ArticlePDF Available

Tokenized index funds: A blockchain-based concept and a multidisciplinary research framework


Abstract and Figures

In response to the bleak prospects of today’s financial markets, a wave of financial and technological innovations emerges, bringing about potential benefits but also new challenges. For instance, tokenized securities are a new kind of blockchain-based asset enabling price stability, programmability, pseudonymity, and transaction efficiency, while also introducing new regulatory challenges and uncertainties. Conversely, index funds are an established investment device enabling broad diversification in a cost-effective, tax-efficient, and transparent way, while potentially also contributing to concentration of market power, intermediation cost, access barriers for underbanked or impoverished investors, increased market volatility, and human behavioral challenges. This paper conceptually develops Tokenized Index Funds as a hybrid approach that combines the benefits of tokenized securities and index funds while alleviating some of their drawbacks. Based thereupon, a corresponding multidisciplinary research framework is presented, with sample research questions along the activities of design and features, business and economics, management and organization, and law and regulation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
- 1 -
Tokenized Index Funds: A Blockchain-based Concept and a
Multidisciplinary Research Framework
Raffaele F Ciriello, University of Sydney,
This is a preprint of an article published in the International Journal of Information
Management at
Abstract: In response to the bleak prospects of today’s financial markets, a wave
of financial and technological innovations emerges, bringing about potential
benefits but also new challenges. For instance, tokenized securities are a new kind
of blockchain-based asset enabling price stability, programmability,
pseudonymity, and transaction efficiency, while also introducing new regulatory
challenges and uncertainties. Conversely, index funds are an established
investment device enabling broad diversification in a cost-effective, tax-efficient,
and transparent way, while potentially also contributing to concentration of
market power, intermediation cost, access barriers for underbanked or
impoverished investors, increased market volatility, and human behavioral
challenges. This paper conceptually develops Tokenized Index Funds as a hybrid
approach that combines the benefits of tokenized securities and index funds while
alleviating some of their drawbacks. Based thereupon, a corresponding
multidisciplinary research framework is presented, with sample research
questions along the activities of design and features, business and economics,
management and organization, and law and regulation.
Keywords: Blockchain, Index Funds, Tokenized Securities, Stablecoins, Finance,
- 2 -
1. Introduction
Young people face grim financial prospects, as many currently live through their second
once-in-a-lifetime economic downturn: The aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis still
affects most economies while the long-term socioeconomic consequences of the COVID-19
pandemic remain to be seen (Dwivedi et al. 2020; He et al. 2020; Pandey & Pal 2020). As ever
more people live paycheck to paycheck, with millions of households under- or unbanked,
very few can accumulate savings, let alone invest for retirement (FDIC 2017; Friedman 2020).
Further challenges of these generations include soaring housing prices, stagnating wage
growth, rising inequality, a demographic transition towards an ageing population,
automation-induced job displacement, as well as record-high individual, corporate, and
government debt (Bernstein & Raman 2015; CreditSuisse 2021; IMF 2021; WEF 2020). Even
those lucky enough to have the means to save and invest face diminishing expected returns
for conventional assets such as stocks and bonds, for which earnings decrease constantlyin
the case of bonds even into negative returns (Economist 2021).
In response to this bleak outlook, financial and technological innovations have sprawled in
recent decades, enabling new opportunities but also introducing unresolved challenges. Such
innovations include index funds, which emerged in the 1970’s, enabling broad diversification
in a cost-effective, tax-efficient, and transparent way (Cremers et al. 2016; Fernando 2020; Ferri
2006; Lim 2019). Index funds have grown massively to one of the dominant investment
instruments, especially after the widespread adoption of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) (Sun
2021). Despite the general scientific consensus on the relative advantage of index funds and
ETFs over actively managed funds and hedge funds, index funds also face several challenges
(Cremers et al. 2016; Dichev & Yu 2011; Fama & French 2010; Sharpe 1991). Chiefly among
these challenges are a concentration of market power to the few largest providers;
intermediation cost charged by stockbrokers, exchanges, trading platforms, fund managers,
financial advisors, and others; access barriers for underbanked or impoverished individuals;
and human psychology leading to suboptimal trading, asset allocation, and fund selection
behavior (Ben-David et al. 2018; Boldin & Cici 2010; Choi et al. 2010; Sherrill et al. 2020).
More recently, blockchain-based assets emerge along with great public attention,
controversy, and speculation (Frizzo-Barker et al. 2020; Hughes et al. 2019; Upadhyay 2020).
- 3 -
The ongoing public discourse on blockchain generally tends to fall into two polarized camps
of enthusiasts and sceptics fiercely disagreeing over what blockchain-based assets may or may
not be or become (Torbensen & Ciriello 2019). Compared to conventional assets, such as stocks
and bonds, blockchain-based assets have only existed for little over a decade, during which
extreme volatility was the norm, especially considering the spectacular rollercoaster rides that
accompanied first-mover cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ether in the last five years
(CoinMarketCap 2021a). At the same time, staggering market capitalizations in excess of two
trillion USD and increased adoption by large institutional investors and corporations make it
hard to dismiss blockchain-based assets altogether (Kovach 2021; Pirus 2021).
Against this backdrop, the most recent innovations in blockchain-based assets include
tokenized securities (Eichengreen 2019; Kranz et al. 2019; Smith et al. 2019). Contrary to
conventional cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, whose value derives largely from artificial
scarcity and expected future demand (i.e., speculation), tokenized securities use blockchain
for the issuance, representation, and trading of an underlying asset, hence deriving their value
from a collateral. First applications of tokenized securities include tokenized real estate,
commodities, and fiat currency (Eichengreen 2019; EuropeanCommission 2020; Smith et al.
2019). Notably, so-called stablecoins (i.e., tokenized fiat currency) are increasingly adopted to
counter the rampant volatility of cryptocurrencies by offering price stability while also
enabling the benefits of a blockchain-based asset, such as decentralization, transparency,
security, and programmability. However, due to being pegged to fiat currency, stablecoins
are unattractive as an investment, difficult to sustain economically, and subject to
counterparty risk due to recentralization (Eichengreen 2019).
In a nutshell, index funds and tokenized securities are promising financial and
technological innovations offering potential benefits for individual investors while also
introducing new challenges. Prior finance research has not yet explored the potentials of using
blockchain technology to tokenize index funds; neither has prior blockchain research drawn
attention to the tokenization of index funds. Sometimes two things can be improved by
putting them together. As synergies between index funds and tokenized securities are not yet
understood, this paper explores how blockchain technology enables the tokenization of index funds.
This research question is answered by conceptually developing the Tokenized Index Fund
(TIF) as a hybrid, blockchain-based approach that combines the benefits of tokenized
- 4 -
securities and index funds while alleviating some of their drawbacks, which are summarized
in sections 2 and 3. Next, Section 4 shows how TIFs can be implemented via ETF-backed
collateralization and demand-side arbitrage, enabling peer-to-peer transactions,
fractionalization, customizability, access, liquidity, automation, transparency, and secure
record-keepingall of which could significantly benefit investors, intermediaries, firms, and
technology providers. Section 5 presents a corresponding multidisciplinary research
framework with sample research questions along the activities of design and features,
business and economics, management and organization, and law and regulation. Section 6
discusses theoretical and practical implications and Section 7 sums up key takeaways.
2. Tokenized Securities
Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin or Ether, are contested. Enthusiasts propagate their value as
peer-to-peer payment system and digital store of value (Salcedo & Gupta 2021). Nobel Prize-
winning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman condemn them as bubble,
Ponzi scheme, and environmental disaster (Panisch 2018). Legendary investor Warren Buffet
called Bitcoin “rat poison squared” (Kim 2018). For many, cryptocurrency remains a solution
in search for a problem (Frizzo-Barker et al. 2020; Lodha 2020).
