Using distinct features of corporate bond exchange-traded funds (ETFs), I find that financial innovation has a significant and long-term positive valuation impact on the systemically important underlying securities. A one standard deviation increase in ETF ownership reduces high-yield and investment-grade bond spreads by 20.3 and 9.2 basis points, respectively, implying an average monthly price increase of 1.03% and 0.75%. Two novel quasi-natural experiments exploit exogenous changes in ETF eligibility to confirm the effect. Examining theoretical explanations for the effect, I find that ETFs decrease liquidity trader participation, increase institutional ownership, and insignificantly or negatively impact the liquidity of individual bonds.

Performance chasing is pervasive in active mutual funds, index mutual funds, and ETFs, with positive flow-performance sensitivity evident in both broad-based and niche funds and for the skill and nonskill components of returns. The sensitivity of ETFs is greatest, with insignificant differences between active and index mutual funds. The heightened sensitivity of ETFs is not explained by benchmark design or exchange trading, and is amplified by institutional ownership. Institutional trading of ETFs follows a momentum strategy, rather than flow management or benchmarking. Institutional herding and the outsourcing of investment management to model portfolios heightens the performance sensitivity of ETF flows.

This paper examines whether ETFs are a unique source of corporate bond fragility. Relative to mutual funds, ETFs cater to high-liquidity-demand investors, facilitate positive feedback strategies, and transmit outflows to corporate bonds via near-proportional trading. Comparing yield spread changes of bonds from the same issuer, we show that ETFs create flow-induced pressure during the Taper Tantrum, a period of market turmoil. Redemptions used to maintain the relative price efficiency of the largest and most liquid ETFs lead to significantly higher yield spreads for 4 months before reverting. The pattern indicates ETFs amplify the effects of negative fundamental shocks.

Modern mutual fund families include more than active mutual funds (AMFs). AMFs in families with greater index mutual fund (IMF) presence generate higher category-adjusted gross returns. Performance is positively related to the levels of passive and active fees, suggesting moral hazard. Intrafamily competition from IMFs in the same Morningstar category incentivizes managers to exert effort. Financial resources do not contribute to the performance effect. Cross-trading with IMFs occurs with some positive effect on performance. ETFs have no impact on performance. IMFs reduce flow-performance sensitivity and flow volatility of AMFs in the family. IMFs and ETFs uniquely contribute to expense pressure.