mutual
fund (Table 3.2.1). In the United States, funds
issuing redeemable securities are required to sell,
redeem, or repurchase such securities based on the
NAV of the security next computed after receipt
of the order. Transaction coststrading fees, market
Table 3.2.1. Comparison of Fund Pricing Rules

(Millions of U.S. dollars)
UCITS
Swing Pricing (Full)
UCITS-AIF
Dual Pricing
U.S. Open-End Mutual Fund

(1940 Act)
Beginning NAV
100
100
100
Net Flows
15
15
15
Transactions
Purchases
+5
+5
+5
Redemptions
20
20
20
Total Costs of Selling Assets

(0.1 percent, including bid-ask
spread)
0.015
0.015
0.015
Transaction Costs Incurred

by Investors Purchasing
Fund Shares
0.0051
Transaction Costs Incurred

by Investors Redeeming
Fund Shares
0.020
0.015
0.0152
85.000
85.000
Transaction Costs Incurred by

Fund and Remaining Investors
Ending NAV
Memo
84.985
Estimated transaction costs borne by trading investors
Actual transaction costs

borne by fund
Source: BlackRock (2014b).

Note: AIF = Alternative Investment Fund (European directive governing products including hedge funds and private equity funds); NAV = net
asset value (mutual fund share price, per share); UCITS= Undertaking of Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (European Union directive governing publicly offered investment funds). In the United States, investment companies (as defined) are regulated primarily under the U.S.
Investment Company Act of 1940.
1Because fund NAV has swung to the bid price because of net redemptions, purchasing investors benefit to the extent that they purchase units
that are cheaper than preswung NAV. This benefit is offset by the costs paid by redeeming clients.
2In certain circumstances, portfolio managers may choose to use cash buffers or borrow funds (or both) to meet redemptions without incurring
transaction costs.
Box 3.2 (continued)

impact, and spread costsare borne by the funds.
This reduces a funds NAV, possibly by a substantial
amount if market liquidity dries up. The European
framework, in contrast, allows for pricing rules such
as swing- or dual-pricing rules, as described in Table
3.2.1, that adequately impose transaction costs on
redeeming shareholders instead of the fund. This
helps reduce remaining shareholders incentive to
run.
The share pricing practice of exchange-traded
funds (ETFs) is different from that of open-end
mutual funds. As shown in Figure 3.2.1 and Annex
3.1, ETFs do not directly transact with end investors. Authorized participantstypically major
broker-dealerstrade in between. Only authorized participants trade with ETFs in the primary
market, and trades are usually settled in kind.
Intraday liquidity to end investors is offered in the
secondary market by authorized participants.1 The
key difference between ETFs and mutual funds in
the context of first-mover advantage is that ETFs
are not required to pay cash back to investors at
NAV.2 Authorized participants trade ETF shares
with clients or on stock exchanges at the ETF share
price determined in the secondary market. Therefore, depending on market conditions, an ETFs
share price could be higher or lower than the ETFs
indicative NAV.
Figure3.2.1.Structure of Exchange-Traded Funds

Primary Market
Secondary Market
Hold shares, arbitrage trading
Shares
ETF
NAV represents
market value of
ETFs assets
Securities
Physical
basket of
securities
Authorized
participant
Shares
Cash
ETF share
price
Investors,
stock
exchange
Liquidity
premium or
discount paid
by investors
NAV may not be equal to ETF share price, depending on arbitraging capacity of APs
Source:IMF staff.
Note:AP=authorized participant; ETF=exchange-traded fund;NAV=net asset value.
1Although there is a widespread perception that ETFs face higher redemption risks because they offer intraday liquidity to shareholders, intraday liquidity (offered in the secondary market) is not the same as intraday redemption (offered in the primary market).
Primary market activities, which result in fund flows, are much less frequent than secondary market trading (ICI 2014c; BlackRock
2014a).
2In the United States, ETFs operate with the Securities and Exchange Commissions special exemption from the 1940 Act
requirement that open-end funds repay redeeming shareholders at the next NAV calculated after an order is submitted (ICI
2014b).
102
Box 3.2 (continued)

Figure 3.2.2. Difference between NAV and
ETF Share Price
(Percent of NAV, all countries, equity funds)
The ETF share can be traded in the secondary

market at a discount to NAV when markets are
under generalized stress.
1.0
ETF share price > NAV
Premium for ETF share
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
ETF share price < NAV
Discount for ETF share
Jul. 13
Jan. 12
Jul. 10
Jan. 09
Jul. 07
Jan. 06
Jul. 04
Jan. 03
Jul. 01
1.5
Jan. 2000
Redeeming shareholders need to pay for the

cost of market liquidity risk by accepting an ETF
share price below NAV if market liquidity dries up.
Authorized participants are usually arbitrageurs,
and if they see a major gap between NAV and ETF
share prices, they trade in the direction to close the
gap. If investors find it easier to sell ETF shares
relative to the underlying assets, this will tend to
result in a discount to NAV. The discount can be
accentuated when funding conditions reduce authorized participants arbitrage capacity (Figure 3.2.2).
The cost of fire sales of ETF shares is borne by the
trading shareholders, not by the ETF or buy-andhold shareholders, reducing buy-and-hold shareholders incentive to run.
Economically, these flexible fund share pricing rules
are similar to countercyclical redemption and purchase
fees that reflect market liquidity cost and are added
to NAV. If a U.S. 1940 Act fund imposes purchase
and redemption fees that are retained by the fund3
and reflect the bid-ask spreads for transactions (or
ETF NAV and share price gap), the outcome would
be similar to that of funds with flexible share pricing
rules. At the same time, such fees also help ensure
equality between buy-and-hold investors and trading
investors.
Sources: Bloomberg, L.P.; and IMF staff calculations.

Note: ETF = exchange-traded fund; NAV = net asset
value.
3Current U.S. rules do allow for the introduction of fees that are added to funds NAV, which can then be distributed to remaining
shareholders.
systemic distress.14 The realization of brand risk and

redemptions from PIMCO funds in September 2014
did not result in major disruptive market movements
because, overall, bond funds continued to receive net
inflows. However, the academic literature has documented contagion and amplification effects for some
14There have been some cases of nonmoney market mutual
fund distress in emerging markets. For example, in 2001, a fund
managed by Unit Trust of India, which was outside the ambit of
the Securities and Exchange Boards jurisdiction, became unable to
meet its obligations due to the absence of timely corrective action
to bring the sale/repurchase price of the units in line with the
funds net asset value. With a risk of a run on the Unit Trust of
India and possible adverse financial market impact, Indias government came out with a rescue package. The total bail-out amounted
to US$76 million.
markets, in particular emerging markets.15 Moreover,

recent structural shifts in many markets following
the global financial crisis require a fresh review of the
evidence.
Against this backdrop, this chapter empirically
explores the precise channels through which mutual
funds and ETFs can affect financial stability. The aim
15In addition to the literature on emerging markets discussed
in the April 2014 Global Financial Stability Report, various studies
examine the role of funds in transmitting shocks across markets in
advanced economies. Using U.S. data during the global financial
crisis, Hau and Lai (2010) find that mutual funds helped transmit
shocks from bank equities to nonfinancial firms equities, and Manconi, Massa, and Yasuda (2012) find that mutual funds that incurred
losses from securitized debt sold off corporate bonds, which induced
a price impact on bonds held by these funds.
Figure 3.5. Liquidity Mismatches
(Size of bubbles represents relative global assets under management as

of end-2013)
The mismatch between the redemption risk to funds and market liquidity
of funds assets is most notable among bond mutual fundsespecially
corporate and emerging market debt funds, though these are relatively
smaller segments.
Illiquid
assets
More
liquidity mismatch
Private equity
AE HY bond
Illiquidity of assets
EM bond MF
EM equity MF
Physical other
Closed-end MF
Mixed MF
ETF3
Synthetic other
Other AE and
ETF3
global bond MF
Synthetic
equity
Hedge fund
ETF2
Physical equity
MMF
AE and global
ETF2
equity MF
4
Liquid
assets
More difcult
to redeem
Ease of redemption by end investors1
Easier
to redeem
Sources: BarclayHedge; Deutsche Bank; ETFGI; European Fund and Asset

Management Association; Lipper; Preqin; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: The liquidity ranking of assets is based on IMF staffs judgment. AE =
advanced economy; EM = emerging market; ETF = exchange-traded fund; HY =
high yield; MF = mutual fund; MMF = money market fund.
1
For ETFs, the ease-of-redemption measure ranks lower than that for open-end
MFs (all MFs in the gure excluding closed-end MFs) because end investors do not
directly redeem shares from funds (see Annex 3.1 and Box 3.2).
2
Generally, equity derivatives markets are less liquid than cash equity markets.
3
For bonds, especially corporate bonds, derivatives markets can offer better
market liquidity than the cash bond market. For some rms, the notional principal
for their credit default swaps is larger than their outstanding debt.
4
Closed-end mutual funds tend to invest in relatively less liquid assets than
open-end mutual funds (Chordia 1996; Deli and Varma 2002). Some funds may
repurchase shares.
is not to provide a final verdict on the overall systemic

importance of the potential risks, or draw definite conclusions about whether certain AMCs and their funds
should be designated as SIFIs. Rather, the chapter
carries out a quantitative analysis of a number of key
risk transmission and amplification channels, testing some of the underlying hypotheses, and updating
and complementing the existing literature. Given the
current absence of a broad-based empirical assessment
of the issues, this chapter fills an important gap. In
particular, whereas most existing studies cover equity
markets, the analysis here also covers bond markets.
The chapter does not discuss all sources of risk. In
particular, operational risks, risks related to hidden
104
leverage and securities lending, and issues related to

resolution are only touched upon (FSOC 2014).16
Financial Stability Risks of the Mutual Fund

Industry: Empirical Analysis
This section examines various aspects of potential
financial stability risks using a wide range of macro- and
micro-level data. Three main questions are explored. First,
does fund investment affect asset price dynamics? Second,
what determines fund flows and how do funds manage
liquidity? And third, what is the degree of herding and
interconnectedness, and what is the relationship between
a funds contribution to systemic risk and its size?17
Mutual Fund Investment and Asset Price Dynamics

Aggregate mutual fund flows and asset prices
Do fund flows affect asset price dynamics in the
United States and in emerging markets? For mutual
funds to have a destabilizing effect, fund trades must
first, at least in the aggregate, have an impact on
prices. The literature suggests the existence of price
pressures related to mutual fund flows.18 The analysis
here updates and complements such findings, analyzing weekly net inflows to U.S. mutual funds investing in U.S. equities and various types of U.S. bonds,
and their relationship to the respective market index
returns. It also investigates mutual fund investment
flows into bonds and equities in a number of emerging
markets (see Annex 3.2 for details). The analysis goes
16Furthermore, the analysis in the chapter does not cover separate
accounts held at funds.
17The main data sources for mutual funds are Lipper (a global
mutual fund database with information at the fund level); the
Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) U.S. mutual fund
database (with security-by-security asset holdings information and
details of fee structures); EPFR Global; and Lippers eMaxx, which
shows global mutual fund ownership of bonds at the security level.
18Studies include Warther (1995); Edelen (1999); Edelen and
Warner (2001); Cao, Chang, and Wang (2008); and Ben-Raphael,
Kande, and Wohl (2011). The main conclusion from these studies
is that aggregate mutual fund flows affect contemporaneous stock
returns. Coval and Stafford (2007) show that sudden increases or
decreases in net flows to funds result in price pressure effects even
in the extremely liquid U.S. equity market. Manconi, Massa, and
Yasuda (2012) document a price impact on corporate bonds following sell-offs by funds. Similarly, Jotikasthira, Lundblad, and Ramadorai (2012) document that investor flows domiciled in developed
markets induced fire sales in emerging markets, with a significant
price impact. Feroli and others (2014) analyze several subsegments
of bond fund flows, and find evidence for flow-price feedback loops,
except for U.S. Treasuries.
Figure 3.6. Growth in Bond Funds by Investment Focus
(Assets under management of bond funds worldwide; billions of U.S.

dollars)
8,000
7,000
Other Bond Funds

Other advanced economy bonds
Advanced economy high-yield bonds
Emerging market bonds
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2004
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Sources: Lipper; and IMF staff calculations.
beyond most of the literature by examining the price

impact of the surprise component of fund flows, following Acharya, Anshuman, and Kumar (2014).19,20
The evidence is consistent with mutual fund flows
affecting asset returns in smaller, less liquid markets (Table
3.2). Surprise outflows are associated with lower sameweek asset returns in emerging markets, and to a lesser
extent in U.S. high-yield bond and municipal bond markets. The annualized price impact is not negligible: bond
returns rise by about 5 percentage points when aggregate
fund inflows are higher than the top 25th percentile, and
fall by a similar magnitude for outflows exceeding the
top 25th percentile across bond categories. In emerging
markets, and also in the U.S. municipal bond market,
the negative price effects from sell-offs tend to be larger
than the positive price effects from purchases. The price
impact of surprise flows is significantly larger when global
risk aversion (as measured by the Chicago Board Options
Exchange Market Volatility Index, or VIX) is high. More19As
will be shown later in this chapter, mutual fund flows partly

respond to past fund returns and are therefore partially predictable.
Surprises are measured by the residuals of a standard vector autoregression model for flows and returns; see Annex 3.2.
20In contrast to much of the literature, this analysis uses weekly,
not monthly, data, which allows for better identification of the
effects. Nevertheless, inference remains difficult at this frequency.
Table 3.2. Mutual Fund Flows and Asset Returns

Emerging Markets
Estimation Periods
United States
Equity
Bond
Equity
All Bond
High-Yield Bond
Municipal Bond
200414
200414
200714
200714
200714
200714
Single Equation Model with Excess Asset Return as Dependent Variable

Surprise flows have significant
impact on returns
Yes
Yes
Yes in 201214
Yes in 200810
Yes*
Yes
Asymmetry: Impact of surprise

inflows is different from impact
of surprise outflows
Outflows have
larger impact
than inflows
Outflows have
larger impact
than inflows
Limited**
Inflows have
larger impact
than outflows
No
Outflows have
larger impact
than inflows
VIX sensitivity: Surprise flows

have higher impact on returns
when the VIX is high
Yes
Yes
Limited**
Limited**
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes***
No
Yes***
Vector Autoregression with Unadjusted Flows and Returns