Volatility is a major roadblock to cryptocurrency adoption. Bitcoin’s volatility relative to
the US Dollar is ten times higher than between conventional currencies (Yermack 2013).
People are unlikely to pay for a coffee in Bitcoin if this sets them back five dollars today and
fifty dollars tomorrow. Coffee baristas would not be entirely happy either to receive their pay
in something that could lose over 90% of its worth over night. Due to this extreme volatility,
cryptocurrency trading is viewed to be largely driven by short-term speculation (Georg &
Dube 2017), rather than long-term investment (Ervin 2020). Generally, a speculator hopes to
profit from short-term price fluctuations, whereas an investor acquires an asset with the
expectation that the invested capital appreciates and generates earnings over the long-term
(Nguyen 2020).
Compared to conventional assets (such as stocks, bonds, or commodities), cryptocurrencies
have only been around for little over a decade. Hence, their suitability as a long-term
investment vehicle is uncertain. Complicating matters, the adoption of blockchain-based
assets is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that needs to account not only for
- 5 -
market factors (such as volatility, liquidity, and other aspects of market structure) and
technical factors (such as the design of the blockchain technology), but also institutional
factors (such as legislation and governance) (Janssen et al. 2020; Upadhyay 2020). Hence, first-
generation cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin or Ether, are often viewed as an object of
speculation, unsuitable for prudent long-term investors (Georg & Dube 2017; Nguyen 2020).
Tokenized securities can curtail the rampant volatility of cryptocurrencies by pegging their
value to a collateral, typically fiat money (such as US Dollars or Euros), commodities (such as
gold or silver), real estate, or other cryptos (Eichengreen 2019; Smith et al. 2019). For instance,
Tether is the most widely used, fully collateralized stablecoin with a one-to-one peg to the US
Dollar. In this case, a corporation (Tether Limited) maintains this peg by issuing or redeeming
Tethers (tokenized US dollars) for the respective deposit or withdrawal of US dollars to or
from a regularly audited bank account. Tether’s trading volume now exceeds that of all other
cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (CoinMarketCap 2021c).
Contrary to central banks, which usually maintain a peg by controlling the supply of a
currency (such as the Danish Kroner peg to the Euro), demand-side arbitrage between Tether
users and Tether Limited leads to a stabilization of the peg. Demand-side arbitrage has
effectively maintained the Tether peg to the US dollar, even throughout the Coronavirus-
induced economic downturn in 2020 (Lyons & Viswanath-Natraj 2020). By extension,
tokenization of securities could offer similar advantages to other kinds of assets, such as real
estate or stocks (EuropeanCommission 2020; Smith et al. 2019).
2.1. Benefits of Tokenized Securities
Due to their novelty, the expected benefits of tokenized securities are uncertain, but
somewhat better understood in the special case of stablecoins (EuropeanCommission 2020).
Stablecoins are seen as favorable to their more speculative counterparts even by
cryptocurrency critics, as they offer price stability and predictability (Eichengreen 2019). This
makes stablecoins suited for payment, though less so as an investment that is expected to
grow in value over time. Compared to the conventional US Dollar, stablecoins offer the
pseudonymity, accessibility, speed, and security of peer-to-peer transactions offered by other
cryptocurrencies (Ali et al. 2020).
- 6 -
If widely adopted, government and public institutions could use stablecoins to create a
digital currency that would facilitate new modes of fiscal policy. For instance, in economic
downturns, central banks could simply drop digital currency into the wallets of eligible
citizens, as an efficient way to distribute stimulus checks. Central banks around the world are
exploring the potentials of digital currency (Eichengreen 2019), as are corporations. Notably,
PayPal currently rolls out support to pay in various cryptocurrencies (BBC 2020b), and
Facebook plans to roll out its native cryptocurrency Libra which, very similar to stablecoins,
would be pegged to fiat currency (BBC 2020a).
2.2. Drawbacks of Tokenized Securities
Tokenized securities and stablecoins like Tether are very much in their infancy, facing
many known and unknown drawbacks (Tething problems, if you will). These include:
Recentralization. An issuer needs to act as central entity to issue and redeem tokens, as is the
case with the Tether Limited corporation for Tether. This contradicts the principles of
decentralization, on which the many cryptocurrencies are built, questioning the desirability
of such a solution (Eichengreen 2019; Lyons & Viswanath-Natraj 2020).
Counterparty risk. As a result of recentralization, tokenized securities introduce a counterparty
risk: users need to trust the issuer and its auditors to maintain the peg through sufficient
collateralization and appropriate issuance and redemption of tokens. Notably, Tether has
been suspected to maintain insufficient reserves of its collateral (Eichengreen 2019).
Declining purchasing power. Even assuming widespread adoption, the very characteristic of
being pegged to fiat currency makes stablecoins unsuitable as a store of value or investment.
Like fiat currency, stablecoins are almost guaranteed to decline in real purchasing power over
time due to inflation (Eichengreen 2019). In times of ongoing expansive monetary policy and
low interest rates, which have dominated modern economies throughout more than a decade,
stablecoins are equally unsuitable as cash for investing.
Questionable economic sustainability. Declining purchasing power is not only a nuisance for
investors, but also a threat to the sustainability of stablecoins. Because the collateral must be
committed in low-yielding currency (in the case of Tether Limited, in US Dollars), the only
way by which the issuer can generate earnings (and thus cover the expenses of maintaining
the peg), is to charge transaction fees. Whether or not these fees make stablecoins an attractive
- 7 -
alternative to simple bank transactions remains to be seen. At the time of writing, only 24
stablecoins are operational at the international level, all of which are expected to incur higher
long-term cost than other crypto-assets (EuropeanCommission 2020).
The following section shows that some of these disadvantages can be overcome by
tokenizing index funds, rather than fiat currency.
3. Index Funds
An index fund follows a rule-based investing strategy to hold a representative collection
of stocks in the same ratio as an underlying stock index, modifying holdings only as
companies enter or leave the index (Fernando 2020; Ferri 2006; SEC 2020). Index funds may
not only hold stocks but also bonds, commodities, or other assets. For simplicity, the focus is
here on stock market index fundsthe dominant form of index fundsbut the key concepts
apply to other kinds of index funds. A stock market index is a statistical tool that tracks the
performance of a basket of company stocks (Feuerriegel & Gordon 2018). The most widely
observed stock market index today is the S&P500, which tracks the performance of 500 large
US stocks. Its counterparts in other countries include the German DAX, British FTSE100,
Japanese Nikkei255, or Australian S&P/ASX200. Global stock market indices (such as the
MSCI World or FTSE All-World) or industry-specific stock indices (such as the NASDAQ-
100), are also commonly observed (ETFdb 2020).
Index funds have grown massively since the mid-1970s, particularly since the authorization
of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the US in 1992 and in Europe in 1999. Initially frowned
upon and ridiculed by competitors for the underwhelming ambition to receive just average
market returns, legendary investor John Bogle founded the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, which
tracks the S&P500 index, with relatively modest assets of $11 million in 1975 (Ferri 2006). The
fund passed the $100 billion milestone in 1999 and the Vanguard Group is one of the largest
fund providers in the world today alongside its competitor Blackrock Inc., both of manager
over US$7 trillion in assets as of 2020. Index funds now constitute nearly 14% of the US stock
market, up from 7% in 2010, and nearly half of all US equity fund assets are now passively
managed via index funds (Cox 2019; Feuerriegel & Gordon 2018; Lim 2019). From 2007
through 2017, index funds received $1 trillion in new net cash while actively managed funds
experienced a net outflow of $659 billion over the same period (ICI 2017; Lim 2019).
