Conference Agenda

We show that after the introduction of leverage ratio constraints on bank-affiliated dealers, bond mutual funds have engaged in more liquidity provision in investment-grade corporate bonds and that the performance of funds with liquidity-supplying strategies has benefited. Not only have regulations transferred profits associated with liquidity provision in the corporate bond market to mutual funds, but the liquidity and returns of investment-grade corporate bonds have become more exposed to redemptions from the bond mutual fund industry, suggesting that the regulations may have made investment-grade corporate bonds more volatile. Accordingly, we observe that investment-grade corporate bonds more exposed to leverage ratio constraints experienced a more severe deterioration in liquidity and returns at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Can ETFs trigger fire sales in illiquid assets? We develop and empirically examine a model where an authorized participant (AP) holds bond inventory and connects the ETF to the underlying bond market. For redemptions, the AP acts as a buffer between the two markets, holding redeemed bonds to preserve the mark-to-market value of her inventory and avoid a fire sale. The AP behaves asymmetrically for creation and transmits ETF purchases to the bond market to boost mark-to-market values. The AP’s costs of handling creations/redemptions are paid by liquidity-demanding ETF investors via premiums/discounts. We document new empirical facts motivated by the model, and provide a novel explanation for why ETFs holding more liquid bonds traded at larger discounts than those holding illiquid bonds during the COVID-induced sell-off in March 2020. Our findings show that ETFs have advantages over mutual funds in managing illiquid assets.

Private debt funds are the fastest growing segment of the private capital market. We eval- uate their risk-adjusted returns, applying a cash-flow based method to form a replicating portfolio that mimics their risk profiles. Using both equity and debt benchmarks to measure risk, a typical private debt fund produces an insignificant abnormal return to its investors. However, gross-of-fee abnormal returns are positive, and using only debt benchmarks also leads to positive abnormal returns as funds contain equity risks. The rates at which private debt funds lend appear to be high enough to offset the funds’ fees and risks, but not high enough to exceed both their fees and investors’ risk-adjusted rates of return.