Flows help predict returns
No
Sources: Bank of America Merrill Lynch; Morgan Stanley; Bloomberg, L.P.; EPFR Global; ICI; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: VIX = Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index. Surprise flows are residuals from a vector autoregression model, VAR, with two endogenous variables (mutual fund flows into each asset class and representative benchmark asset returns for the respective market over the one-month Eurodollar deposit rate) and the
VIX (contemporaneous and lagged) as an exogenous variable. Mutual fund flows to emerging markets are investment flows into each country from all mutual funds from
various jurisdictions covered by EPFR Global. U.S. fund flows data are investors flows into mutual funds with a stated investment focus, covering funds domiciled in the
United States. U.S. data are from Investment Company Institute, except for U.S. high-yield bond funds, which come from EPFR Global. Explanatory variables in the base
single equation model include contemporaneous and lagged surprise flow, lagged excess return, the VIX, and the volatility of excess return (estimated with a generalized
autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity, GARCH, model). The model is estimated for the whole indicated period as well as rolling three-year periods in between. The
results in the bottom line are based on generalized impulse responses.
*For the entire sample period, the results are not significant. However, three-year subperiod estimates show that the coefficient on contemporary surprise flows is always
statistically significant and positive, but declines steadily over time. Limited ** indicates significance between the 5 percent and 10 percent significance levels. ***Indicates not robust to all specifications.
over, bond markets show evidence of nonlinearities, with

unusually large surprise inflows or outflows associated
with a disproportionate impact on bond returns. There is
no evidence, however, for an increase in the price impact
over timeif anything, the evidence across markets indicates a decline in the effect.21
The price impact pattern provides support for the
existence of a first-mover advantage only in less liquid
markets. Flows helping to predict price movements
would be consistent with the presence of incentives to
run.22 Such predictive power of flows is more likely
to be present in less liquid markets. In line with this
notion, the evidence indicates that flows have an impact
on future returns of emerging market bonds, and to a
lesser extent, in U.S. bond and municipal bond markets.
For the latter two markets, however, the results are not
robust across econometric specifications. Possibly, the
considered aggregate bond categories may be too broad
and too liquid to unambiguously pick up the effect.23
Effect of mutual fund holdings and their
concentration on bond yields
Does concentration of holdings among mutual funds
matter during periods of stress? Some mutual funds
have a large footprint in specific market segments, raising concerns that decisions by a few portfolio managers may have a large price impact in those markets.
Since the global financial crisis, mutual fund bond
holdings and their concentration have risen somewhat (Figure 3.7, panels 1 and 2).24 The evidence in
the literature suggests that concentration matters for
stock price dynamics, in particular during periods of
volatility.25 This section investigates this issue further
21The
evidence on contemporaneous price effects does not conclusively prove that fund flows drive returns. For example, fund flows
and returns could both be driven by news. Still, this would leave the
question open of why mutual fund flows behave distinctively (since
not everybody can trade in the same direction in response to news).
22The argument (as laid out in Stein [2014]) is that if outflows
are first met with cash and the sale of more liquid assets, while less
liquid assets are sold gradually, predictable downward pressure would
be created on the prices of these less liquid assets. This, in turn,
would create an incentive for end investors to pull out quickly if
others are withdrawing.
23See also Collins and Plantier (2014). Moreover, the effects are
more likely to be present at times of stress, and are therefore not easily picked up in an estimation spanning a long period.
24Concentration is measured by identifying, for each individual
bond, the largest five investors among mutual funds. Alternative
measures (top 10 investor holdings and Herfindahl index) yield
similar results.
25Greenwood and Thesmar (2011) report that fragility, measured
by the concentration of mutual fund ownership of large U.S. stocks
106
using security-level bond ownership data, assessing

whether mutual fund holdings and their concentration
were correlated with the degree of bond yield changes
around the global financial crisis and the taper shock
in 2013, after controlling for bond-specific characteristics (see Annex 3.2 for details). The analysis goes
beyond the literature to date by covering different
asset markets, including corporate bonds for advanced
economies, and corporate and public sector bonds for
emerging market economies.
The findings suggest that larger mutual fund holdings
and greater ownership concentration adversely affect
bond spreads in periods of stress (Figure 3.7, panels 3
and 4). During the period of sharp price adjustments
around the global financial crisis in 2008, bonds with
larger fund ownership and those with a higher concentration of ownership experienced higher increases
in credit spreads. Possibly, this is related to incentives
to run created by funds. In the face of price drops of
assets held by their fund, end investors may be induced
to redeem quickly, for fear that they could be disadvantaged if they exit late. The effect was most pronounced
among those securities with the highest initial spreads.
This may suggest that funds either try to actively alter
their holdings in a crisis by reducing exposures to riskier
bonds, or are forced to sell riskier securities to meet
investor redemptions. Investor concentration made
bonds from emerging market and developing economies
more vulnerable to the 2013 taper episode, but this was
not the case for bonds from advanced economies.
Behavior of Fund Flows and Fund Liquidity Management

Roles of end investors and asset managers
Mutual fund investments are driven by the decisions
of both end investors (fund flows) and asset managers
(portfolio rebalancing). A funds investment in a specific
asset can increase either because the fund receives money
from end investors that is proportionally allocated to all
assets, or because the portfolio manager invests relatively
more money into the asset (portfolio rebalancing). To
ascertain the relative importance of each factor, the analysis compares the variances of (1)changes in the returnadjusted weights of each security in a funds portfolio
and (2) fund flows (see Annex 3.2). For U.S.-domiciled
funds, the results indicate that about 70 percent of
and the correlation of trading among investors, strongly predicts
price volatility over 19902007. For Spanish stocks, Desender
(2012) finds that ownership concentration is valued positively (negatively) by the stock market during down (up) market periods.
Figure 3.7. Bond Ownership Concentration and Its Effects on Credit Spreads
Mutual fund concentration in bond markets has increased somewhat since the global nancial crisis.
(Share of individual bonds held by the ve largest mutual funds in 2008 and 2013, percentage points)
1. Concentration of Mutual Fund Bond Ownership: U.S. Bonds
2. Concentration of Mutual Fund Bond Ownership: Emerging Market

and Developing Economy Bonds
100
100
Top ve holdings, 2013:Q1

90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
250
500
750
1,000
250
Individual bond
500
750
0
1,000
Individual bond
Bonds with higher mutual fund holding concentration were more adversely affected during stress periods in 2008 and 2013.
(Increase in credit spreads by share of bonds held by the ve largest mutual funds, percentage points)
3. Corporate Bonds Issued by U.S. Issuers, 2008:Q2 and 2008:Q4
4. Bonds Issued by Emerging Market and Developing Economies,

2013:Q1 and 2013:Q2
18
0.7
16
0.6
0.5
12
10
0.4
0.3
0.2
Change in credit spreads
Change in credit spreads
14
4
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.9
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.2
3.8
4.4
5.1
5.7
6.4
7.1
7.9
9.1
10.6
12.1
14.0
17.0
37.4
0.1
0.4
0.8
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.2
3.9
4.6
5.4
6.3
7.3
8.5
9.7
11.3
13.2
15.7
18.9
23.6
36.1
Share of bonds held by the largest ve mutual fund investors (percent)
Share of bonds held by the largest ve mutual fund investors (percent)
Sources: eMaxx; and IMF staff calculations.

Note: In all panels, holdings by the ve largest mutual funds are identied for each individual bond. Bonds are sorted in different buckets on the horizontal axis
according to the share of the bond held by the ve largest mutual funds. The vertical axes in panels 3 and 4 show the average change in credit spreads (bond yields
over benchmark government bond yields of the same currency and similar maturity) for bonds in each bucket, between 2008:Q2 and 2008:Q4, and 2013:Q1 and
2013:Q2, respectively.
Figure 3.8. Drivers of Fund Flows from End Investors

(Monthly fund ows, percent of total net assets)
Fund ows are strongly inuenced by asset class performance, a funds

own performance, and the VIX.
Periods with high VIX see a ight to quality from equity to bond funds,
especially to government bond funds.
1. Sensitivity of Fund Flows to Fund Performance and Market Conditions

(The effect of a one standard deviation shock to each driver)
2. Fund Flows and the VIX
0.3
4
Bond funds
Equity funds
Equity funds
Corporate bond funds
Government bond funds
0.1
0.0
0.1
1
0.2
0.3
Average monthly fund ows
Change in monthly fund ows
0.2
0.4
1
0.5
0.6
Increase in the VIX
Decline of benchmark Decline of excess

return
return over benchmark
11
13
14
15
17
19
VIX (percent)
21
24
26
31
Sources: Bloomberg, L.P.; and IMF staff estimates. Additional data: Calculated based on data from the survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund database 2014 Center for
Research in Security Prices (CRSP), The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Note: VIX = Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index. Estimates in panel 1 are based on a regression of fund ows on the VIX, benchmark performance
(lagged), excess performance over benchmark (lagged), age, and size. The model is estimated using share-class-level data covering 19982014. For more details on
estimations and data, see Annex 3.2. Panel 2 splits observations into 20 quantiles based on the VIX. For each of these quantiles, the simple average for the VIX and
fund ows is reported by type of fund.
the variance of funds flows into assets is attributable

to managers decisions, with the remaining 30 percent
attributable to end investors. This decomposition does
not, however, take into account that, as discussed earlier,
managers behavior is to a significant extent indirectly
driven by the incentives provided by end investors,
including through the pattern of inflows.
Given the importance of fund inflows for mutual

fund investment and induced price effects, this section
investigates the determinants of net fund injections by
end investors. The analysis uses monthly net inflows
for U.S. mutual funds and ETFs at the funds shareclass level for open-end bond and equity funds, covering the period 19982014 (Annex 3.2).26 Explanatory
variables include fund performance (benchmark return

and fund return in excess of the benchmark return),
the VIX, fund characteristics (size, age, clientele) and
structures (purchase and redemption fees, and dummies for index funds and for ETFs), and the liquidity
of the underlying asset class.
End investors flows to funds, especially those from
retail investors, are procyclical and display a flight to
quality during times of stress (Figure 3.8):
Fund flows increase after good market performance
of the respective asset class. This indicates that investors pursue momentum strategies, increasing their
allocation to asset classes that have performed well
in the past, and selling past losers.
End investors engage in a flight to quality during
episodes of stress. As uncertainty (measured by the
26A mutual fund can issue multiple classes of shares that only
differ in the structure of various types of fees (FINRA 2011). The
sample includes U.S.-domiciled open-end mutual funds and ETFs,
irrespective of their investment focus. For instance, U.S. funds
investing in emerging market debt are included. The focus is on the

United States because of data availability on fees, as a result of more
comprehensive disclosure requirements.
Determinants of fund flows
108
Figure 3.9. Convexity of Fund FlowPerformance Relationship

2. Equity Funds
Monthly fund ows (percent of total net assets)
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
1. Bond Funds
1.2
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
2 1.71.41.10.80.50.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5
Funds monthly excess return over benchmark (percent)
2 1.71.41.10.80.50.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5
Funds monthly excess return over benchmark (percent)
0.1
Sources: Bloomberg, L.P.; and IMF staff estimates. Additional data: Calculated based on data from the survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund database 2014 Center for
Research in Security Prices (CRSP), The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Note: Estimates in the two panels are based on a regression of net inows on VIX, benchmark performance (lagged), excess performance over benchmark (lagged),
and age. The model allows for different slopes for negative and positive values of excess performance over benchmark. The estimation uses share-class-level data
covering 19982014. For more details, see Annex 3.2.
VIX) rises, end investors shift away from equity funds

to bond funds, especially to sovereign bond funds. A
closer look at subgroups of bond funds and emerging
market assets reveals that investors also flee from corporate and emerging market bonds when the VIX rises.27
Relative performance is a main driver of fund
inflows. This behavior by end investors provides
incentives for herding, as discussed earlier.
Investors disproportionately pour money into funds
with strong recent performance, creating an incentive
for managers of poorly performing funds to increase
risks. Funds with excess returns over their benchmark receive disproportionately more inflows (Figure
3.9). In line with the existing evidence based on
U.S. equity mutual fund data (Chevalier and Ellison
1997), investors inject money into winning funds
to a greater extent than they punish poor performers (implying a convexity in the performance-inflow
relationship). Thus, poorly performing fund managers
have an incentive to take more risky bets (see Box 3.1
27Based on similar analysis for funds (from all jurisdictions)
investing in emerging market assets using EPFR Global. This is in
line with the findings of the April 2014 Global Financial Stability
Report.
for details). The convexity is weaker for bond funds.

Similar to the findings in Ferreira and others (2012),
an analysis for non-U.S. funds shows that convex patterns are observed in some but not all economies, with
equity funds generally displaying more convexity.
Client types, fees, and to some extent the market
liquidity of assets and fund characteristics influence the
sensitivity of fund flows to performance (Figure 3.10):
Institutional investors appear to be less influenced
by recent past performance. However, this result is
not robust across all subperiods considered. Institutional investors are likely to be more sophisticated
than retail investors, and findings in the April 2014
Global Financial Stability Report show that flows
from institutional investors to emerging market
assets are less sensitive to changes in the VIX.28
28However, in the presence of more fundamental financial and
macroeconomic problems, institutional investors withdraw more
aggressively than retail investors. For instance, Schmidt, Timmermann, and Wermers (2013) point out that institutional investors
were the first ones to recognize problems with money market funds
and instigated a run in 2009. The April 2014 GFSR finds that institutional investors sold off more when emerging market sovereigns
were downgraded to below investment grade.
Figure 3.10. Liquidity Risk and Fund Structures

Among equity funds, fund ows of funds investing in liquid
stocks are less sensitive to performance.
1. Relative Sensitivity of Equity Fund Flows to Performance
(Response of ows into liquid and illiquid funds to a one standard
deviation decline in benchmark returns, difference with respect to rest
of funds)
Redemption fees are effective in mitigating outows.