- 8 -
3.1. Benefits of Index Funds
Investing in index funds has many advantages over other investment strategies (Fernando
2020; Lim 2019; Lin 2015):
Broad diversification. Compared to actively managed mutual funds or individual stock picking
strategies, where an investor actively selects and allocates capital to a usually small number
of stocks, index investing allows the investor to passively participate in the performance of
thousands of stocks by buying and holding just one position.
Cost-efficiency. An index investor can simply buy and hold an index fund and thereby gain
exposure to the entire index, rather than screening large numbers of stocks to evaluate
whether an individual stock is worth buying, holding, or selling, and then paying commission
on each individual trade. Since an index fund uses a rule-based approach rather than picking
individual stocks, the cost of active management can be reduced. The largest index ETFs have
annual fees of 0.03% of the amount invested or even lower, whereas actively managed mutual
funds usually charge upwards of 1% annually in fees (Lin 2015). Over long periods of time,
fees can diminish returns substantially.
Tax-efficiency. Because only one index fund is held in lieu of many individual stocks, index
funds are tax efficient and can even provide a tax advantage, particularly if they are held in a
taxable account.
Liquidity. Unlike hedge funds or mutual funds, index ETFs can be traded throughout the day
on stock exchanges, just like individual stocks.
Transparency. Compared to mutual funds, which do not always disclose their up-to-date
constituents, index ETF providers must publish their constituents daily (SEC 2019).
These benefits appeal to a broad range of investors. Notably, Nobel-prize laurate Eugene
Fama and co-author Kenneth French have shown that actively managed funds will either
underperform their benchmark index or the excess return will be consumed by fees, salaries,
and other cost (Fama & French 2010). If some active fund managers outperform the market, it
is dollar for dollar at the expense of other active fund managers a zero sum game, in fact a
negative one after expenses (Sharpe 1991). Some active fund managers have also begun to
seize the benefits of ETFs. A recent study by Sherill et al. (2020) has shown that mutual funds’
transition to their benchmark ETF reduces their potential for downturn and performance lag.
- 9 -
A related study by Cremers et al. (2016) has shown that competitive pressure from index funds
improves mutual fund performance, but only if these adjust fees and holdings accordingly.
Simply put, most investors would be better advised to buy low-cost index funds. To illustrate
this point, Warren Buffet famously bet in 2007 against hedge fund managers that most funds
will underperform the S&P500 index over a 10-year period after fees he won the bet by a
huge margin (Buffett 2017; Floyd 2019). This should not come as a surprise to anyone remotely
familiar with the academic literature on mutual fund performance since Jensen’s (1968)
seminal paper, after which studies upon studies have shown that hedge funds reliably
underperform index funds, in many cases so badly that they barely outperform the risk-free
rate of government bonds, with the worst-performing hedge funds often charging the highest
fees (Amin & Kat 2003; Baks et al. 2001; Chen et al. 2004; Cumby & Glen 1990; Dichev & Yu
2011; Gil-Bazo & Ruiz-Verdú 2009).
In short, the empirical evidence clearly suggests that hedge funds should be avoided, and that
passively managed index funds should be preferred over actively managed mutual funds.
3.2. Drawbacks of Index Funds
As with every financial instrument, some drawbacks need to be considered with index funds.
Tracking error. It is impossible to track an index with perfect accuracy, as the statistical models
for sampling an index cannot be 100 percent accurate. Tracking error refers to the difference
between the performance of an index fund and its underlying index. Well-run S&P500 index
funds have tracking errors of 5 basis points (5-hundreths of one percent) or less, however
larger tracking errors are possible, particularly for smaller and more specialized index funds
(Rudolf et al. 1999; Strub & Baumann 2018; Tergesen & Young 2004).
Intermediation cost. Investors need to purchase index fund shares from a stock exchange via a
stockbroker who may charge trading fees, brokerage commission, and other fees. Other
intermediaries incurring additional costs may include banks, financial advisors, or tax
Concentration of market power. As the index fund industry continues to grow, the three largest
index fund providers (BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street) each manage trillions of US
dollars in assets. As these intermediaries can potentially hold very high stakes and therewith
associated voting rights in indexed companies (Fichtner et al. 2017), investors need to trust
- 10 -
them to act in their best interest. Such intermediation typically prompts blockchain
proponents to argue for disintermediation (Ali et al. 2020; Frizzo-Barker et al. 2020; Janssen et
al. 2020; Upadhyay 2020).
Barriers to access. Investors need access to capital markets to purchase index fund shares. Such
access is not granted in countries without a stock exchange, which include many developing
nations (Wikipedia 2020). Even in countries with a stock exchange, many people cannot invest
in index funds because they are underbanked or impoverished. For instance, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) estimated in 2017 that 6.5% of US households (around
14 million adults) were unbanked, meaning no one in the household has a bank account and
hence cannot access stock exchanges either (FDIC 2017). Even those who might in principle
have access to capital markets might not be able to afford investing in them, as index fund
shares can only be traded in one piece. With about half of Americans living paycheck to
paycheck (Friedman 2020), one can reasonably assume that a large part of the population
cannot afford the sometimes hundreds of dollars per piece at which index funds are traded.
Moreover, many otherwise qualified investors might simply not know about index funds.
Increased volatility: Early findings from recent studies suggest that ETF ownership and index
membership may increase the negative autocorrelation in stock prices and hence increase
volatility of stocks (Ben-David et al. 2018). In times of market downturns, selling hysteria
among ETF holders may put further downward pressure on financial markets.
Behavioral challenges: Even assuming that index funds are a rational investment, behavioral
studies have shown that people often behave in unexpected and irrational ways. For instance,
the so-called index fund paradoxpeople’s tendency to select suboptimal index funds based
on past performance rather than more effective criteria such as fees has been empirically
documented for over two decades (Boldin & Cici 2010; Choi et al. 2010; Elton et al. 2002).
Further, studies suggest that investor demand for advice is inelastic: people prefer to pay
higher fees for advisors that recommend suboptimal products. This explains why index funds
have not brought down fees substantially several decades after their invention (Sun 2021).
Complicating matters, investors often trade ETFs frequently due to their high liquidity and
ease of trade, thereby diminishing potential returns and creating information inefficiencies
(Glosten et al. 2021). Lastly, the advent of highly specialized ETFs (such as leveraged ETFs,
sector ETFs, smart beta ETFs, etc.) has made index fund choice more complex.
- 11 -
The following section shows that Tokenized Index Funds - a combination of tokenized securities
and index funds - can help to overcome some of these disadvantages.
4. Tokenized Index Funds: A Blockchain-Based Concept
Tokenized Index Funds (TIFs) are a special case of tokenized security that uses blockchain
technology to tokenize an index fund. Much in the same way that a stablecoin such as Tether
matches the price of the US dollar by pegging its value to a collateralized reserve of US dollars,
a TIF token matches the price of a stock index such as the S&P500 by pegging its value to a
collateralized reserve of ETF shares. Figure 1 illustrates the concept, and the key mechanisms
are explained below.
Figure 1. Tokenized Index Funds: A Blockchain-Based Concept
1) ETF-backed collateralization: To effectively maintain a peg to a stock market index, an issuer
acting as a central legal entity (such as a limited liability corporation, a foundation, or a
consortium of organizations) must verifiably hold ETF reserves tracking the index matched by
the exact same number of TIF tokens to be pegged to the index. As an illustration, an issuer
could hold equal amounts of shares in an S&P500 ETF (or similar) and TIFs as a reserve. This
issuer may use a blockchain token sale (Kranz et al. 2019) to raise funding for ETF shares.
