We find evidence of widespread stale pricing in bond mutual funds and the resulting risks of dilution and fragility. A principal driver of this phenomenon is the high illiquidity of funds’ holdings, which makes accurate pricing difficult and provides funds with greater discretion over valuation. Consequently, net asset values (NAVs) are extremely stale and fund returns are predictable over several days and weeks, particularly during market crises. Opportunistic traders withdraw capital from overvalued funds, exacerbating the risk of fund runs, while buy-and-hold investors face annual dilution of around $1.2 billion. Our results highlight adverse consequences of insufficient fair valuation practices that remain pervasive even after corrective regulations that followed the 2003 market-timing scandal.

Corporate bond mutual funds engage in liquidity transformation, raising concerns among academics and policy makers that large redemptions will lead to asset fire sales. We find little evidence, however, that bond fund redemptions drive fire sale price pressure after controlling for time-varying issuer-level information that could also affect funds’ trading decisions, using a novel identification strategy that exploits same-issuer bonds held by funds with differing outflows. We attribute our findings, which contrast with those found for equity funds, to funds’ liquidity management strategies. Bond funds maintain significant liquidity cushions and selectively trade liquid assets, allowing them to absorb investor redemption risk without excessively liquidating corporate bonds, even during the 2008 financial crisis.

Fluctuations in investor demand significantly affect firms’ valuation and access to capital. To quantify their real effects, we develop a dynamic investment model, incorporating both the demand and supply sides of capital. Strong investor demand relaxes financial constraints and facilitates equity issuance and investment, while weak demand encourages opportunistic share repurchases, crowding out investment. We estimate the model using indirect inference, matching the endogenous relationship between investor demand and firm policies. Our estimation reveals that demand fluctuations are important drivers of firm-level investment and economy-wide capital misallocation, accounting for 26.9% of dispersion in MPK and 23.4% of productivity losses.