2. Fund Flows by Redemption Fees
(The effect of a one standard deviation decline of returns)
1.0
Relatively smaller outows
compared with rest of funds
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
Relatively greater outows

compared with rest of funds
1.0
0.2
0
Liquid subgroup
Illiquid subgroup
Monthly fund ows

(percent of total net assets)
Change of monthly fund ows

(percent of total net assets)
0.2
1.5
Equity funds
Bond funds
Redemption fees (percent)
3. Redemptions during Stress Episodes, by Redemption Fee

Levels
5
0
Funds with low redemption fees

Funds with high redemption fees
However, mutual fund fees, especially redemption fees, have

declined during the past 15 years because of competitive
pressures in the industry.
4. Trend of Mutual Fund Fees
(Simple average, percent)
Purchase fee
Redemption fee
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2008
Equity funds
2013
EM bond funds
2013
EM equity funds
Stress episodes
Dec. 2001
Jan. 03
Feb. 04
Mar. 05
Apr. 06
May 07
Jun. 08
Jul. 09
Aug. 10
Sep. 11
Oct. 12
Nov. 13
Feb. 2002
Mar. 03
Apr. 04
May 05
Jun. 06
Jul. 07
Aug. 08
Sep. 09
Oct. 10
Nov. 11
Dec. 12
Jan. 14
Change of average fund ows before and during

stress episodes (percent of total net assets)
Redemption fees have helped mitigate redemptions during stress

episodes, especially for emerging market funds.
Bonds
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Equity
Source: IMF staff estimates. Additional data: Calculated based on data from the survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund database 2014 Center for Research in Security
Prices (CRSP), The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Note: EM = emerging market; VIX = Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index. Fees are maximum reported fees in the prospectus. Redemption fees
include narrowly defined redemption fees and contingent deferred sales charges. Estimates in panels 1 and 2 are based on a regression of net inflows on the VIX,
benchmark performance (lagged), excess performance over benchmark (lagged), age, size, and the reported fund characteristics (added one at a time) interacted with
excess performance over benchmark (lagged). The estimation uses share-class-level data covering 19982014. Panel 3 computes the difference between average
flows before the crisis period and average flows during the reported stress episodes (September to December 2008 for the global financial crisis, and May to September
2013 for the tapering episode). Fund flows are standardized by the beginning-of-period total net assets. Funds are classified as having low redemption fees if
redemption fees are equal to zero. Funds are classified as having high redemption fees if redemption fees are greater than or equal to 3 percent in 2008 and 1 percent
in 2013. For more details on estimations and data, see Annex 3.2.
110
Fees are generally effective in dampening redemptions following short-term poor performance,
though competitive pressures in the industry
challenge their use. In particular, redemption fees
appear to be effective. However, among bond funds,
the effectiveness of fees appears to vary across fund
types: the fees dampen redemptions for emerging
market bond funds, but not for U.S. government
bond or corporate bond funds. Moreover, competitive pressures and transparency requirements in the
industry have driven down fees during the past 15
years (Figure 3.10, panel 4), which would make it
difficult for individual funds to adopt adequate fees
in line with their investment risk without sectorwide coordination or regulation.29
The sensitivity of redemptions to benchmark
performance is larger for equity funds investing
in less liquid stocks. This result is in line with the
findings in Chen, Goldstein, and Jiang (2010) for
U.S. equity funds. As discussed by Stein (2014), a
higher redemption sensitivity of less liquid funds
is consistent with the existence of a first-mover
advantage. Although one would expect the evidence
to be stronger for bond funds (because of their
larger liquidity mismatches; Figure 3.5), that is not
the case. One reason could be that bond funds with
higher liquidity mismatches manage their liquidity risk more carefully, as discussed in the following
section.
Figure 3.11. Brand Name Effects
Brand name effects are present, albeit weak. This

analysis examines 18 events in which a flagship fund
of a large AMC experienced large redemptions (see
Annex 3.2 for details). The test is whether funds in
the fund family hit by the flagship shock experience
larger outflows than similar funds not in the fund
family. Out of the 18 events, 10 cases show statistically
significant negative brand name effects, 3 cases show
statistically positive effects, and the other 5 cases show
no significant effects (Figure 3.11).
faced with large redemptions, the effect on sales

pressures will be dampened. Moreover, funds share
pricing rules and redemption policies can be designed
to reduce redemption risks. Existing research (though
somewhat old and focused on equity funds) shows
that funds investing in illiquid assets tend to take the
form of closed-end funds with no redemption risk,
charge fees for fund share purchases and redemptions, and hold more cash (Chordia 1996; Deli
and Varma 2002). This section looks at how fund
managers use these tools to manage liquidity risks by
examining their cash holding patterns in relation to
flow volatility, current fund flows, and various fund
characteristics, including liquidity of assets and client
type (institutional or retail). In contrast to previous
studies, the analysis here also covers bond funds and
uses more recent data.30
How do funds manage liquidity risks?

The effects of fund flows on fund investment can
be cushioned by liquidity risk management. For
instance, if a fund holds sufficient cash buffers when
29Figure 3.10 shows the maximum charge reported in the funds
prospectus. In practice, funds often offer discounts, reducing effective
fees to much lower levels. ICI (2014b) reports that effective purchase
fees declined from nearly 4 percent in 1990 to 1 percent in 2013.
(Cumulative fund ows from event date in percent of total net assets,
mean difference from median comparator funds)
Brand name effect: 18 events with a agship fund shock
(Mean across events; ows in percent of total net assets, nonfamily = 0)
Shocked agship (all events)
Family (all events)
Shocked agship (signicant negative events)
Family (signicant negative events)
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
1
Month from event date
30
Source: IMF staff estimates. Additional data: Calculated based on data from the
survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund database 2014 Center for Research in
Security Prices (CRSP), The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Note: Flagship shocks for large asset management companies are identied as
periods with large outows from agship funds (10 percentage points above those
of the median of funds with shared investment objectives). Regression analysis for
each of those events is used to test whether funds in the affected agship family
receive lower net inows relative to nonfamily funds. See Annex 3.2 for details.
30Funds can also manage liquidity using derivatives, something

not studied here because of a lack of data.
Figure 3.12. Funds Liquidity Risk Management

Cash holdings are high for those funds experiencing large
inows or outows.
Funds charge higher fees to retail investors and when investing

in illiquid assets
2. Mutual Fund Fees by Investment Focus and Clientele
(Simple average, percent)
Cash (percent of total net assets)
1. Cash Holding by Fund Flows

(Using monthly share-class-level data for 19982014)
8
Purchase fee
Redemption fee
7
6
5
4
Equity funds
3
2
Equity funds
Institutional
illiquid
Institutional
all
Institutional
liquid
Retail liquid
Retail all
Retail illiquid
Institutional
illiquid
Institutional
all
Institutional
liquid
7.7
Retail liquid
14.7 3.1 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 1.3 2.9

Retail all
Retail illiquid
Bond funds
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Bond funds
and hold more cash when investing in relatively illiquid assets,

facing higher fund ow volatility. They hold less cash when they have
predominantly institutional clients.
3. Differences in Cash Holdings across Funds
(Percent of total net assets)
2.0
1.5
1.0
Relatively more
Relatively less cash cash holdings
holdings compared compared with
with other funds
other funds
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Institutional
Liquid subgroup Illiquid subgroup
Equity funds
Bond funds
Flow volatility
sensitivity to a 1
standard
deviation increase
in volatility
Sources: Calculated based on data from the survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund
database 2014 Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP), The University
of Chicago Booth School of Business; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: Panel 1 is based on monthly data from 1998 to 2014 for each fund share
class. It splits observations into 20 quantiles based on net fund ows (in percent
of total net assets). For each of these quantiles, the panel shows the mean
percentage of cash in funds portfolios. In panel 2, fees are maximum reported
fees in the prospectus. Redemption fees include narrowly dened redemption
fees and contingent deferred sales charges. Estimates in panel 3 are based on a
regression of cash holdings (in percentage of total portfolio) as a function of net
inow volatility, lagged net inows, and the reported fund characteristics
dummies.
Generally, asset managers choose cash buffers and

fee policies to limit liquidity risks, though competitive
pressures have been reducing the use of redemption
fees (Figure 3.12):
Asset managers appear to actively manage their
liquidity risks with precautionary cash buffers
(Figure 3.12). Cash holdings are high for those
funds experiencing very large outflows (in line with
a precautionary motive) and inflows (presumably
because managers take some time to fully invest new
money). Estimation results confirm that funds also
hold higher cash buffers when they face more volatile flows from investors and when these investors
are primarily less stable retail investors. Similarly,
cash holdings are higher for funds investing in relatively less liquid assets.
Funds with higher liquidity risks tend to charge
higher fees (Figure 3.12, panel 2). Fees are generally
set lower for institutional investors. Funds investing
in more illiquid assets tend to set higher fees than
those investing in liquid assets.
Herding, Interconnectedness, and Contribution to

Systemic Risk
Herding (correlated trading)
How prevalent is herding? Empirical evidence of mutual
fund herding is abundant, although reported mag112
Figure 3.13. Herding among U.S. Mutual Funds

(Percent)
Recently, U.S. mutual funds have been herding more in U.S.

equity and corporate bond markets.
20
Retail funds tend to herd more than institutional funds.
1. Average Measure of Herding by Security Type

(Mean across securities, four-quarter average)
End-2009
18
2. Average Measure of Herding by Fund Type

(Average across all securities, four-quarter average)
14
16
14
More herding
12
More herding
Retail funds
12
10
Institutional funds
10
2
S&P 500
U.S. equity
HG bond
HY bond
EM equity
EM debt
0
Jun. 2006
Nov. 06
Apr. 07
Sep. 07
Feb. 08
Jul. 08
Dec. 08
May 09
Oct. 09
Mar. 10
Aug. 10
Jan. 11
Jun. 11
Nov. 11
Apr. 12
Sep. 12
Feb. 13
Jul. 13
Dec. 13
May 14
16
Mid-2014
Source: IMF staff estimates. Additional data: Calculated based on data from the survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund database 2014 Center for Research in Security
Prices (CRSP), The University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Note: EM = emerging market; HG = high grade; HY = high yield. The herding measure is that proposed by Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1992). It assesses the
strength of correlated trading among mutual funds investing in each security, controlling for their overall trade trends (see Box 2.5 of April 2014 Global Financial
Stability Report). Note that the market as a whole cannot trade in the same direction, since at any given time there must be a buyer for each seller. The measure is 0
when there is no sign of herding among mutual funds. It is calculated every quarter, looking at the fund-level activity in each security, and then averaged across
securities. The measure is computed when there are at least ve funds that changed the holdings of a security in each quarter for each security. The CRSP database
contains security-by-security holdings of all U.S.-domiciled open-end mutual funds, covering more than 750,000 securities. To make the analysis computationally
feasible, this chapter works with subsamples of securities that are randomly selected. Except for the S&P 500 sample, the herding measure is calculated with
50,000 randomly selected securities for each of the subgroups. In panel 1, the difference in herding across neighbor categories is statistically signicant at the
5 percent condence level, except for the case of EM debt versus EM equity, and HY bond versus HG bond. The difference in herding by fund type (panel 2) is
signicant at the 1 percent condence level.
nitudes vary across markets (Grinblatt, Titman, and

Wermers 1995; Wermers 1999; Borensztein and Gelos
2003; Choi and Sias 2009; Brown, Wei, and Wermers
2013). Using data on security-by-security holdings of
U.S. open-end mutual funds, the degree of herding is
measured using the method developed by Lakonishok,
Shleifer, and Vishny (1992).31 This is a measure of correlated trading within this investor group. Even though
it does not conclusively allow for an identification of
31See Box 2.5 in the April 2014 Global Financial Stability Report
for details. The Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1992) index
is a highly robust measure for detecting herding (in the sense of
correlated trading patterns). It does, however, have a bias toward
underestimating the magnitude of herding. Correcting for this bias is
difficult and methods for doing so are the subject of ongoing debate.
The downward bias increases with lower transaction numbers. Given
that over the past five years, the data show a mild decline in the
number of transactions per security, the results likely underestimate
the true increase in herding shown in Figure 3.1.
herding in a strict sense (namely, actions taken only

because investors see other investors taking them), at a
minimum it does provide an informative measure of the
degree to which this class of investors moves together,
regardless of the underlying reasons.
Herding among U.S. mutual funds is on the rise
across fund styles (Figure 3.13). This finding is true for
both U.S. equities and corporate bonds in recent years.
For U.S. equities, mutual funds appear to co-move more
during distress episodes. Retail-oriented funds show consistently higher levels of herding than do institutionaloriented funds. This could be because retail investors
are more prone to quickly reallocate money from funds
with poor recent performance to funds with high recent
returns (Frazzini and Lamont 2008), possibly because it
is more difficult for them than for institutional investors
to assess and monitor portfolio managers. This difficulty
in assessing and monitoring managers and the result
ing volatility of inflows would exacerbate the role of

incentive problems described earlier in driving herding
behavior. The rise in herding coincides with the adoption of unconventional monetary policies in the United
States, and could be related to an accentuated search for
yield by mutual funds.32 Herding levels are higher for
emerging market and high-yield assets and lowest for
the S&P 500 market, consistent with the notion that
herding is more likely to be prevalent in relatively more
opaque and less liquid markets (Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, and Welch 1992).
Figure 3.14. Ownership Structure of the 25 Largest Global

Asset Management Companies
(Number)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Linkages between parent asset management

companies and funds
Mutual funds and most other investment vehicles have
few direct solvency linkages with their AMCs. AMCs
own balance sheets are legally separated from those of
the mutual funds they manage, as required by regulations.33 This separation does not necessarily apply to
other types of investment vehicles, though. For some
hedge funds and private equity funds, AMCs assets
can be comingled with clients assets. Another example
of linkage is AMC parents support for funds during
crisis episodes. In 2008, because of reputational concerns, some financial institutions provided emergency
liquidity support for money market funds and other
fixed-income funds their group AMCs were managing
(Moodys 2010).
Interconnectedness through ownership
Banks and insurance companies are major owners of AMCs, and the overall stability implications
of these arrangements are unclear (Figure 3.14).
Without proper oversight of related-party exposures
and concentrated exposures, funds could be used
as funding vehicles for their AMCs parent banks.34
Moreover, many such banks are G-SIFIs. These interrelationships increase the concentration of financial
services providers across various subsegments of the
financial sector, creating potentially very influential
and complex mega conglomerates. Information sharing between a bank and its group AMC is another
32For high-grade bonds, econometric estimates of the relationship
between herding and proxies for unconventional monetary policy
show a positive, albeit weak, link.
33See Annex 3.1. AMCs own balance sheets are also much smaller
than the clients money they manage (2 percent to 12 percent of
assets under management for the top AMCs).
34For instance, certain types of synthetic ETFs could be used by
their AMCs parent banks to obtain cash in exchange for collateral
securities that banks do not want to keep on hand.
114
3
2
1
Privately held
Listed,
independent
Listed, insurer
as parent
Listed, bank as
parent
Sources: Pensions and Investments and Towers Watson (2014); and IMF staff
calculations.
Note: Parent banks include Amundi, Bank of New York Mellon, BNP Paribas,
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, J.P. Morgan Chase, Natixis Global Asset
Management, and UBS. Parent insurance companies include Allianz (for PIMCO),
Axa, Metlife, Generali, Legal and General Group, and Prudential.
potential concern. Massa and Rehman (2008) provide

evidence that such information sharing exists for
banks and AMCs, most likely through informal channels. However, bank affiliation could also have effects
that may be desirable from a financial stability point
of view, including access to a central banks emergency liquidity facility through AMCs parent banks
and more supervisory scrutiny.
Interconnectedness through bank funding
The roles of mutual funds as funding providers for
banks appear to vary across instruments and countries
(Figure 3.15). Mutual funds are more important providers of long-term bank financing in the United States
than in other economies. However, their role appears
to be less important than that of money market funds
role in short-term (bank) funding.
The relationship between size and contribution to
systemic risk
An actively discussed question in global regulatory fora
is whether large asset managers and funds should be
designated as SIFIs and receive more intense oversight.
This section does not intend to fully answer this ques-
Figure 3.15. Bank Financing by Mutual Funds and Money Market Funds
Mutual funds invest in long-term bank bonds, but generally
they are not the main holders of bank bonds
whereas money market funds play a more signicant

role in short-term funding markets.
1. Share of Long-Term Bank Bonds Held by Mutual Funds

(Percent of total outstanding covered in eMaxx)
2. Money Market Funds Share in Short-Term Funding Markets

(Percent of euro area short-term bank funding and U.S. repo and CP
outstanding)
12
U.S. funds
EU funds
70
Other funds
Euro area, short-term bank funding
10
60
50
40
6
30
4
United States, repo and CP
20
10
United States
European
Union
Other
advanced
economies
Offshore
Emerging
markets
Issuer domicile
2005
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Sources: European Central Bank; Federal Reserve; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: CP = commercial paper; repo = repurchase agreement.
Sources: eMaxx; and IMF staff calculations.