TIF Foundation
TIF User
TIF User
TIF User
Foreign Exchange TIF/Fiat exchange Cryptocurrency
TIF/Crypto exchange
1) ETF-backed
2) Demand-side arbitrage
4) Trade
3) P2P
- 12 -
2) Demand-side arbitrage: Whenever the price of one TIF token deviates from that of one ETF
share, TIF users are incentivized to trade TIF tokens for ETF shares (or vice versa) with the
issuer. Rather than the issuer acting like a central bank that controls the supply of TIF tokens,
TIF users have an incentive to maintain the peg through a demand-side arbitrage mechanism
(Lyons & Viswanath-Natraj 2020).
When the TIF token trades at a premium (one TIF token is more expensive than one ETF share),
TIF users have an incentive to sell ETF shares to the issuer in exchange for TIF tokens (Lyons
& Viswanath-Natraj 2020). The issuer then needs to match the resulting imbalance between its
TIF and ETF reserves by issuing new TIF tokens, hence increasing the amount of TIF tokens in
circulation through which their price will decrease. Conversely, when the TIF trades at a
discount (one TIF token is cheaper than one ETF share), users have an incentive to exchange
TIF tokens for ETF shares with the issuer, who will then redeem the received TIF tokens to
match the resulting decrease of ETF reserves it now holds, thereby reducing the circulating
supply of TIF tokens and increasing their price.
Studies have shown that this demand-side arbitrage mechanism is effective and robust in the
case of Tether, provided that the issuer is trusted, regularly audited, and that there is a
sufficiently large pool of accredited users who can trade tokens for collateral with the issuer
in a sufficiently efficient manner (Lyons & Viswanath-Natraj 2020). The crux is that the issuer
and TIF users, who wish to act as arbitrageurs, would need to be accredited by the financial
regulator to trade equities in exchange for cryptocurrency.
3) Peer-to-peer payment: Like any other cryptocurrency, TIF tokens could be sent to and received
from users via a digital wallet. This would enable a range of use cases that are not possible
with conventional ETF shares. For instance, private individuals could send each other TIF
tokens across national boundaries at very low cost and at very high speed, providing access to
index investing instruments for people who would otherwise not have access to capital
markets or investment services.
Using TIF tokens as a form of payment is also conceivable, since TIF tokens can be expected to
be relatively stable compared to conventional cryptocurrencies. Also, employees could choose
to receive employer contributions into their government-regulated pension accounts (such as
401k in the US or Superannuation in Australia) in the form of TIF tokens, thereby reducing
- 13 -
fees and cost of operation. This would also reduce the need for financial intermediaries, such
as stockbrokers.
4) Trade: The same mechanism enabling peer-to-peer payment would also facilitate
corporations to act as exchanges that trade TIF tokens. For instance, a cryptocurrency
exchange, such as Coinbase or Binance, could facilitate trade between TIF tokens and other
cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ether. Similarly, foreign exchange markets could facilitate
trade between TIF tokens and fiat currency such as US Dollar or Euro. If widely adopted and
pegged against a major global stock index such as the MSCI World, or FTSE All-World, this
would effectively introduce TIF tokens as a global reserve currency that is backed by the world
economy, rather than by the promise of governments and central banks.
4.1. Potential Benefits of Tokenized Index Funds
Fractionalization and access. Contrary to ETF shares that can only be bought in one piece, TIFs
can be broken down into fractions with very small digital units (such as six or more decimal
places), allowing impoverished investors to participate with only few dollars or even cents. In
addition, TIFs would allow people without access to capital markets to participate in the
returns of major stock indices (Roth et al. 2019; Smith et al. 2019). Hence, TIFs could be a way
to increase financial inclusion in emerging markets (Schuetz & Venkatesh 2020).
Disintermediation, cost-efficiency, and premiums. Contrary to index fund shares, which can only
be bought on stock exchanges via stockbrokers from index fund issuers, TIFs provide
investors with the possibility to buy and sell an index-tracking financial instrument directly
from each other, from the central issuing entity, or from cryptocurrency exchanges and foreign
exchanges. This could result in increased price competition and lower fees, especially in the
case of cross-border transfers. Anecdotal evidence suggests transaction cost via stablecoins
tend to be less than one percent of the transferred amount, compared to upwards of two to
four percent for traditional cross-border payments (EuropeanCommission 2020). Moreover,
as with stablecoins, arbitrageurs can profit from premiums (Lyons & Viswanath-Natraj 2020).
Customizability and automation. Due to their digital representation, TIFs are programmable and
extensible, allowing for automation of payments and other generative innovations (Ciriello et
al. 2018b). For instance, TIFs could make pension funds, employer pension schemes, and
government pensions more efficient via smart contracts. This could also reduce the cost of
- 14 -
firm operations, such as dividend payments or share splits (EuropeanCommission 2020).
Additionally, once a wide range of stock market indices would be tokenized, various TIFs
could be combined to allow for fine-grained customized portfolio allocations (Roth et al. 2019;
Smith et al. 2019), enabling market engineering innovations (Notheisen et al. 2017).
Transparency and secure recordkeeping. Due to their representation on a blockchain, ownership
of TIFs can be transparently represented on a distributed network (Ali et al. 2020). This could
also reduce vulnerability of cyberattacks, increase resilience in times of crises (Dwivedi et al.
2020), enhance transparency of investors, accelerate due diligence processes, and lower the
costs of business continuity plans, compared to the common practice of running a parallel
recovery system (EuropeanCommission 2020).
Predictable volatility. TIFs will by nature be as volatile as their underlying index. Compared to
conventional cryptocurrency, the price of TIFs is pegged to a collateral and thus predictable.
While short- and mid-term price fluctuations are impossible to anticipate in any market, TIFs
can be expected to grow in value alongside index ETFs over the long term. The principles of
index investing apply equally to TIFs.
Liquidity. As a result of lowered barriers to entry, publicly traded corporations that are listed
on an index tracked by a TIF will have more access to capital to grow their business, since new
categories of investors can be reached (EuropeanCommission 2020).
Digital nudging: Due to their programmability, TIFs can be designed to nudge people towards
desirable investing behavior (Weinmann et al. 2016). For instance, considering the above
drawbacks of index funds, TIFs could use smart contracts to enforce a minimum holding
period, to encourage long-term investing and prevent excessive trading activity that could
exacerbate market volatility, especially in turbulent times.
4.2. Potential Challenges of Tokenized Index Funds
Regulatory uncertainties. Regulatory frameworks for blockchain-based assets are in their
infancy (Pandey & Pal 2020; Sandner 2020), and hence the regulatory compliance criteria for
issuers and traders would have to be determined. TIFs represent a special category of
tokenized securities, which have seen very little regulatory progress so far. Whereas initial
studies have focused on tokenized securities in the real estate sector (EuropeanCommission
2020; Kumar et al. 2019; Smith et al. 2019), studies on TIFs are inexistent. Existing legal
- 15 -
frameworks in most jurisdictions do not fit well with the use of blockchain in existing financial
market infrastructures (Smith et al. 2019), and a recent study shows that 77 percent of
respondents think regulatory uncertainty will hinder the development of tokenized securities
(EuropeanCommission 2020). From a technical viewpoint, the interoperability of blockchain-
based systems with existing financial markets infrastructure poses a challenge (Ali et al. 2020;
He et al. 2020). Hence, appropriate regulation will be crucial to realize the benefits of TIFs.
Taxation issues. The taxation of capital gains from TIFs depends on whether the financial
regulator regards TIFs as securities, financial derivatives, or commodities. Securities and
derivatives are both strictly regulated, and it is highly uncertain whether TIFs would meet
these regulatory criteria. Over-the-counter traded derivatives are less strictly regulated but
this usually comes at the cost of very complex taxation. Some countries, such as Germany,
regard cryptocurrencies as commodities, which means capital gains are tax-free if the asset has
been held more than one year. Hence, appropriate taxation laws are crucial for TIFs.
Threat of illegal activity and fraud. As with other cryptocurrencies, the pseudonymity of peer-to-
peer payments with TIFs might be used for illegal activities such as tax evasion, money
laundering, drug trade, and so on. Fraud is also very common in the issuance of blockchain-
based assets and hence new guidelines for investor and consumer protection are necessary
(EuropeanCommission 2020).
Threat to market integrity. In the event of extreme market downturns, the issuer might not be
able to settle all transactions without running out of index fund reserves, particularly if the
issuer engages in securities lending or total return swaps with the collateral. Moreover,
assuming TIFs would become systemic at a global scale, their interconnectedness with existing
financial markets could be increased, potentially introducing new forms of systemic risk.
Notably, panic-selling might exacerbate downward pressure during a market downtown
(Ben-David et al. 2018; EuropeanCommission 2020). This adds to the need for appropriate
regulation and legislation to support the development of TIFs.
Uncertain economic viability. It will be challenging for the issuer to maintain the peg in an
economically viable way especially considering the potentially high cost of meeting
regulatory compliance criteria and transaction fees for trading index fund shares for TIFs, as
well as the potentially complex tax implications of such trades. For many investors
- 16 -
(particularly those with access to high quality stock markets, financial services, sufficient
funds, and trust in the existing infrastructure) index funds will likely remain the preferred
choice. As such, TIFs are likely to digitally enhance and complement index funds, rather than
substitute them. Developing appropriate business models will be crucial for success of TIFs.
Counterparty risk. TIFs introduce a counterparty risk in that the issuer is contractually obliged
to maintain the peg. Notably, a moral hazard emerges if a malicious issuer could profit by
selling off all its index ETF and TIF reserves at once and thereby render the TIF worthless in
an instant. Regular audits by independent, trusted accounting firms could help mitigate that
risk. Alternatively, the peg could also be maintained by a decentralized autonomous
organization. By analogy, the USD Coin is a stablecoin pegged to the US Dollar, yet unlike
Tether, a consortium maintains the peg, rather than a single company (Kharif 2018).
Tracking error. Just as index funds can never track an index with perfect accuracy, TIFs can
never track an index fund with perfect accuracy. Hence, to avoid negative feedback loops, one
challenge is to curtail the tracking error, for which sufficient collateralization and a sufficiently
large pool of trustworthy, accredited arbitrageurs are necessary.
Behavioral challenges: As with every technology, people might use TIFs in unanticipated and
unintended ways. In particular, there is still much to learn about the paradoxical effects of
blockchain technology on user behavior (Ciriello et al. 2018a).
5. Tokenized Index Funds: A Multidisciplinary Research Framework
This paper conceptualizes Tokenized Index Funds as a hybrid approach to combine the
benefits of tokenized securities and index funds while alleviating some of their drawbacks.
Rational long-term investors would be well-advised to be skeptical of both stablecoins and
conventional cryptocurrencies. Whereas stablecoins promise to offer lower price volatility
than non-pegged cryptocurrencies, their near-guaranteed declining purchasing power
basically eliminates their attractiveness as an investment. On the other hands, while index
funds introduce a low-cost, broadly diversified, tax efficient, liquid, and transparent
investment vehicle, there are also barriers to access and intermediation cost that limit their
widespread adoption, particularly for underbanked and impoverished investors. Table 1
summarizes and compares the potential benefits and drawbacks of stablecoins, index funds,
and Tokenized Index Funds.
- 17 -
Table 1. Comparison of Stablecoins, Index ETFs, and Tokenized Index Funds
Drawbacks / Challenges
Tether (USDT), USD
Coin (USDC)
Recentralization, counterparty risk,
declining purchasing power,
questionable economic sustainability.
Index ETFs
(SPY), iShares Core
S&P500 ETF (IVV),
Vanguard S&P500 ETF
Tracking error, intermediation cost,
concentration of market power, access
barriers, behavioral challenges.
Index Funds
(Conceptually: this
Regulatory uncertainties, taxation
issues, threat of illegal activity and
fraud, threat to market integrity,
uncertain economic sustainability,
counterparty risk, tracking error,
behavioral challenges.
As there is much to be learned about TIFs, Table 2 presents a multidisciplinary research
framework. Building upon dimensions suggested by earlier IS research frameworks (Aral et
al. 2013; Kranz et al. 2019; Risius & Spohrer 2017), researchers should examine the implications
of TIFs at the level of investors, intermediaries, technologies, and firms. Each level of analysis
contains research questions related to the areas of design and features, business and
economics, management and organization, and law and regulation. While by no means
exhaustive, this could inspire and guide further research on TIFs.
- 18 -
Table 2. Tokenized Index Funds: A Multidisciplinary Research Framework with Sample Research Questions.
Design and Features
Business and Economics
Management and
Law and Regulation
Level of
How TIFs are designed and
their effects.
How TIFs create value and
how value is appropriated.
How TIFs are governed
and what strategies actors
How regulators create and enact
legal frameworks for TIFs.
(Retail and
How can affordances such as
customizability, automation,
transparency, and security
impact TIF adoption?
How do TIF design features
impact investment decisions?
How do TIF design features
impact investor confidence?
How do design features
impact TIF values and stock
valuations over time?
Which factors drive expected
returns from TIFs? What is the
role of the issuer’s reputation?
How can TIF risk be assessed
to optimize portfolios? What
interdependencies emerge
between stablecoins, index
ETFs, and TIFs?
How do volatility, liquidity,
and extreme market
downturns impact TIFs?
How can economic
sustainability of TIFs be
How does issuer
governance impact stock
markets and TIFs?
What motivates private and
institutional investors to
participate in TIFs?
How will TIFs impact their
underlying collateral?
What systemic
interdependencies with
financial markets arise from
Which indices will be most
attractive to investors?
How to strengthen investor
protection in the face of
regulatory uncertainty for TIFs?
What information and reporting
requirements to impose?
How to identify and prevent
fraudulent TIFs? How to
facilitate criminal investigations?
How should financial regulators
regard TIFs (commodity, e-
money, security, or property)?
How to regulate TIF
arbitrageurs? How to regulate
insolvency and complaints?
auditors, service
How can intermediaries
enable trade, custody, and
transfer of TIFs?
How to design smart
contracts for TIFs to integrate
with existing financial
markets and institutions?
How can intermediaries
effectively design the peg to
an index fund collateral?
How can intermediaries create
value and be economically
What kinds of intermediaries
will emerge? Which ones are
at risk of disappearing?
To which degree will TIFs
lead to re- or decentralization
of index fund issuance?
How can emerging or
established intermediaries
organize in an TIF context?
How will existing and
emerging regulations
impact governance of
How can intermediaries
increase confidence and
trust in TIFs?
How can intermediaries protect
and create value for investors?
How can market power be
distributed among TIF issuers?
How can TIF issuers and smart
contracts be audited?
How to regulate reporting
other systems)
How can blockchains be
designed to minimize
tracking error and maximize
security, scalability, and
efficiency of transactions?
Which blockchain
configuration and consensus
mechanism best balances
demands for security,
scalability, and energy-
How to establish
interoperability and
tradability of TIFs across
different platforms?