Note: EU = European Union.
tion. As discussed earlier, each segment of the industry

has its distinctive risks, many of which are hard to
quantify because of data gaps. However, the analysis attempts to partially address the issue by asking
how funds contribution to systemic risk in advanced
economies relates to fund size, investment focus, and
size of their AMCs, using the conditional value-at-risk
(CoVaR) method (see Annex 3.2).
Funds contributions to systemic risk depend relatively more on their investment focus than on their
size (Figure 3.16). Estimations based on a sample of
about 1,500 funds (not shown) reveal that investment
orientation, VaR, and fund size, among other characteristics, are significantly related to a funds contribution
to systemic risk (Annex 3.2). The relative importance of
size, however, differs across market segments.
For a given fund size, the systemic risk contribution
bears little relation to the size of a funds AMC (Figure
3.16, panel 2). The average contribution to systemic
risk does not increase with a funds AMCs size (the
picture looks the same when the investment focus of
funds is controlled for), at least not for the top asset
managers considered here. Although this exercise only
examines one segment of the broad asset management

industry and CoVaR is only one of the many possible
systemic risk measures, it highlights the importance
of incorporating product-line and investment-focus
perspectives, in addition to mere size, when discussing
the designation of AMCs and funds as SIFIs.
Revamping the Oversight Framework to

Address Financial Stability Risks
Key Features of Current Regulation
The industry is regulated, albeit with a focus on investor protection. Substantial regulatory requirements
are in place for publicly offered funds.35 Regulation
focuses on investors being given sufficient information
to understand the investment product, on investors
35Regulatory frameworks for funds appear to be generally strong
around the globethe IMF and World Bank assessments of securities
regulation under the IOSCO Principles show a generally high level
of compliance with principles dealing with disclosure to investors and
other consumer-protection-related standards. Some emerging market
and developing economies, however, have serious gaps in their legal
frameworks that fail to adequately separate the funds assets from those
of the asset manager. This raises risks to customer assets.
Figure 3.16. Contribution to Systemic Risk by Mutual Funds

The systemic risk contribution differs across funds
investment orientations.
A funds systemic risk contribution is not related to its AMCs size.
1. Average Contribution to Systemic Risk by Investment Focus

(Percent)
2. Contribution to Systemic Risk of Top Fund Families by Size of Asset

Management Company
(Contribution to systemic risk averaged across funds in the same
family, percent)
3.5
4.5
4.0
3.0
3.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
AE sovereign AE corporate
bonds
bonds
EM bonds
AE equity
EM equity
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Assets under management of parent asset management companies
(trillions of U.S. dollars)
Sources: Lipper; Pensions and Investments and Towers Watson; and IMF staff estimates.
Note: AE = advanced economy; AMC = asset management company; CoVaR = conditional value-at-risk; EM = emerging market. The impact of fund As distress
on systemic risk is measured by the difference of CoVaR when fund A is in a normal state (median VaR) and in a distressed state (worst 5 percentile VaR). The
nancial system consists of an equity index for banks and insurers from AEs and about 1,500 mutual funds, taking the largest 100 funds (globally) for each of
the ve investment focus categories (AE sovereign, AE corporate bond, EM bond, AE equity, and EM equity) and for three different fund domiciles (the United
States, Europe, and the other advanced economies). Weekly net asset value data are used to compute fund returns and monthly total net asset (TNA) data to
measure the size of each fund from January 2000 to November 2014. The system is measured by a TNA-weighted average of fund returns (the results are
robust when the simple average is used instead). The assets under management of the AMC include assets managed with different investment vehicles such as
separate account and alternative funds. Caution should be taken in comparing the precise ranking of systemic risk contributions across fund categories since
the sample period may not capture the realization of relevant tail risks. Moreover, the measure does not identify whether the contribution is causal or driven by a
common factor.
assets being protected from fraud and other risks, and

on asset managers not taking advantage of investors.
For these purposes, disclosure, investment restrictions
(including concentration limits), caps on leverage,
liquidity risk management, pricing and redemption
policies, and separation of client assets from those of
AMCs play important roles (Table 3.3). Regulatory
requirements for privately offered products have also
been strengthened since the global financial crisis.
AMCs that offer investment products are subject to
rules that focus on protecting clients from fraud or
negligence and that aim to ensure the business continuity of the AMC.
The importance of liquidity risks to the industry is
recognized and is an integral part of current regulation
and industry practices:
116
Regulatory requirements to manage liquidity risks exist,

though they are often rather general. Funds are generally restricted to liquid assets or required to maintain
certain liquid asset ratios; they must have risk management frameworks (data collection, profiling of redemptions, and stress testing) in place. Many asset managers
have internal liquidity risk management frameworks for
their funds, with regular monitoring of clients liquidity
needs and stress testing. These liquidity management
tools are in line with FSB suggestions (FSB 2013).
For very large redemptions, funds also have a variety
of tools, subject to local regulatory requirements.
For macroprudential purposes, the FSB (2013) and
the October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report
suggest that regulation and fund contracts should
include tools, such as fees, gates, side-pockets, and
Table 3.3. Selected Regulations for Publicly Offered Funds

Issues
Requirements
Investment
Restrictions
Typically, investments in illiquid securities and complex products are restricted and positions cannot be
concentrated in a single issuer.
Use of leverage and derivatives is capped. Public funds in the United States, for example, can only employ
leverage of up to 33 percent of assets, including portfolio leverage embedded in derivatives. UCITS funds can
only temporarily borrow up to 10 percent of assets. UCITS funds can invest in financial derivatives, subject to
conditions on underlying assets, counterparties, and valuation, and exposure cannot exceed the total net value
of the portfolio.
Liquidity
Publicly offered funds are subject to liquidity requirements.

Specific fund classes, such as money market funds, have extensive liquidity requirements.
In the United States, funds can hold only a limited amount of illiquid assets. Liquid asset is defined only
broadly by regulation, but more detailed definitions can be included in fund contracts.
In the European Union, regulators provide a list of assets that are eligible to meet liquidity requirements, but
there is no liquidity ratio requirement. A similar approach is followed by other jurisdictions, such as Brazil.
In Singapore, liquidity requirements differ by fund type.
Funds are expected to have risk management frameworks, including liquidity risk management, but few
jurisdictions provide details on how these frameworks should work.
In 2011, IOSCO established its Principles of Liquidity Risk Management for Collective Investment Schemes.
Pricing of Fund
Assets, Fund Shares,
and Redemption
Portfolios are generally priced at market value for NAV calculation, although some illiquid assets are valued
following fair value accounting rules. However, during times of distress, some prices may not reflect accurate
market values, especially when there are limited market transactions.
Rules are in place aiming to ensure that prices for purchases and redemption of shares are set so as to treat
investors fairly, but some rules can result in a first-mover advantage (see Box 3.2 for details).
Various jurisdictions allow suspension of redemption as an extreme measure.
Under the European Unions UCITS scheme, funds can specify redemption restrictions, typically used for funds
investing in less liquid securities.
Source: IMF staff.

Note: IOSCO = International Organization of Securities Commissions; NAV = net asset value; UCITS = Undertaking for Collective Investment in Transferable
Securities (a type of publicly offered fund governed by the European Union UCITS directive).
suspension of redemptions, to manage large redemptions.36 Existing regulation and fund contracts indeed
allow for these tools. In addition, asset managers can
make use of credit lines, delays in cash payout upon
redemption (within regulatory limits), and payment
in kind.37 The available tools often vary depending
on local requirements.38 For extreme measures, such
as suspensions, funds are usually required to obtain
permission from regulators, and they are strictly limited to extraordinary circumstances to prevent abuse.
Consequently, restrictions on redemptions have been
36Gates constrain redemption amounts to a specific proportion
on any one redemption day. Suspension is full closure of a fund
to redemption. Side-pockets legally separate impaired or illiquid
securities to prevent them from affecting a funds return until market
conditions stabilize.
37Asset managers argue that payment in kind is particularly useful
for institutional clients. For instance, when institutional clients are
simply changing portfolio managers, they are willing to accept securities instead of cash and transfer the securities to a new manager to
avoid losses related to large-scale sales. Transfer of securities from one
manager to another is straightforward because the securities are kept
at a custodian bank, segregated from the AMCs assets.
38For instance, in some countries, funds are not allowed to take
credit lines or pay in kind to retail investors. The minimum redemption
frequency for publicly offered funds is set differently across jurisdictions,
and funds are not allowed to delay settlement beyond the limit (seven
days in the United States and two weeks in the European Union).
used only rarely in advanced markets, and are generally associated with the failure or winding down of
a fundredemptions are suspended to ensure that
pricing of the shares is fair across investors when a
portfolio has become too difficult to price (IOSCO
2011).
Limitations of Current Oversight

The current oversight framework is not set up to fully
address risks, neither at the institutional nor systemic level:
Regulation lacking in specificityKey regulations,
especially regarding liquidity requirements and
liquidity risk management, are broad and lack specific guidance, allowing for wide-ranging interpretations and practices across jurisdictions (Table 3.3).
For instance, liquid asset requirements are often stipulated without a precise definition of liquid assets.
Requirements for risk management frameworks are
often not detailed in legislation. Regulatory requirements themselves also vary substantially across
jurisdictions, reflecting the broad-principle-based
approach of global standards (IOSCO Principles).
Insufficient supervision of individual and systemic
risksSupervision of funds and asset managers

is generally weak across jurisdictions.39 In many

jurisdictions, oversight of funds has been focused
on disclosure to protect retail investors. Regular
supervision of risks is generally not the focus of
supervisors.40 As a result, no financial soundness
indicators have been developed for the industry, and
stress testing of funds and AMCs by regulators has
been rarea major contrast with bank supervisory
practice. For some regulators, the number of asset
managers and funds impose resource challenges.
Moreover, international coordination and guidance
on supervisory practices is sparse, since the IOSCO
Principles focus on regulations. Good practices by
asset managers provide some comfort, but in the
presence of liquidity and price externalities, each
fund and asset manager is likely to underestimate
liquidity needs and the potential for correlated price
effects in the presence of large shocks (Liang 2015).
Improving Oversight
Securities regulators should enhance the microprudential oversight of risks (Table 3.4):
Enhance regulation by providing more specifics for funds
liquidity requirementsKey regulations should provide a clearer definition of liquid assets. More specific
guidance should be given to match the liquidity
profile of each fund category to its redemption policy.
Strengthen the microprudential supervision of risks
related to individual institutionsRegulators should
regularly monitor market conditions and review
whether funds risk management frameworks are
sufficient, especially with regard to liquidity risks.
Greater resources should be devoted to supervising
risks, including developing analytical and stresstesting capacities so that regulators can effectively
challenge asset managers practices.
Ensure that funds do not take excessive leverage
Caps limit overall leverage of publicly offered
funds. Nevertheless, leverage and its regulatory
39A consistent finding in Financial Sector Assessment Programs of

the IMF and the World Bank is that most jurisdictions with substantial asset management industries have sound regulatory frameworks
but show weaknesses in the intensity of supervision of funds and
asset managers.
40There are some exceptions. For instance, supervisors in France
and Brazil have risk-oriented and data-driven financial stability risk
management frameworks that foresee collecting the data and using
them to monitor potential risks; the supervisors can conduct stress
testing on their own, and challenge asset managers if risks are found.
118
compliance should be regularly monitored with

better data on derivatives.41
Adopt approaches based on products, activities, or
bothFocusing on activities and products in addition to size seems appropriate given that the industry is diverse and differences in investment focus
seem to matter significantly for funds contribution
to systemic risk.
Raise the quality of supervisory practices across jurisdictions
by introducing global standardsInternational standards
and guidelines for better supervision should be significantly expanded and enhanced. Supervisors should
share best practices, especially in the area of liquidity
risk. For instance, coordinated efforts should be undertaken to develop financial soundness indicators as well
as stress-testing frameworks for the industry. The IMF
could play a key role here, based on its experience in
developing common financial soundness indicators and
stress-testing frameworks for banks.42
A macroprudential perspective should be integrated
into the oversight of the industry, and the adequacy of
existing tools for macroprudential purposes should be
reexamined:
Bring a macroprudential focus on systemic risk to
oversight of the sectorAs illustrated by the empirical analysis, price externalities are the key channel of
systemic financial stability risk from this industry.
Thus, assessments of individual institutions are not
sufficient for assessing systemic risk. Incorporating
monitoring of linkages to other sectors that rely on
the industry for financing may even be necessary.43
Existing risk management tools and rules could be
used with a view to safeguard financial stabilityTo
41Adam and Guettler (forthcoming) document that, among U.S.
corporate bond funds, (1) the use of credit default swaps (CDS)
rose from 20 to 60 percent between 2004 and 2008; (2) CDS are
mostly used to enhance credit risk taking, rather than hedging; (3)
funds belonging to a larger fund family are more likely to use CDS;
(4) underperforming funds often increase their CDS exposures to
enhance returns; and (5) CDS users tend to perform worse on average than non-users.
42The Global Financial Stability Report began reporting financial
soundness indicators for banks in 2003. At first, the data were collected from national authorities or commercial databases without
harmonizing methods. The effort has since developed into a more harmonized statistical framework (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/fsi/
eng/fsi.htm), with a full compilation guide. The IMF now periodically
publishes details of the indicators. It has also been contributing to the
building of common stress-testing frameworks (IMF 2012).
43The October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report discusses
how cooperation between microprudential, macroprudential, and
business conduct regulators could be carried out in practice.
Table 3.4. Summary of Analysis and Policy Implications for Mutual Funds and ETFs
Results
Policy Implications
Does Fund Investment Affect Asset Prices?

Flow-price impact analysis: Fund flows affect aggregate asset
prices, at least in less liquid markets, in both advanced and
emerging market economies.
Concentration and price-impact analysis: Mutual funds
concentration in bond markets has risen. During stress episodes,
bonds with more concentrated mutual fund ownership tend to
experience larger price drops.
Regulators need to monitor financial stability risks from the

industry from a macroprudential perspective, especially in
smaller, less liquid, fixed-income markets.
Adequacy of concentration limits may need to be reconsidered.
What Drives Run Risk? What Can Be Done to Mitigate It?

End investors: End investors, especially retail investors, chase
past returns and display a flight to quality during times of stress,
making fund flows procyclical.
First-mover advantage: In line with the notion of a first-mover
advantage, among equity funds, redemptions are more sensitive
to returns for less liquid funds. However, the same is not true for
bond funds (which generally have higher liquidity mismatches
than equity funds). In emerging markets, fund flows predict
future price movements, consistent with a first-mover advantage.
Funds liquidity risk management: Funds use various liquidity
management tools. They hold higher cash buffers when they
experience large outflows, face higher redemption risks, are retail
focused, and invest in illiquid assets. Fees are generally effective
in reducing redemptions.
Properly pricing-in the cost of liquidity is important in reducing

the first-mover advantage, by avoiding passing on to remaining
investors the costs associated with the sales of illiquid assets.
Regulators should examine the benefit of flexible NAV pricing
rules (such as swing and dual pricing), illiquid asset valuation
rules, and ETF structures to adequately reflect liquidity risk costs.
Consider imposing minimum redemption fees for funds with
large liquidity mismatches. Fees that are added to NAV avoid
harming investors as a whole, while pricing-in the cost of
liquidity.
More generally, the adequacy of the requirements for liquid
assets and liquidity risk management should be reexamined,
incorporating financial stability risks from the industry.
Does Asset Managers Behavior Amplify Risks?

Managers decision vs. end investors decision: Portfolio
managers trading accounts for about 70 percent of the variance
in funds investments.
Excessive risk taking: By rewarding winners disproportionately
more than punishing losers, end investors encourage excessive
risk taking by managers in various advanced economies. The
tendency is stronger for equity funds than for bond funds.
Herding: Herding among U.S. mutual funds has been intensifying,
particularly in smaller, less liquid markets. Retail-investororiented funds tend to herd more.
Ensure that managers are in compliance with regulatory

requirements and are not taking excess risks (including hidden
leverage).
Reduce information gaps between managers and investors
(and regulators) by upgrading disclosure requirements to better
reflect the funds economic risks, especially regarding the use of
derivatives and securities financing transactions.
Financial stability risks from mutual funds could stem from
many small funds taking similar positions. Regulators should
pay attention to this possibility, not just focus on the positions of
large funds.
Brand name effects: Evidence suggests that large redemption

shocks to a flagship fund often spill over to other funds in the
family, although the effects have been weak so far.
Contribution to Systemic Risk and Size
Fund size and systemic risk: Generally, larger funds contribute more
to systemic risk, but the investment focus of funds matters more.
Parent AMC size and its funds systemic risk: There is little
relationship between a funds contribution to systemic risk and its
AMCs size.
The SIFI discussion for funds and asset managers should take
into account specific risks of products in addition to size.
Oversight of the industry should not simply focus on large funds
and AMCs.
Source: IMF staff.

Note: AMC = asset management company; ETF = exchange-traded fund; NAV = net asset value; SIFI = systemically important financial institution.
mitigate price externalities, rules on investment

restrictions (such as concentration limits), liquidity
requirements, and redemption policies may need to
be updated in line with funds risk profiles (October
2014 Global Financial Stability Report).
Further efforts should be aimed at reducing the firstmover advantageAs discussed, and partly confirmed
in the empirical analysis, a first-mover advantage can
arise for various reasons. Some of these are difficult
to address, such as the liquidity pecking order of

sales. Others, however, such as the degree of liquidity
mismatches, can at least partially be addressed with
good supervision. Most important, accounting-based
illiquid asset valuation rules and inflexible fund share
pricing rules that increase investors incentives to run
should be revised. In this context, so-called swing- or
dual-pricing rules could play a role (Box 3.2). Charging redemption fees, which are found to be effective

in smoothing redemptions, is another alternative for

pricing-in the cost of liquidity. However, competitive
pressures have probably resulted in fee levels that are
likely too low from a financial stability perspective
(Figure 3.10, panel 4). Therefore, coordinating on
an industry-wide minimum level of fees for funds
investing in illiquid assets could be considered.44 In
doing so, fee policies should match funds specific
characteristics rather than impose one-size-fits-all
requirements.45
Caution is needed in the use of gates and suspensions
They should be part of the toolkit. Nonetheless,
their imposition may also send negative signals to
the market and lead to preemptive runs ahead of the
instruments coming into force (FSB 2013; October
2014 Global Financial Stability Report).
Be equipped with better dataPublicly offered
funds disclose substantial information. However,
the disclosed dataaimed at investor protection
are often not sufficient for nor suited to systemic
financial stability analysis. For instance, many
jurisdictions do not require standardized quantitative disclosure of derivatives and securities financing
transactions, such as outstanding positions, details
on collateral, and counterparties.46 Better disclosure and reporting is also important for reducing
information gaps that lead to incentive problems of
delegated portfolio management. Supervisors should
also make further efforts to collect data on privately
offered products, including separate accounts. Even
though investor-protection concerns with regard to
these products are lower, their investment patterns
can affect financial markets.
44These fees would not have to benefit the AMC but could be
added to NAV and be redistributed to investors. For instance, in the
United States, Rule 22c-2 under the 1940 Investment Company Act
as amended provides that the fund board of an open-end fund must
consider whether to impose a redemption fee (up to 2 percent) that
flows back into the funds NAV (BlackRock 2014b).
45Nevertheless, the imposition of such a fee would raise various
practical problems, including those related to cross-border coordination. An inadequate framework could also drive investors away from
this industry to other, less regulated products.
46In the United States, mutual funds disclose only qualitative
information on their derivatives positions. In the European Union,
heightened concerns about the use of derivatives by synthetic ETFs
in 2011 (see Annex 3.1) have led the industry to voluntarily disclose
detailed derivatives positions, including derivatives exposures, counterparties, and the type and amount of collateral. This practice has
subsequently evolved into requirements for ETFs and more broadly
for UCITS (ESMA 2012). In Brazil, supervisors obtain information
from the central counterparty and from exchanges that clear derivatives transactions.
120
Various other aspects not covered in the empirical

analysis in this chapter deserve attention by national
authorities. Improving the liquidity and transparency
of secondary markets, specifically for longer-term
debt markets, would reduce risks related to liquidity
mismatches.47 For example, expanding trade reporting initiatives to all global fixed-income sectors should
help reduce the opacity of secondary markets (October
2014 Global Financial Stability Report). Compensation
structures for portfolio managers may merit scrutiny
(Box 3.1). The composition of benchmark indices also
deserves attention, with a view to minimizing possible
associated distortions. The authorities could assess their
ability to provide emergency liquidity to break vicious
feedback loops between funding and market liquidity in times of stress. However, providing emergency
liquidity creates clear moral hazard risk and therefore
requires enhanced supervision (October 2014 Global
Financial Stability Report).
Conclusion
Financial stability risks can emanate from intermediation through asset managers even in the absence of
leverage and guaranteed returns. The discussion in
this chapter stresses the importance of separating the
effects that stem from end investors, and would be
present even in the absence of financial intermediaries,
from those that are introduced by the presence of asset
managers. The delegation of day-to-day portfolio management introduces fundamental incentive problems
between end investors and fund managers, which can
induce destabilizing behavior and amplify shocks. In
addition, easy redemption options can create risks of
runs because of the presence of a first-mover advantage. The destabilization of prices in certain asset segments (particularly bonds) can affect other parts of the
financial system through funding markets and balance
sheet and collateral channels.
The chapter has shed some light on the importance of
various dimensions of these risks. Complementing and
expanding on existing studies, the analysis finds evidence
consistent with the notion that mutual fund investments affect asset price dynamics, at least in less liquid
markets. Some factors point to the existence of incentives to run in segments of the industry. The observed
pattern of fund inflows and redemptions by end investors creates incentives for fund managers to herd and, in
47Evidence suggests that herding declines with transparency (Gelos
2011).
some markets, for poorly performing fund managers to

increase risk. Indeed, herding among U.S. mutual funds
has been rising across asset markets. Funds managed
by larger AMCs do not necessarily contribute more to
systemic risk; investment focus appears to be relatively
more important than size when gauging systemic risk.
Although these risks are not fundamentally new,
their relevance has risen with structural changes in the
financial sectors of advanced economies. The relative
importance of the asset management industry has
grown, and banks have also retrenched from many
market-making activities, contributing to a reduction
in market liquidity. Moreover, the role of fixed-income
funds, which entail larger contagion risks than traditional equity investment, has expanded considerably. A
broader range of products are available to less sophisticated investors. Last, the prolonged period of low
interest rates in advanced economies has resulted in a
search for yield, which has led funds to invest in less
liquid assets.
The chapter offers five main policy messages:

First, securities regulators should enhance microprudential supervision of risks stemming from individual
institutions building on regulators own risk analysis
and stress testing, supported by global standards for
supervision and better data and risk indicators.
Second, regulatory and supervisory reforms are
needed to incorporate a macroprudential approach.
Third, liquidity rules, the definition of liquid assets,
investment restrictions, and reporting and disclosure
rules could be enhanced.
Fourth, consideration should be given to the use of
tools that adequately price-in the cost of liquidity,
including minimum redemption fees, improvements
in illiquid asset valuation, and mutual fund share
pricing rules.
Fifth, given that the industry is diverse and that differences in investment focus seem to matter significantly
for funds contribution to systemic risk, a product- or
activity-based emphasis seems to be important.
Annex 3.1. Primer on the Asset Management

Industry
Investment vehicles are broadly separated into collective investment schemes (referred to as funds in this
chapter) that pool money from a number of investors
and invest in financial assets, and what are called separate accounts or discretionary mandates that manage
the money of single institutional investors or high
net worth individuals (Annex Table 3.1.1). Collective
investment schemes are further divided into various

products. Most of them are open-end mutual funds
investing in equities (Annex Figure 3.1.1).
Funds are often established as legal entities (corporations or trusts) that must be separated from an asset
manager, and a funds assets are kept at a custodian,
segregated from the assets of AMCs (Annex Figure
3.1.2). This segregation of an AMC and the funds it
manages is a key component of the regulatory framework for investor protection.
Annex Table 3.1.1. Features and Risk Profiles of Key Investment Vehicles
Vehicle
Features and Risk Profiles
Separate Account
Providers of separate account services privately manage the money of institutional investors (including pension
funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds) or high net worth individuals.
Little is known about this segment because contracts are private and can vary substantially across clients.
An industry survey (SIFMA 2014) indicates that these accounts entail simple securities portfolios with little
leverage. The accounts are also subject to client investors regulatory requirements.
Redemption risk for this group is moderate because institutional investors tend to internalize the cost of their sales,
and large redemptions can be paid in kind (especially if clients are changing asset managers).
Open-End Mutual
Fund
These funds issue redeemable equity securities and stand ready to buy back their shares at their current net
asset value (NAV)the price per share of a fund.
These funds invest in generally liquid publicly traded bonds and equities.
Many of the funds offer daily liquidity to clients, making liquidity risk the key risk for the fund.
In particular, some funds invest in relatively illiquid securities (for example, corporate bonds instead of equity).
This is often referred to as liquidity transformation that could lead to liquidity mismatch, which makes the fund
vulnerable to redemptions.
These funds have little leverage through borrowing, though they could be taking portfolio leverage using derivatives
(the same applies for money market funds and exchange-traded funds, below). Although regulations impose caps
on the use of leverage, little quantitative information is available.
Closed-End
Mutual Fund
These funds issue a fixed number of shares in the primary market that trade intraday on the secondary stock
market at market-determined prices. Investors buy or sell shares through a broker, but cannot redeem their shares
directly from the fund, so these funds do not suffer much liquidity risk.
However, their popularity suffers from the fact that their shares are usually traded in the secondary market at a
lower value than their NAV.
Many closed-end funds borrow additional money, often using preferred shares, and they also take portfolio
leverage, subject to regulatory limits (ICI 2014a).
Money Market
Fund (MMF)
These funds invest in short-term cash equivalent instruments such as commercial paper, Treasury bills, and
certificates of deposit, and play a major role in short-term funding markets.
MMFs experienced major runs and liquidity distress during the global financial crisis. All U.S. MMFs offered
constant NAV (mutual fund price per share) at $1 per share. This structure created a first-mover advantage because
funds continued to honor the $1 per share repayment even though their actual NAV was worth less as the result of
losses from asset-backed commercial paper, which was perceived to be liquid and safe before the crisis.
Constant NAV MMFs continue to exist in the United States and several other jurisdictions.
Exchange-Traded
Fund (ETF)
ETF shares are traded in primary and secondary markets (see Box 3.2 for details).
ETF shares can be created or redeemed in the primary market between the fund and authorized participants (APs)
in large units. APs are typically large securities dealers. Only primary market transactions cause fund flows to ETFs.
The settlement between ETFs and APs are usually in kind, meaning that the exchange of ETF shares and the basket
of securities is in line with the ETFs investment objectives.
APs then trade the ETF shares in the secondary market with clients and counterparties on stock exchanges. This
intraday trading in secondary markets provides intraday liquidity to end investors.
Most ETFs are index funds, tracking the performance of a specific index.
Synthetic ETF
Synthetic ETFs are offered mainly in Europe.