How do different blockchain
protocols impact the economic
viability of TIFs?
How do different
configurations of ETF-backed
collateralization and demand-
side arbitrage impact the
valuation of TIFs?
How do the valuations of TIFs
and collateral interact?
How can business continuity
be achieved?
How does the smart
contract and blockchain
configuration impact TIF
How can TIF smart
contracts be evaluated?
What is the impact of the
issuer’s governance,
ownership, and control on
TIF adoption and success?
How does the TIF’s smart
contract impact the issuer’s
reputation and
How can TIF smart contracts
become a legal form of
settlement, transaction, and
How to identify and prevent
illegal activities with TIFs?
What technical requirements,
boundaries, and standards
should regulators set on TIF
smart contracts?
How should regulators regard
TIFs for different types of assets
(securities, bonds, commodities,
publicly listed
financial firms)
How can TIFs be designed to
meet governance,
compliance, and risk
requirements of financial
How should sensitive
investor and transaction data
be handled to meet reporting
and privacy requirements of
financial firms?
How will the stock price of
firms listed in a collateralized
index be impacted by TIFs?
Which other use cases exist for
collateralized TIFs? What
other forms of collateral could
be used?
What role do established
financial institutions play for
TIFs (particularly index fund
issuers)? What opportunities
and challenges arise for them?
Will TIFs be more successful
than index ETFs?
What impact will TIFs have
on stock market
Under which conditions
will financial firms use TIFs
alongside or instead of
traditional index funds?
What new business models
will emerge from TIFs?
How will systemic global
TIFs impact the wider
How can TIFs be taxed
efficiently? How to detect and
prevent tax evasion?
How can cross-border TIF
transactions be taxed and
What existing and emerging
financial regulations apply or
need to be adapted to TIFs (e.g.
What capital and information
requirements should be
- 19 -
6. Contributions and Implications
6.1. Research Contributions
The main contribution of this paper is to conceptually develop Tokenized Index Funds and a
corresponding multidisciplinary research framework. Whereas prior research has explored
the potential of tokenized securities for real estate, commodities, and fiat currency
(Eichengreen 2019; EuropeanCommission 2020; Smith et al. 2019), this paper is the first to
propose that TIFs could combine the benefits of tokenized securities and index funds.
Blockchain is a foundational technology enabling exciting opportunities for behavioral IS
research, design science research, and research on the economics of IS (Rossi et al. 2019). Given
the interdisciplinary nature of TIFs at the intersection of blockchain and finance, the IS
research community is ideally positioned to examine this emerging phenomenon from social,
technical, economic, and regulatory perspectives (Beck et al. 2017; Kranz et al. 2019). The
idiosyncratic potential benefits and threats of TIFs represent exciting research opportunities
that researchers should approach in a forward-looking way to design for desirable futures
and to avoid undesirable ones (Frizzo-Barker et al. 2020).
To that end, IS researchers should engage in interdisciplinary research collaborations with
experts in finance, law, regulation, market design, (behavioral) economics, and other related
areas to address the proposed research questions in Table 2. Within this framework,
researchers should explore TIFs through the lens of multiple IS theories and methodologies,
including technology adoption (Dwivedi et al. 2019), cultural values influencing usage
(Salcedo & Gupta 2021), appropriate IT governance arrangements (Riemer et al. 2020), socio-
technical perspectives (Sarker et al. 2019), design science research approaches (Hevner et al.
2004), and digital nudging (Weinmann et al. 2016).
6.2. Implications for Practice
Index funds and blockchain-based assets are on the rise. Both are economically and socially
impactful financial innovations. Index funds have grown steadily over the last decades to one
of the most important investment vehicles (Cox 2019; ICI 2017; Lim 2019). Blockchain-based
assets are increasingly adopted and gain economic significance (Kovach 2021; Pirus 2021).
- 20 -
This paper proposes that TIFs could lower the barriers to access and intermediation cost of
index funds while also offering more predictable volatility than conventional
cryptocurrencies and higher expected long-term growth in value compared to other
blockchain-based assets. In addition, TIFs could enable generative innovations by means of
their programmability. At the same time, unresolved challenges related to design, features,
business models, economics, management, organization, and governance need to be
addressed. Private and institutional investors, financial services firms, tech companies,
pension funds, governments, and legislators would all be well-advised to proactively embrace
change and shape desirable futures with the help of TIFs while also being mindful of the
social, economic, technological, and ethical challenges involved.
Private and institutional investors should take stock of their investment portfolios and be
mindful of the rapid pace at which novel financial and technological innovations emerge.
Index funds are and will most likely continue to be a proven way for broadly diversified long-
term investing. Blockchain-based assets are still in a discovery phase, and many of them will
not survive the early hype, but tokenized securities and TIFs are worth keeping an eye on.
Financial services firms should brace for the impact of blockchain that stands to transform the
finance industry in many ways (Ali et al. 2020). TIFs present huge opportunities but also
threats to large index fund providers, notably BlackRock or Vanguard, but also stockbrokers,
trading platforms, banks, and financial advisors, who would be well-advised to evaluate TIFs
as both an opportunity and threat to their business model. It would not be the first time for a
digital technology to disproportionately benefit early adopters while wiping out laggards.
Tech companies seeking to disrupt the finance industry through blockchain could find
inspiration in the TIF concept. Decisive questions include: how to create economically
sustainable business models, how to accredit a sufficient pool of qualified arbitrageurs, and
how to establish a trustworthy organization to act as TIF issuer.
Pension funds should consider the potential of TIFs and related blockchain technologies to
automate their operations and make pension schemes more cost-efficient and flexible due to
the programmability of blockchain-based assets.
Governments and legislators should put TIFs on top of their blockchain regulation agenda to
develop regulatory frameworks that enable financial and technological innovation through
- 21 -
blockchain and TIFs for social good. Pressing issues of taxation, market integrity, consumer
protection, as well as cybercrime prevention need to be addressed. Funding research on these
issues is vital.
6.3. Limitations and Future Research Direction
Readers should be mindful not to equate a concept with a business plan. Although TIFs are
conceptually conceivable and potentially beneficial, there are numerous possible futures for
TIFs. Whether these futures are desirable or undesirable depends largely on well-founded
design, business models, governance, and regulation. This paper makes a first conceptual step
in that direction and outlines many paths for future studies, but much further research is
required to answer the many open research question within and beyond the provided
multidisciplinary framework (Table 2).
7. Conclusions
As new financial and technological innovations emerge rapidly in response to the troubled
economic waters of recent years, IS researchers face exciting new opportunities to study their
benefits and threats in a forward-looking way to guide design for desirable futures.
This paper conceptualizes the Tokenized Index Fund (TIF) as a hybrid approach to index
funds and blockchain-based assets. It outlines numerous potential benefits (fractionalization,
access, disintermediation, cost-efficiency, premiums, customizability, automation,
transparency, secure record-keeping, predictable volatility, liquidity, digital nudging) and
challenges (regulatory uncertainties, taxation issues, threat of illegal activity and fraud, threat
to market integrity, uncertain economic sustainability, counterparty risk, tracking error,
behavioral challenges).
There is much to be learned about the design, features, business models, economics,
management, organization, legislation, and regulation of TIFs. IS researchers should engage
in multidisciplinary research collaborations with experts in these fields to explore how TIFs
can be designed, commercialized, governed, and regulated, and how TIFs would impact retail
and institutional investors, intermediaries (such as exchanges, auditors, and service
providers), technologies (blockchain, middleware, interfaces, and other systems), and firms
(issuers, publicly listed companies, and financial firms).