Instead of directly holding underlying assets (called physical ETFs), synthetic ETF returns are generated using
derivatives, especially swaps.
Synthetic ETFs could be used for various investment strategies, ranging from simple index tracking to leveraged
and short-selling strategies.
The extensive use of derivatives (asset swaps) has led to strong concerns about portfolio leverage, counterparty
risks, and the quality of collateral for asset swaps. A number of official sectors expressed such concerns in 2011,
including the Financial Stability Board (2011) and the IMF.
In response, many ETF providers reduced synthetic products and expanded the disclosure of derivatives positions,
including a list of counterparties and the collateral basket for asset swaps (Morningstar 2012).
(continued)
122
Annex Table 3.1.1. Features and Risk Profiles of Key Investment Vehicles (continued)
Vehicle
Features and Risk Profiles
Private Equity
Fund
Private equity is a broad term that refers to any type of equity participation in which the equity is not freely tradable
on a public stock market, such as equities of private companies and public companies that are delisted.
Private equity funds often monitor and participate in managing the companies whose equity they hold. They aim to
maximize financial returns by a sale or an initial public offering of the companies.
There are four main subclasses among private equity funds: (1) venture capital that invests in early-stage,
high-potential, growth startup companies; (2) buyout funds that acquire existing business units or business
assets; (3) mezzanine funds that invest in both growth equity and the subordinate debt layernamely, the
mezzanine between senior debt and equityof buyout transactions; and (4) distressed asset funds, which are a
specialized segment of buyouts that target mature and distressed companies. In addition, there are real estate and
infrastructure funds.
Some private equity funds could be leveraged, but they are smaller components of the private equity industry
(Metrick and Yasuda 2011).
Moreover, these alternative investment vehicles offer limited liquidity to end investors, matching the funds longterm investment horizon.
Contagion risks are also limited because private equity funds invest in companies not traded in markets.
Hedge Fund
These funds cover a large variety of investment strategies, ranging from publicly traded equity (highly liquid
holdings) to distressed debt vehicles and structured credit products (highly illiquid holdings). Use of leverage and
derivatives also varies considerably depending on the strategy. Unlike mutual funds, hedge funds have no cap on
leverage.
Hedge funds tend to be more nimble than mutual funds regarding their investment strategy, leading to potentially
rapid alterations in their risk characteristics. Depending on their funding and trading strategies, there can be
significant interconnection with other financial institutions.
Sources: ICI (2014a, 2014c); Metrick and Yasuda (2011); Morningstar (2012); TheCityUK (2012); and IMF staff.
Annex Figure 3.1.1. Investment Vehicles by Size, Domicile, and Investment Focus
Most assets are managed with simple investment vehicles.
1. Investment Vehicles
Hedge funds
Private equity 5%
funds 9%
Exchange-traded
funds 6%
Money market
funds 12%
Closed-end
mutual funds
2%
Other
alternatives
3%
Open-end
mutual funds
63%
The mutual fund industry is dominated by U.S. and European funds, but
Brazil and China show a notable presence among emerging markets.
2. Mutual Funds by Fund Domicile
(Percent of $32 trillion total assets under management, 2014:Q2)
Brazil
Other developed 9% 3% China Other emerging
2% markets 4%
Japan
Developed
3%
Europe 31%
Luxembourg 10%
Ireland 5%
France 5%
United Kingdom 4%
Other developed
Europe 7%
United States
49%

ETFGI; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Preqin; and
IMF staff calculations.
calculations.
Most mutual funds invest in equities. (Bond funds, especially high-yield

corporate and emerging market debt funds, are smaller components).
Exchange-traded funds are offered predominantly in the United

States, where the use of exotic structures is restricted.
3. Mutual Funds by Investment Focus

Balanced/mixed
12%
Money market
16%
4. Exchange-Traded Funds by Region

(Percent of $2.3 trillion total assets under management, end-2013)
Other 4%
Asia
7%
Equity 44%
Bond 24%
calculations.
Others
3%
Europe
18%
United States
72%
Sources: Deutsche Bank; and IMF staff calculations.
(continued)
124
Annex Figure 3.1.1. Investment Vehicles by Size, Domicile, and Investment Focus (continued)
Exchange-traded funds primarily invest in equities.
A large number of private equity funds are involved in buyout, venture

capital, and real estate funds.
5. Exchange-Traded Funds by Investment Focus

(Percent of $2.3 trillion total assets under management, end-2013)
6. Private Equity Funds by Type

(Percent of total number of funds participating in Preqins survey 2014)
40
Commodity
1%
Fixed income
16%
35
Other
0%
30
25
20
15
10
Sources: Deutsche Bank; and IMF staff calculations.
Source: Preqin.
Note: Some funds are involved in multiple investment strategies.
Private equity funds are primarily located in the United

States and Europe.
A large number of hedge funds are domiciled in off-shore

jurisdictions.
7. Private Equity Funds by Location of Ofces

(Percent of total number of funds participating in Preqins survey,
2014)
Other
Infrastructure
Fund of funds
Distressed
assets
Mezzanine
Real estate
Buyout
Venture
capital
Equity
83%
8. Hedge Funds by Country

(Percent of $1.4 trillion total assets under management covered in
Hedge Fund Research, 2014)
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
Country of domicile
Source: Preqin.
Note: Some funds have ofces in multiple countries.
Sweden
Japan
Singapore
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Ireland
Luxembourg
British Virgin
Islands
Channel
Islands
United States
Cayman Islands
South
America
Australia
Other
10
Asia Pacic
10
Europe
20
United
States
20
Country of operation
Sources: Hedge Fund Research; and IMF staff calculations.
Annex Figure3.1.2.Operation of a Fund

A fund signs an investment management agreement with an asset management company (AMC), which manages the funds
portfolio, risks, trading of securities, and securities nancing transactions. End investors are equity shareholders of a fund and
are the owners of the funds assets in the sense that each share represents an investors proportional ownership of the funds
asset holdings and the income those assets generate. However, end investors do not have full control over a fund. They
typically cannot ascertain the exact makeup of a funds portfolio at any given time, nor can they directly inuence which
securities the fund manager buys and sells or the timing of these trades. Fund boards represent and protect shareholder
rights vis--vis AMCs.
Asset
management
company
Fees
Manage the assets

of the fund
Risk management
Trading of securities
and derivatives
(Rare) emergency
liquidity support
Investment
management
agreement
Fund Board
Represents and protects
shareholder rights
Fund
Assets
Other transactions:
Derivatives
Securities lending
Liabilities
Cash
Securities
Counterparty
Share
units
Open-end mutual fund

Cash
Custodian
Shares
End
investors
Segregates and safeguards

clients assets from asset
managers assets for a fee
Source: IMF staff.
Note: Examples of asset management companies are BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and PIMCO; examples of funds are BlackRock iShare Core
S&P 500 ETF and PIMCO total return funds. Custodians are usually large banks such as Bank of New York Mellon, J.P. Morgan, and State Street.
Funds often lend the securities they hold to various counterparties to earn fee income (securities lending). Securities borrowers usually provide
cash collateral. Counterparties are usually investment banks, prime brokers, and other broker-dealers that are engaged in short-selling of the
borrowed securities.
126
Annex 3.2 Empirical Framework

Aggregate flow-price relationship
The aggregate flow-price relationship analysis examines whether mutual fund flows have an impact on
asset prices at the macro level. Mutual fund flows to
23 emerging markets48 are investment flows into each
country from all mutual funds from various jurisdictions covered by EPFR Global. U.S. fund flows data
are investors flows into mutual funds with a stated
investment focus, covering funds domiciled in the
United States. U.S. data are from ICI, except for U.S.
high-yield bond funds data, which come from EPFR
Global. The analyses investigate weekly flows, but
the results are similar using monthly flows. The price
impact is measured by the total excess return of the
respective index for each asset class in dollar terms over
the one-month Eurodollar deposit rate.
The analysis here focuses first on surprise flows following Acharya, Anshuman, and Kumar (2014). As
shown in the fund flows analysis later in this annex,
mutual fund investors chase past returns, making fund
flows predictable to some extent. Markets are likely to
have priced in the effects from predictable flows by the
time the money arrives, which limits the correlation
between flows and returns. One would instead need
to examine the part of fund flows that is not priced
in the market. Surprise flows are estimated as residuals Fjt for each asset class j from the following vector
autoregression (VAR) model with the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX) as an
exogenous variable.
Rjt
Rjt1
R
= A + B1
+ + Bp jtp
Fjt
Fjt1
Fjtp

m
+ g0VIXt + + gqVIXtq + Rjt (3.1)

mFjt
Rt and Ft are excess index return and fund flows,

respectively, and p and q are the lengths of lags. For
U.S. assets, the model is estimated with a standard
48Economies include current emerging markets as well as graduated emerging markets that were considered to be emerging at some
point during the sample period. For equities, the sample includes
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, the Czech Republic,
Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia,
Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa,
Taiwan Province of China, and Turkey. For bonds, the sample additionally includes Bulgaria, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Uruguay,
and Vietnam, but excludes the Czech Republic, India, Israel, Jordan,
Korea, and Taiwan Province of China.
VAR. For emerging market assets, a panel VAR excluding the VIX is applied. The details of the variable
definitions are given in Annex Table 3.2.1.
Various single-equation models are estimated to
investigate the relationship between surprise flows and
asset returns. More specifically, the following models are
estimated for each asset class j, using a panel regression with country fixed effects and robust standard
errors (with clusters to correct for heterogeneity within
countries, in addition to cross-country heterogeneity)
for mutual fund flows into emerging market assets, and
ordinary least squares (with Newey-West standard errors
corrected for autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity) for
end investor asset flows into U.S. mutual funds.
Base model:
Rjt = a + Pp=1 bp Rjtp + Qq=0 gq mFjtq + Rr=0 dr VIXtr

+ Ss=0 s Asset Volatilityjts (3.2)
Model with asymmetry:
Rjt = a + Pp=1 bp Rjtp + Qq=0 {g1qmFjtq + g2qmFjtq
Indicator(1 if mFjtq > 0)} + Rr=0 dr VIXtr
+ Ss=0 s Asset Volatilityjts (3.3)
Model with nonlinearity by the levels of the VIX:
Rjt = a + Pp=1 bp Rjtp + Qq=0 g1qmFjtq + g2mFjt

Indicator(1 if VIXt > Thresholdj)
+ Rr=0 dr VIXtr + Ss=0 s Asset Volatilityjts (3.4)
in which m is the estimated residual in equation 3.

In addition, the section examines the dynamic
relationship between unadjusted (that is, nonsurprise)
flows and returns to assess the presence of a first-mover
advantage. The analysis is based on generalized impulse
response functions from VARs as in equation (3.1). In
addition, impulse responses based on Cholesky decompositions using both possible orderings were computed.
Concentration and its effects on bond yields
The concentration analysis is based on the Lipper
eMaxx bond ownership data, as used in Manconi,
Massa, and Yasuda (2012). This database contains
details of institutional holdings for each fixed-income
security, covering $7 trillion in total fixed-income secu
Annex Table 3.2.1. List and Definition of Variables for Empirical Exercises
Variables
Description
Data Source
Aggregate Flow and Return Analysis

EM equity flows
EM bond flows
U.S. equity flows
U.S. bond flows, all bonds
U.S. HY corp. bond flows
U.S. muni. flows
EM equity returns
EM bond returns
U.S. equity returns
U.S. bond returns, all bonds
U.S. HY corp. bond returns
U.S. muni. returns
Benchmark yield
VIX
Asset volatility
Weekly mutual fund equity investment flows into each economy from all mutual
funds covered by EPFR Global.
Weekly mutual fund bond investment flows into each economy from all mutual funds
covered by EPFR Global.
Flows from end investors to U.S.-domiciled mutual funds investing in domestic
equities.
Flows from end investors to U.S.-domiciled mutual funds investing in domestic
bonds (both government and corporate).
Flows from end investors to mutual funds investing in U.S. high-yield corporate
bonds.
Flows from end investors to U.S.-domiciled mutual funds investing in municipal bonds.
MSCI country equity index.
Country index from J.P. Morgan EMBIG Global Index.
MSCI country equity index.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch total return index for U.S. government and corporate
bonds.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch total return index for U.S. high-yield corporate bonds.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch total return index for U.S. municipal bonds.
One-month Eurodollar deposit rate.
Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index.
Staff estimates based on asset returns data and GARCH in mean model.
EPFR Global
EPFR Global
ICI
ICI
EPFR Global
ICI
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
IMF staff
Price Impact of Concentration in Bond Markets

Spread
Concentration
Bid-ask spread
Modified duration
Issue size
Covenants ratio
Bond yield minus the yield of benchmark sovereign bond with the same currency and
similar maturity.
Share of bonds held by the largest five mutual fund investors for each bond. Quarterly.
Bid-ask yield spreads for each bond (end of quarter).
Computed from bonds yield to maturity, coupon rate, and time to maturity,
assuming semi-annual distributions (end of quarter).
Log of issuance size.
The number of covenants attached to a bond relative to a maximum of 18.
Bloomberg, L.P.
eMaxx
Bloomberg, L.P.
Bloomberg, L.P.
eMaxx
Bloomberg, L.P.
Drivers of Fund Flows and Liquidity Risk Management

Fund flow
Performance
Benchmark performance
HIGH_VIXD
Cash
Flow volatility
For each fund (i) and time (t), fund flows (it) = [TNA(it)TNA(it1){1+return(it)}]/
TNA(it1). Return(it) is computed by CRSP based on NAV. Monthly.
Monthly excess fund return (changes of NAV) over benchmark, averaged over prior
three months.
Monthly return of benchmark index, averaged over prior three months. The same
benchmark is assigned for funds with the same broad investment focus (for
instance, S&P 500 for U.S. domestic equity funds).
High VIX dummy equals 1 when VIX > 30 percent.
Cash and cash equivalents holdings in percent of total portfolio. Quarterly.
Standard deviation of flows over the prior 12 months, divided by the mean flows
over the same period.
CRSP
CRSP
DataStream
L.P.
DataStream
L.P.
CRSP
CRSP
Fund Characteristics
Size (S/M/L)
Age
Purchase fee
Redemption fee
Index dummy
ETF dummy
Institutional dummy
Liquid bond fund dummy
Illiquid bond fund dummy
Liquid equity fund dummy
Illiquid equity fund dummy
Dummies based on 20th and 80th percentiles.