- 22 -
Ali, O., Ally, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2020). The State of Play of Blockchain Technology in the Financial
Services Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Information Management,
54, 102199.
Amin, G. S., & Kat, H. M. (2003). Hedge Fund Performance 1990-2000: Do the" Money Machines"
Really Add Value? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(2), 251-274.
Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., & Godes, D. (2013). Introduction to the Special IssueSocial Media and
Business Transformation: A Framework for Research. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 3-13.
Baks, K. P., Metrick, A., & Wachter, J. (2001). Should Investors Avoid All Actively Managed Mutual
Funds? A Study in Bayesian Performance Evaluation. The Journal of Finance, 56(1), 45-85.
BBC. (2020a). Facebook 'Rethinks' Plans for Libra Cryptocurrency. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
BBC. (2020b). Paypal Allows Bitcoin and Crypto Spending. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
Beck, R., Avital, M., Rossi, M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2017). Blockchain Technology in Business and
Information Systems Research. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(6), 381384.
Ben-David, I., Franzoni, F., & Moussawi, R. (2018). Do ETFs Increase Volatility? The Journal of Finance,
73(6), 2471-2535.
Bernstein, A., & Raman, A. (2015). The Great Decoupling: An Interview with Erik Brynjolfsson and
Andrew Mcafee. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 66-74.
Boldin, M., & Cici, G. (2010). The Index Fund Rationality Paradox. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(1),
Buffett, W. (2017). Berkshire Hathaway: Annual Report. Retrieved 16 July 2021 from
Chen, J., Hong, H., Huang, M., & Kubik, J. D. (2004). Does Fund Size Erode Mutual Fund
Performance? The Role of Liquidity and Organization. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1276-1302.
Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2010). Why Does the Law of One Price Fail? An Experiment
on Index Mutual Funds. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(4), 1405-1432.
Ciriello, R. F., Beck, R., & Thatcher, J. (2018a). The Paradoxical Effects of Blockchain Technology on
Social Networking Practices. 39th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2018),
San Francisco, USA.
Ciriello, R. F., Richter, A., & Schwabe, G. (2018b). Digital Innovation. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 60(6), 563-569.
CoinMarketCap. (2021a). Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts, and Market Capitalizations. Retrieved 20 April
2021 from
CoinMarketCap. (2021b). Tether. Retrieved 30 December 2020)
CoinMarketCap. (2021c). Tether: Price, USD Market Cap, and Info. CoinMarketCap. Retrieved 20 April
2021 from
Cox, J. (2019). Passive Investing Automatically Tracking Indexes Now Controls Nearly Half the Us Stock
Market. CNBC. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
CreditSuisse. (2021). Global Wealth Report. Retrieved 20 April 2021 from
Cremers, M., Ferreira, M. A., Matos, P., & Starks, L. (2016). Indexing and Active Fund Management:
International Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 120(3), 539-560.
Cumby, R. E., & Glen, J. D. (1990). Evaluating the Performance of International Mutual Funds. The
Journal of Finance, 45(2), 497-521.
Dichev, I. D., & Yu, G. (2011). Higher Risk, Lower Returns: What Hedge Fund Investors Really Earn.
Journal of Financial Economics, 100(2), 248-263.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., Gupta, B., Lal, B.,
Misra, S., & Prashant, P. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Information Management
- 23 -
Research and Practice: Transforming Education, Work and Life. International Journal of Information
Management, 55, 102211.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-Examining the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Utaut): Towards a Revised Theoretical
Model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719-734.
Economist. (2021). Young People Stand to Make Dismal Returns on Their Investments. Retrieved 20 April
2021 from
Eichengreen, B. (2019). From Commodity to Fiat and Now Crypto: What Does History Tell Us? NBER
Working Paper 25426. Retrieved 16 July 2021 from
Elton, E. J., Gruber, M. J., & Busse, J. A. (2002). Are Investors Rational? Choices among Index Funds.
In Investments and Portfolio Performance (pp. 145-172). World Scientific.
Ervin, E. (2020). The Case for Cryptocurrency: Why Even the Most Cynical Bitcoin Bear Should Consider
Investing and How to Get Started. Forbes. Retrieved 30 December 2020)
ETFdb. (2020). Largest ETFs: Top 100 ETFs by Assets. ETF Database. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
EuropeanCommission. (2020). Commission Staff Working Document. Impact Assessment. Accompanying
the Document: “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in
Crypto-Assets and Amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937. European Commission. Retrieved 12 January
2021 from
Fama, E., & French, K. (2010). Luck Versus Skill in the Cross-Section of Mutual Fund Returns. The
Journal of Finance, 65(5), 1915-1947.
FDIC. (2017). FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
Fernando, J. (2020). Guide to Index Fund Investing. Investopedia. Retrieved 30 December 2020 2020
Ferri, R. (2006). All About Index Funds. McGraw Hill.
Feuerriegel, S., & Gordon, J. (2018). Long-Term Stock Index Forecasting Based on Text Mining of
Regulatory Disclosures. Decision Support Systems, 112(1), 88-97.
Fichtner, J., Heemskerk, E. M., & Garcia-Bernardo, J. (2017). Hidden Power of the Big Three? Passive
Index Funds, Re-Concentration of Corporate Ownership, and New Financial Risk. Business and
Politics, 19(2), 298-326.
Floyd, D. (2019). Buffett's Bet with the Hedge Funds: And the Winner Is …. Investopedia. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Friedman, Z. (2020). 49% of Americans Expect to Live Paycheck to Paycheck This Year. Forbes. Retrieved
30 December 2020 from
Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P. A., Adams, P. R., Mentanko, J., Ha, D., & Green, S. (2020).
Blockchain as a Disruptive Technology for Business: A Systematic Review. International Journal of
Information Management, 51, 102029.
Georg, C.-P., & Dube, Q. (2017). Bitcoin Is a Highly Speculative Investment. Why Caution Is Required. The
Conversation. Retrieved 13 January 2021 from
Gil-Bazo, J., & Ruiz-Verdú, P. (2009). The Relation between Price and Performance in the Mutual
Fund Industry. The Journal of Finance, 64(5), 2153-2183.
Glosten, L., Nallareddy, S., & Zou, Y. (2021). ETF Activity and Informational Efficiency of Underlying
Securities. Management Science, 67(1), 22-47.
He, W., Zhang, J., & Li, W. (2020). Information Technology Solutions, Challenges, and Suggestions for
Tackling the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Information Management, 102287.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems
Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
- 24 -
Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Misra, S. K., Rana, N. P., Raghavan, V., & Akella, V. (2019). Blockchain
Research, Practice and Policy: Applications, Benefits, Limitations, Emerging Research Themes and
Research Agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 114-129.
ICI. (2017). Chapter Two: Recent Mutual Fund Trends. Investment Company Institute. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
IMF. (2021). Global Housing Watch. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 20 April 2021 from
Janssen, M., Weerakkody, V., Ismagilova, E., Sivarajah, U., & Irani, Z. (2020). A Framework for
Analysing Blockchain Technology Adoption: Integrating Institutional, Market and Technical
Factors. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 302-309.
Jensen, M. C. (1968). The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964. The Journal of Finance,
23(2), 389-416.
Kharif, O. (2018). Circle Joins Ranks of Stable Crypto Coins with Dollar Token. Bloomberg. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Kim, T. (2018). Warren Buffett Says Bitcoin Is ‘Probably Rat Poison Squared’. CNBC. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Kovach, S. (2021). Tesla Buys $1.5 Billion in Bitcoin, Plans to Accept It as Payment. CNBC. Retrieved 20
April 2021 from
Kranz, J., Nagel, E., & Yoo, Y. (2019). Blockchain Token Sale. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 61(6), 745-753.