Years since initial offer.
Maximum in prospectus.
Maximum in prospectus (sum of type R [redemption] and C [contingent deferred
sales charge]).
1 if index fund.
1 if ETF.
1 if institutional but not retail in CRSP.
1 if a funds investment focus is one of the following: short-term U.S. government
funds and Treasury funds or short-term investment-grade debt funds.
1 if a funds investment focus is one of the following: corporate debt BBB rated
funds, EM local currency debt funds, EM debt funds, or high current yield funds.
1 if a fund investment focus is S&P 500.
1 if a funds investment focus is one of the following: micro/small cap funds; equity
global small company; equity international small company; emerging markets,
China, India, and Latin America.
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
CRSP
Note: corp. = corporate; CRSP = Survivor-bias-free U.S. mutual fund database, Center for Research in Security Prices; EM = emerging market; ETF = exchangetraded fund; HY = high yield; ICI = Investment Company Institute; EMBIG = Emerging Markets Bond Index Global; GARCH = generalized autoregressive
conditional heteroscedasticity; muni. = municipal; S/M/L = small, medium, large; VIX = Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index.
128
rities (based on par value) held by more than 19,000

funds. Institutional investors covered in the database
are U.S. and some European insurance companies;
U.S. mutual funds; top U.S. public pension funds; and
European, Canadian, and Asian mutual funds. Data
are based on disclosure information of security-level
holdings by these institutional investors (especially for
mutual funds and U.S. insurance companies). This
analysis focuses on a subcomponent of these data,
specifically corporate bonds for advanced economies
and both sovereign and corporate bonds for emerging
market economies.
The casual observation on the effects of ownership
concentration on spreads in Figure 3.7 is confirmed
with formal empirical analysis, reported in Annex Figure
3.2.1. The dependent variable is the change in individual bond yield spreads over a benchmark sovereign
bond yield with the same currency and similar maturity
between 2008:Q2 and 2008:Q4 and between 2013:Q1
and 2013:Q2. This change is regressed on various
control factors and measures of mutual fund sector
concentration. The following cross-section model is estimated using a quantile regression approach (for quantile
j=10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th percentile), because a
preliminary analysis indicates the presence of nonlinearities between the dependent and independent variables
(see Annex Table 3.2.1 for the list of variables):
DSpreadij = aj + bSpreadij,t=0

+ gBond Characteristicsij,t=0
+ dConcentrationij,t=0 (3.5)
Control factors are Spread, which is the initial level

of the yield spread to control for the credit risk of
the security; and bond-specific characteristics, including liquidity (bid-ask spread), bond price sensitivity
to interest rate changes (duration), issue size, and
covenants, in line with Manconi, Massa, and Yasuda
(2012). Concentration is measured primarily by the
share of bonds held by the largest 5 funds, but key
results are robust to other definitions, such as the
share held by the largest 10 funds, the share held by
all mutual funds, and the Herfindahl index among
mutual fund investors. All explanatory variables are
measured as of 2008:Q2 or 2013:Q1 to control for
possible endogeneity. Outliers in observed market price
data were reduced by winsorizing the 5 percent tail of
the respective distributions.
Relationship between a funds liquidity risk and its

management
The main mutual fund and ETF data source is the
CRSP survivor-bias-free database covering publicly
offered open-end mutual funds domiciled in the
United States. Even though CRSPs data cover only
U.S.-domiciled funds, CRSP provides more details
on funds fee structures and assets, including quarterly security-level holdings, than other global fund
databases such as EPFR Global or Lipper for Investment Management. These global data are used for
some additional robustness tests or for extending some
analysis to funds domiciled outside the United States.
Data are cleaned for outliers. In line with Coval and
Stafford (2007); Jotikasthira, Lundblad, and Ramadorai (2012); and Jinjarak and Zheng (2014), the data
are excluded if they meet the following conditions:
(1) monthly returns are higher than 200 percent or
lower than 50 percent; (2) monthly change in total
net assets (TNA) is higher than 200 percent or lower
than 100 percent; or (3) fund TNA is less than US$5
million. In addition, for cash balance analysis, portfolio allocation weight data by broad asset types are
discarded if the sum of allocation weights is less than
95 percent or greater than 105 percent. Weights may
have a negative value because of derivatives and securities held in short positions. Outliers are removed by
discarding data when any single weight takes a value of
less than 100 percent.
The roles of portfolio managers and end investors
Following Raddatz and Schmukler (2012), a funds
net investment in a security is divided into fund flows
from end investors and the contribution of the changes
of portfolio weights to the security, determined by
portfolio managers. The term Fj is the total investment
in security j (net of valuation effects) from all funds i
in the sample. This investment is divided into

Fund is holding of asset j
Fj = i Dwij

Total asset j held by all funds in sample

Fund is holding of asset j

+ i
Total asset j held by all funds in sample
Fund flows to i (3.6)
In the equation, wij is the change in portfolio weight

of fund i to asset j, net of valuation effects. The first
term of the equation represents managers choice and
Annex Figure 3.2.1. Drivers of Changes in Credit Spreads during Stress Episodes
(Changes in credit spreads in percentage points, by the levels of the spread changes)
During the global nancial crisis, bonds that were held in a more
concentrated manner were adversely affected, especially those with
high initial spread levels.
1. Global Financial Crisis: U.S. Dollar Bonds Issued in the United States
(Changes between 2008:Q2 and 2008:Q4)
30
25
20
Initial spread level
Other
Top ve funds holding
Total
The same was true for emerging market and developing

economy bonds during the taper shock episode.
2. Taper Shock: Emerging Market and Developing Economies
(Changes between 2013:Q1 and 2013:Q2)
2.0
1.5
Bonds with lower

increase in credit spreads
15
1.0
10
Bonds with higher

increase in credit spreads
0.5
5
0
0.0
5
0.5
10
15
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Percentiles of spread change between 2008:Q2 and 2008:Q4
10th
25th
50th
75th
90th
Percentiles of spread change between 2013:Q1 and 2013:Q2 among

issuers from emerging market and developing economies
Sources: eMaxx; and IMF staff estimates.
the second represents end investors choice. Then, the

variance of Fj is calculated as the sum of each components variation. This variance is estimated on a quarterly basis for all funds covered in the CRSP database
for the period 2005:Q12014:Q4, excluding securities
held by fewer than five funds.
class i, month t, and benchmark j ) is estimated with

share-class fixed effects and year fixed effects as in
Chen, Goldstein, and Jiang (2010), and using robust
standard errors. An analogous specification was run
including the interaction terms with benchmark performance instead of excess return over benchmark.
Fund flows analysis
Fund flowsit = b0 Benchmark Performancejt1
This analysis studies the drivers of monthly net flows

for U.S. mutual funds and ETFs at the funds shareclass level for open-end bond and equity funds, covering the period 19982014.49 Explanatory variables
include fund performance and benchmark performance, the VIX, and various fund characteristics (size,
age, clientele, purchase and redemption fees, fund
types, and the liquidity of the underlying asset classes).
The list of variables used in the analysis is explained
in Annex Table 3.2.1. The following model (for share
+ b1 Performanceit1 + b2VIXt
+ b3 HIGH_VIXDt + b4VIXt
HIGH_VIXDt
+ lFund Characteristicsi
+ dPerformanceit1
Fund Characteristicsi (3.7)
49A fund may issue several classes of shares. The only difference
across share classes is fees. Funds TNA means the sum of TNA of
each share class issued by the fund.
130
The test for convexity in the flow-performance relationship follows a piecewise-linear specification as in Sirri
and Tufano (1998) and Ferreira and others (2012). This
approach measures different linear slopes for the lowest
1.0
20th, middle 60th, and top 20th percentiles of performance. Each month, funds are ranked according to their
performance, ranging from zero (poorest performance) to
one (best performance). The following model is estimated,
Fund flowsit = b0 Benchmark Performancejt1
the cash balance shows a U-shaped pattern with respect

to fund flows (Figure 3.12), the model estimates a
different coefficient for funds with large outflows (fund
flows below d = 1.5 percent of TNA).51
Cashit = b1Flow volatilityit + b2Fund flowit
+ b1VIXt + b2HIGH_VIXDt
+ b3I(Fund flowit < d) + b4Fund flowit
+ b3VIXt HIGH_VIXDt
I(Fund flowit < d)
+ lFund Characteristicsi
+ lFund Characteristicsi (3.9)
+ d1Lowi,t1 + d2Midi,t1
+ d3Highi,t1, (3.8)
in which the three levels of relative performance are

defined as follows:
Lowi,t1 = min{0.2, Ranki,t1}
Midi,t1 = min{0.6, Ranki,t1 Lowi,t1}
Highi,t1 = Ranki,t1 (Lowi,t1 + Midi,t1) Rank [0,1]
Analysis of redemption fees in times of stress
This analysis examines the role of redemption fees during times of stress. It covers two stress events: the 2008
global financial crisis and the taper episode in 2013. We
compute the difference between average flows before
the crisis periods (May to August 2008 and December
2012 to April 2013) and average flows during the stress
periods (September to December 2008 and May to
September 2013) for funds with high and low redemption fees. Funds are classified as having low redemption
fees if redemption fees are equal to zero. Funds are
classified as having high redemption fees if redemption
fees are greater than or equal to 0.03 percent in 2008
and 0.01 percent in 2013.50 Flows are standardized by
the beginning-of-period TNA. For 2008, the focus is on
equity funds because there is evidence of flight to quality into bond funds. For 2013, the focus is on emerging
market equity and bond funds.
Brand name effect analysis

Flagship shocks for large AMCs are identified as follows:
First, a shock happens when a funds flow-to-TNA ratio
is below the median of its peer group (those with the same
Lipper investment objective code) by 10 percentage points
or more. Second, a fund with a shock is identified as
flagship when its TNA is the largest of the funds administered by the same AMC (a fund family) at the end of the
month before the shock. Third, the flagship shock corresponds to a large AMC if the flagship funds asset manager
was among the top 25 as measured by end-year TNA for
the shock year or any of the previous four years.
There are brand name effects if, in the three
months including and after the flagship shock (s, s+1,
s+2; where s is the event month), funds in the same
family receive significantly lower inflows relative to
comparator funds outside the family.52 For each event
(period s), a separate cross-sectional regression model
is estimated for the difference between the cumulative
net inflows to each fund i between dates s and s+2 and
the median cumulative net inflows for funds with the
same investment objective j. Explanatory variables are
lagged excess return, age, and a flagship family dummy.
Cumulative Fund flowij_{s,s+2}
Median(CumulativeFund flowj_{s,s+2})
= b1Performanceis1 + b2Ageit
+ b3Family Dummy(i I s)
Cash holdings analysis
for all events s and for all funds i with
Drivers of fund cash holdings are investigated by

estimating the model in equation (3.9). For share class
i and quarter t, the model is estimated with a pooled
panel regression at the share-class level, including year
fixed effects and using robust standard errors. Because
investment objective j
50The 2013 analysis studies emerging market funds, and therefore

yields very few observations when using the 0.03 threshold.
(3.10)
51The cash holdings empirical analysis excludes sectoral, hedged,

and short equity funds.
52Some of the identified flagship events overlap. Overlapping cases
are treated as a single event and the family dummy is set to 1 if a
share class belongs to either of the affected flagships families.
I s identifies the funds (at share-class level) that

are managed by the same AMC that manages the
shocked flagship fund (excluding the flagship itself).
Systemic risk
Systemic risk is measured for the system of mutual
funds, banks, and insurance companies from advanced
economies.
Mutual funds NAV and total net asset data are from
Lipper. For each of the three fund domicile areas
(the United States, Europe, and other advanced
economies) and the five asset classes (advanced
economy equities, advanced economy sovereign
bonds, advanced economy corporate bonds, emerging market equities, and emerging market bonds),
a sample consisting of the top 100 funds, measured
by total net assets, was selected, resulting in 1,500
funds. Data covering January 2000 to November
2014 were cleaned by dropping funds with fewer
than 10 observations and excluding observations
with weekly NAV returns of less than 60 percent
or greater than 80 percent.
For the banking and insurance sectors, weekly
returns are computed using Thomson Reuters equity
indices for European and U.S. banks and insurance
companies.
The systems return is computed as the average of
funds, banks, and insurance returns weighted by
their relative asset size. Data on total assets of banks,
insurance companies, and mutual funds are from
quarterly flow-of-funds data for the United States
and the euro area. An alternative measure using a
simple average was also used, yielding similar results.
Systemic risk is estimated following the static
CoVaR approach put forward by Adrian and Brunnermeier (2011), using quantile regressions. First, the
returns of the system are regressed on the returns of
each individual institution i when that institution has
the lowest 5th percentile returns:
RtSystem,i = ai + biR it + eit . (3.11)
Then, CoVaR is computed as the VaR of the system
conditional on institution i being in distress (defined as
when its return Ri is below its 5 percent VaR, VaRi5%):
i + bi R i = a
i bi VaRi5%. (3.12)
CoVaRi = a
The contribution to systemic risk of an institution i is
computed as the difference between the CoVaRi when
132
institution i is in distress and the CoVaRi when institution i has median return (CoVaRi):
DCoVaRi = CoVaRi5% CoVaRi50%

= bi (VaRi5% VaRi50%). (3.13)
The relationship between fund size and its contribution to systemic risk is examined with the following
cross-section regression model:
DCoVaRij = Constantj + aVaRi + gLogsizei

+ dReturni + ei . (3.14)
The model controls for asset class ( j) specific fixed

effects and fund is risk (VaR) and return (average in
the sample period). Fund size is the log of average size
in U.S. dollars over the sample period. Fixed effects are
positive and significant for advanced economy equities
and emerging market equities and bonds, negative for
advanced economy sovereign bonds, and not significant for advanced economy corporate bonds. All the
other coefficients for control variables are significant
and positive at the 5 percent level. The coefficient for
size is positive and significant at the 10percent level.
Alternative regressions that allow the parameters on
VaR, size, and returns to vary by asset class show qualitatively similar results.
References
Acharya, Viral, Ravi Anshuman, and Kiran Kumar. 2014. Foreign Fund Flows and Stock Returns: Evidence from India.
Unpublished. New York University.
Adam, Tim, and Andr Guettler. Forthcoming. Pitfalls and
Perils of Financial Innovation: The Use of CDS by Corporate
Bond Funds. Journal of Banking and Finance.
Adrian, Tobias, and Markus K. Brunnermeier. 2011. CoVaR.
Working Paper 17454, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Allen, Franklin, and Gary Gorton. 1993. Churning Bubbles.
Review of Economic Studies 60 (4): 81336.
Arora, Navneet, and Hui Ou-Yang. 2001. Explicit and Implicit
Incentives in a Delegated Portfolio Management Problem:
Theory and Evidence. Working Paper, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Basak, Suleyman, and Anna Pavlova. 2014. Asset Prices and
Institutional Investors. American Economic Review 103 (5):
172858.
, and Alexander Shapiro. 2008. Offsetting the Implicit
Incentives: Benefits of Benchmarking in Money Management. Journal of Banking and Finance 32 (9): 1882993.
Ben-Raphael, Azi, Shmuel Kande, and Avi Wohl. 2011. The

Price Pressure of Aggregate Mutual Fund Flows. Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis 46 (2): 585603.
Bikhchandani, Sushil, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. 1992.
A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom and Cultural Change
as Informational Cascades. Journal of Political Economy 100:
9921026.
BlackRock. 2014a. ETFs Help Improve Market Stability.
October.
. 2014b. Fund Structures and Systemic Risk Mitigants.
Viewpoint, September.
Borensztein, Eduardo, and Gaston Gelos. 2003. A Panic Prone
Pack? The Behavior of Emerging Market Mutual Funds. IMF
Staff Papers 50 (1): 4363.
Broner, Fernando A., Gaston Gelos, and Carmen M. Reinhart.
2006. When in Peril, Retrench: Testing the Portfolio Channel of Contagion. Journal of International Economics 69 (1):
20330.
Brown, Nerissa, Kelsey Wei, and Russ Wermers. 2013. Analyst
Recommendations, Mutual Fund Herding, and Overreaction
in Stock Prices. Management Science 60 (1).
Buffa, Andrea, Dimitri Vayanos, and Paul Woolley. 2014. Asset
Management Contracts and Equilibrium Prices. Working
Paper 20480, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Calvo, Guillermo A., and Enrique G. Mendoza, 2000. Rational
Contagion and the Globalization of Securities Markets.
Journal of International Economics 51 (1): 79113.
Cao, Charles, Eric Chang, and Ying Wang. 2008. An Empirical
Analysis of the Dynamic Relationship between Mutual Fund
Flow and Market Return Volatility. Journal of Banking and
Finance 32 (10): 211123.
Center for European Policy StudiesEuropean Capital Markets
Institute (CEPS-ECMI). 2012. Rethinking Asset Management from Financial Stability to Investor Protection and
Economic Growth. Report of a CEPS-ECMI Task Force.
Cetorelli, Nicola. 2014. Hybrid Intermediaries. Federal Reserve
Bank of New York Staff Reports 705.
Chakravorti, Suji, and Subir Lall. 2003. Managerial Incentives
and Financial Contagion. Working Paper 200321, Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Chen, Qi, Itay Goldstein, and Wei Jiang. 2010. Payoff Complementarities and Financial Fragility: Evidence from Mutual
Fund Outflows. Journal of Financial Economics 97 (2):
23962.
Chevalier, Judith, and Glenn Ellison. 1997. Risk Taking by
Mutual Funds as a Response to Incentives. Journal of Political Economy 106 (6): 1167200.
Choi, Nicole, and Richard W. Sias. 2009. Institutional Industry
Herding. Journal of Financial Economics 94 (3): 46991.
Chordia, Tarun. 1996. The Structure of Mutual Fund Charges.
Journal of Financial Economics 41 (1): 339.
Collins, Sean, and Christopher Plantier. 2014. Are Bond
Mutual Fund Flows Destabilizing? Examining the Evidence
from the Taper Tantrum. Working Paper, Investment Company Institute, Washington.
Coval, Joshua, and Erik Stafford. 2007. Asset Fire Sales (and
Purchases) in Equity Markets. Journal of Financial Economics
86 (2): 479512.
Dasgupta, Amil, and Andrea Prat. 2006. Financial Equilibrium
with Career Concerns. Theoretical Economics 1 (1): 6793.
Deli, Daniel, and Raji Varma. 2002. Closed-end versus Openend: The Choice of Organizational Form. Journal of Corporate Finance 8 (1): 127.
Desender, Kurt. 2012. Ownership Structure and Stock Price
Performance during Turbulent Financial Markets. Unpublished, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Deutsche Bank. 2014. ETF Annual Review and Outlook. January
16.
Diamond, Douglas W., and Philip H. Dybvig. 1983. Bank
Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity. Journal of Political
Economy 91 (3): 40119.
Dow, James, and Gary Gorton. 1997. Noise Trading, Delegated
Portfolio Management, and Economic Welfare. Journal of
Political Economy 105 (5): 102450.
Edelen, Roger. 1999. Investor Flows and the Assessed Performance of Open-end Mutual Funds. Journal of Financial
Economics 53 (3): 43966.
, and Jerold Warner. 2001. Aggregate Price Effects of
Institutional Trading: A Study of Mutual Fund Flow and
Market Returns. Journal of Financial Economics 59:
195220.
Elliott, Douglas. 2014. Systemic Risk and the Asset Management Industry. Economic Studies at Brookings, Brookings
Institution, Washington.
European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA).
2014. Asset Management in Europe: Facts and Figures: 7th
Annual Review. European Fund and Asset Management
Association, Brussels.
European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). 2012.
Guidelines for Competent Authorities and UCITS Management Companies. ESMA/2012/832EN, Paris.
Ferreira, Miguel, Aneel Keswani, Antonio Miguel, and Sofia
Ramos. 2012. The Flow-Performance Relationship
around the World. Journal of Banking and Finance 36 (6):
175980.
Feroli, Michael, Anil K. Kashyap, Kermit Schoenholtz, and
Hyun Song Shin. 2014. Market Tantrums and Monetary
Policy. Chicago Booth Research Paper 1409, University of
Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago.
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). 2011.
Understanding Mutual Fund Classes. Investor Alert, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Washington.
Financial Stability Board (FSB). 2011. Potential Financial Stability Issues Arising from Recent Trends in Exchange-Traded
Funds. Financial Stability Board, Basel.
. 2013. Strengthening Oversight and Regulation of
Shadow Banking: Policy Framework for Strengthening
Oversight and Regulation of Shadow Banking Entities. FSB

Policy Document, Financial Stability Board, Basel.
Financial Stability Board (FSB), International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and World Bank. 2011. Financial Stability Issues in
Emerging Market and Developing Economies. Report to
the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,
Financial Stability Board, Basel.
Financial Stability Board (FSB) and International Organization
of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). 2014. Assessment
Methodologies for Identifying Non-bank Non-insurer Global
Systemically Important Financial Institutions. Consultation
Document, Financial Stability Board, Basel.
. 2015. Assessment Methodologies for Identifying Nonbank Non-insurer Global Systemically Important Financial
Institutions. The Second Consultation Document, Financial
Stability Board, Basel.
Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). 2014. Notice Seeking Comment on Asset Management Products and Activities.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington. http://www
.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/rulemaking/Pages/open-notices.aspx.
Frazzini, Andrea, and Owen A. Lamont. 2008. Dumb Money:
Mutual Fund Flows and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns.
Froot, Kenneth A., Paul G. J. OConnell, and Mark S. Seasholes. 2001. The Portfolio Flows of International Investors.
Gelos, Gaston. 2011. International Mutual Funds, Capital Flow
Volatility, and Contagion: A Survey. IMF Working Paper
11/92, International Monetary Fund, Washington.
Greenwood, Robin, and David Thesmar. 2011. Stock Price
Fragility. Journal of Financial Economics 102 (3): 47190.
Grinblatt, Mark, Sheridan Titman, and Russ Wermers. 1995.
Momentum Investment Strategies, Portfolio Performance,
and Herding: A Study of Mutual Fund Behavior. American
Economic Review 85 (5): 1088105.
Haldane, Andrew. 2014. The Age of Asset Management?
Speech at the London Business School, April 4.
Hau, Harald, and Sandy Lai. 2010. The Role of Equity Funds
in the Financial Crisis Propagation. Research Paper No.
1135, Swiss Finance Institute, Geneva.
Igan, Deniz, and Marcelo Pinheiro. 2012. The Effects of Relative Performance Objectives on Financial Markets. MPRA
Paper 43452, University Library of Munich.
Ilyina, Ana. 2006. Portfolio Constraints and Contagion in
Emerging Markets. IMF Staff Papers 53 (3): 35174.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2012. Macrofinancial
Stress TestingPrinciples and Practices. Washington.
. 2014. Staff Guidance Note on Macroprudential
Policy. Washington.
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).
2011. Principles on Suspensions of Redemptions in Collective Investment Schemes. Madrid.
Investment Company Institute (ICI). 2014a. The Closed-end
Fund Market, 2013. ICI Research Perspective 20 (1).
134
. 2014b. ICI Factbook 2014. Washington: Investment

Company Institute.
. 2014c. Understanding Exchange-Traded Funds: How
ETFs Work. ICI Research Perspective 20 (5).
Jinjarak, Yothin, and Huanhuan Zheng. 2014. Granular Institutional Investors and Global Market Interdependence. Journal
of International Money and Finance 46: 6181.
Jotikasthira, Chotibhak, Christian Lundblad, and Tarun
Ramadorai. 2012. Asset Fire Sales and Purchases and the
International Transmission of Funding Shocks. Journal of
Finance 67 (6): 201550.
Lakonishok, Josef, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny. 1992.
The Impact of Institutional Trading on Stock Prices. Journal
of Financial Economics 32 (1): 2344.
Liang, Nellie. 2015. Asset Management and Financial Stability.
Presentation at the Brookings Institution, January 9.
Ma, Linlin, Yuehua Tang, and Juan-Pedro Gomez. 2013.
Portfolio Manager Compensation in the U.S. Mutual Fund
Industry. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2024027 or http://dx.doi
.org/10.2139/ssrn.2024027.
Manconi, Alberto, Massimo Massa, and Ayako Yasuda. 2012.
The Role of Institutional Investors in Propagating the
Crisis of 200708. Journal of Financial Economics 104 (3):
491518.
Massa, Massimo, and Rajdeep Patgiri. 2009. Incentives and
Mutual Fund Performance: Higher Performance or Just
Higher Risk Taking? Review of Financial Studies 22 (5):
1777815.
Massa, Massimo, and Zahid Rehman. 2008. Information Flows
within Financial Conglomerates: Evidence from the BanksMutual Funds Relation. Journal of Financial Economics 89
(2): 288306.
Maug, Ernst, and Narayan Naik. 2011. Herding and Delegated
Portfolio Management: The Impact of Relative Performance
Evaluation on Asset Allocation. Quarterly Journal of Finance
1 (2):26592.
McKinsey. 2013. Financial Globalization: Retreat or Reset?
McKinsey Global Institute.
Metrick, Andrew, and Ayako Yasuda. 2011. Venture Capital
and Other Private Equity: A Survey. European Financial
Management 17 (4): 61954.
Moodys. 2010. Sponsor Support Key to Money Market
Funds. August 9.
Morningstar. 2012. Synthetic ETFs under the Microscope: A
Global Study. Morningstar ETF Research.
Office of Financial Research (OFR). 2013. Asset Management
and Financial Stability. Office of Financial Research, U.S.
Department of Treasury, Washington.
Pensions and Investments and Towers Watson. 2014. The Worlds
500 Largest Asset Managers. Towers Watson, New York.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 2013. Asset Management 2020: A
Brave New World. London: PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Raddatz, Claudio, and Sergio Schmukler. 2012. On the
International Transmission of Shocks: Micro-Evidence from
Mutual Fund Portfolios. Journal of International Economics

88 (2): 35774.
Rajan, Raghuram G. 2005. Has Financial Development Made
the World Riskier? Paper presented at The Greenspan Era:
Lessons for the Future. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Symposium, Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Ross, Stephen. 2004. Compensation, Incentives, and the Duality of Risk Aversion. Journal of Finance 59 (1): 20725.
Scharfstein, David, and Jeremy Stein. 1990. Herd Behavior and
Investment. American Economic Review 90 (3): 46579.
Schmidt, Lawrence, Allan Timmermann, and Russ Wermers.
2013. Runs on Money Market Mutual Funds. Working
Paper, January. http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~lschmidt/Schmidt_
Timmermann_Wermers.pdf.
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).
2014. SIFMA Asset Management Groups Comments to the
FSB and SEC in Response to OFR Study and in Regards to
Separate Accounts. Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, New York and Washington.
Sirri, Erik R., and Peter Tufano. 1998. Costly Search and
Mutual Fund Flows. Journal of Finance 53 (5): 1589622.
Stein, Jeremy C. 2014. Comments on Market Tantrums and

Monetary Policy, a paper by Michael Feroli, Anil K. Kashyap,
Kermit Schoenholtz, and Hyun Song Shin. Paper presented
at the U.S. Monetary Policy Forum, New York, New York,
February 28.
Stracca, Livio. 2006. Delegated Portfolio Management: A Survey of the Theoretical Literature. Journal of Economic Surveys
20 (5): 82348.
TheCityUK. 2012. Private Equity 2012.
Vayanos, Dimitri. 2004. Flight to Quality, Flight to Liquidity,
and the Pricing of Risk. Working Paper 10327, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Warther, Vincent A. 1995. Aggregate Mutual Fund Flows and
Security Returns. Journal of Financial Economics 39 (2-3):
20935.
Wermers, Russ. 1999. Mutual Fund Herding and the Impact
on Stock Prices. Journal of Finance 54 (2): 581622.
Wurgler, Jeffrey. 2010. On the Economic Consequences of
Index-Linked Investing. Working Paper 16376, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Asset Management Industry and Financial Stability: International Monetary Fund - April 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Asset Management Industry and Financial Stability: International Monetary Fund - April 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Asset Management Industry and Financial Stability: International Monetary Fund - April 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER

THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY

International Monetary Fund | April 2015

industry now intermediates assets amounting to $76

Figure 3.1. Financial Intermediation by the Asset Management Industry Worldwide

The asset management industry intermediates substantial amounts of

2. Size of Investment Funds in Selected Advanced Economies

Trillions of U.S. dollars (right scale)

International Monetary Fund | April 2015

Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and IMF

CHAPTER 3 THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL STABILITY

Open-end funds, exchange-traded funds, and private equity funds

1. Asset Managers Intermediation by Investment Vehicles

Private Hedge funds

2. Recent Growth of Selected Investment Vehicles

Open-end Money market Exchange- Private equity Hedge funds

and money market funds are already well recognized.

International Monetary Fund | April 2015 95

Figure 3.3. Key Domiciles of Mutual Funds

(Mutual funds by domicile, percent of total assets under management,

International Monetary Fund | April 2015

many market-making activities, possibly contributing to

investors are often seen to be less sophisticated and

CHAPTER 3 THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL STABILITY

the main issues featured in the public discussion, backed

Moreover, macroprudential oversight frameworks

Financial Stability Risks of Plain-Vanilla Funds:

Risk Transmission Channels

International Monetary Fund | April 2015 97

Yes with cap

Yes with cap

Yes with cap

Yes with cap

The delegation of investment decisions introduces

International Monetary Fund | April 2015

incentives is to evaluate funds relative to their peers

CHAPTER 3 THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL STABILITY

Figure 3.4. Unleveraged Open-End Funds and Systemic Risk

Information gap between managers and investors

Source: IMF staff.

Easy redemption options can create run risks due

International Monetary Fund | April 2015 99

Box 3.1. Possible Incentive Problems Created by Delegated Management

ContagionBy contrast, if fund managers become

Outcome: Change in Net

Net Inflows to Fund

Additional Fee Income

10% below benchmark

International Monetary Fund | April 2015

CHAPTER 3 THE ASSET MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL STABILITY

Box 3.1 (continued)

contracts, the depth of the market may be reduced

Box 3.2. Fund Share Pricing Rules and First-Mover Advantage

Table 3.2.1. Comparison of Fund Pricing Rules

U.S. Open-End Mutual Fund

Total Costs of Selling Assets

Transaction Costs Incurred

Transaction Costs Incurred

Transaction Costs Incurred by