Kumar, S., Talasila, V., & Pasumarthy, R. (2019). A Novel Architecture to Identify Locations for Real
Estate Investment. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102012.
Lim, D. (2019). Index Funds Are the New Kings of Wall Street. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Lin, T. (2015). Reasonable Investor(S). Boston University Law Review, 461(1), 58-79.
Lodha, A. (2020). Bitcoin: A Solution Looking for a Problem. Livewire. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
Lyons, R. K., & Viswanath-Natraj, G. (2020). What Keeps Stablecoins Stable? NBER Working Paper
27136. Retrieved 16 July 2021 from
Nguyen, J. (2020). Investing Vs. Speculating: What's the Difference? Investopedia. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Notheisen, B., Hawlitschek, F., & Weinhardt, C. (2017). Breaking Down the Blockchain Hype
Towards a Blockchain Market Engineering Approach. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference
on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, June 5-10, 2017 (pp. 1062-1080).
Pandey, N., & Pal, A. (2020). Impact of Digital Surge During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Viewpoint on
Research and Practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102171.
Panisch, A. (2018). On Cryptofreude: Why Financial Insiders Delight in Deriding Cryptocurrencies.
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
Pirus, B. (2021). Here’s How Institutional Investors Ignited Bitcoin’s Rally to $40,000. Cointelegraph.
Retrieved 20 April 2021 from
Riemer, K., Ciriello, R., Peter, S., & Schlagwein, D. (2020). Digital Contact-Tracing Adoption in the
COVID-19 Pandemic: IT Governance for Collective Action at the Societal Level. European Journal of
Information Systems, 29(6), 731-745.
Risius, M., & Spohrer, K. (2017). A Blockchain Research Framework. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 59(6), 385-409.
- 25 -
Rossi, M., Mueller-Bloch, C., Thatcher, J. B., & Beck, R. (2019). Blockchain Research in Information
Systems: Current Trends and an Inclusive Future Research Agenda. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 20(9), 14-33.
Roth, J., Schär, F., & Schöpfer, A. (2019). The Tokenization of Assets: Using Blockchains for Equity
Crowdfunding. Available at SSRN 3443382. Retrieved 16 July 2021 from
Rudolf, M., Wolter, H.-J., & Zimmermann, H. (1999). A Linear Model for Tracking Error
Minimization. Journal of Banking & Finance, 23(1), 85-103.
Salcedo, E., & Gupta, M. (2021). The Effects of Individual-Level Espoused National Cultural Values
on the Willingness to Use Bitcoin-Like Blockchain Currencies. International Journal of Information
Management, 60, 102388.
Sandner, P. (2020). Crypto-Europe: Comprehensive European Regulation for Crypto Assets Has Been
Presented. Forbes. Retrieved 12 Janaury 2021 from
Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019). The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for the IS
Discipline: Its Historical Legacy and Its Continued Relevance. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-720.
Schuetz, S., & Venkatesh, V. (2020). Blockchain, Adoption, and Financial Inclusion in India: Research
Opportunities. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 101936.
SEC. (2019). Sec Adopts New Rule to Modernize Regulation of Exchange-Traded Funds. US Securities and
Exchange Commission. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
SEC. (2020). Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF). US Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Sharpe, W. F. (1991). The Arithmetic of Active Management. Financial Analysts Journal, 47(1), 7-9.
Sherrill, D. E., Shirley, S. E., & Stark, J. R. (2020). ETF Use among Actively Managed Mutual Fund
Portfolios. Journal of Financial Markets, 51, 100529.
Smith, J., Vora, M., Benedetti, H., Yoshida, K., & Vogel, Z. (2019). Tokenized Securities and Commercial
Real Estate. MIT Digital Currency Initiative Working Paper. Retrieved 16 July 2021 from
Strub, O., & Baumann, P. (2018). Optimal Construction and Rebalancing of Index-Tracking Portfolios.
European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 370-387.
Sun, Y. (2021). Index Fund Entry and Financial Product Market Competition. Management Science,
67(1), 500-523.
Tergesen, A., & Young, L. (2004). Index Funds Aren't All Equal. Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved 30
December 2020 from
Tether. (2020a). Retrieved 30 December 2020)
Tether. (2020b). Tether: Fiat Currencies on the Bitcoin Blockchain. White Paper. Retrieved 30 December
2020 from
Torbensen, A. C. G., & Ciriello, R. F. (2019). Tuning into Blockchain: Challenges and Opportunities of
Blockchain-Based Music Platforms.
Upadhyay, N. (2020). Demystifying Blockchain: A Critical Analysis of Challenges, Applications and
Opportunities. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102120.
WEF. (2020). This Chart Shows How Debt-to-GDP Is Rising around the World. World Economic Forum.
Retrieved 20 April 2021 from
Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2016). Digital Nudging. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 58(6), 433-436.
Wikipedia. (2020). List of Countries without a Stock Exchange. Retrieved 30 December 2020 from
Yermack, D. (2013). Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An Economic Appraisal. NBER Working Paper 19747.
Retrieved 16 July 2021 from
... To answer this question, we utilize a qualitative case study approach, analyzing how creativity came to fruition at WealthTech, a multinational banking software provider. WealthTech serves as a prototypical instance of an ISD organization where creativity is crucial, due to the complex, fast-paced, and ever-evolving nature of banking and finance that demands constant innovation (Ali et al., 2020;Ciriello, 2021;Leong et al., 2017;Naseer et al., 2021;Wang et al., 2022;Zahedi et al., 2016). Our case study yields empirical insights by illustrating how creativity emerged as innovators and facilitators in ISD teams empathetically interacted during idea generation and evaluation, visualized ideas using technologies purposed for representation and collaboration, and aligned their creative styles with the formal and informal structures provided by the organization. ...
... WealthTech, a prototypical case of an Information Systems Development (ISD) organization, heavily relies on creativity due to the fast-paced, complex, and ever-evolving nature of business software (Gaskin et al., 2018;Hassan & Mathiassen, 2018;Lyytinen et al., 2016;Wang et al., 2022). Particularly in the banking and finance sector, creativity and innovativeness allow software organizations to gain competitive advantage and stand out in a crowded market, to create new digital products and services that meet their customers' evolving demands, as well as to attract new customers, expand market share, and increase revenue (Ali et al., 2020;Ciriello, 2021;Leong et al., 2017;Naseer et al., 2021;Zahedi et al., 2016). Hence, WealthTech was fit for developing theory on the emergence of creativity in ISD teams. ...
Full-text available
Despite the crucial role of creativity in the dynamic and intricate practice of Information Systems Development (ISD), our understanding of its emergence in ISD teams is limited. Prior research has focused on isolated interventions into the people, structure, task, and technology components of ISD practices. However, the syner-gistic interactions between these components are often overlooked, resulting in interventions that may be ineffective or counterproductive. Drawing on Leavitt's Socio-Technical Systems (STS) theory, this paper explores creativity as a synergistic outcome of interactions within and between the people, structure, task, and technology components. Our qualitative study at a multinational banking software provider reveals that creativity emerged from within-component interactions when innovators and facilitators in ISD teams interact empathetically during idea generation and evaluation, visualize ideas using technologies for representation and collaboration, and align their creative styles with the organization's formal and informal structures. Additionally, we found that interactions between the STS components in ISD team practices created stimulating environments for creativity to emerge. Our study advances an STS perspective on the emergence of creativity in ISD teams, emphasizing synergistic interactions between people, structure, task, and technology rather than isolated interventions. Practically, our findings provide insights into how IS professionals can nurture creativity by fostering empathetic leadership, aligning creative styles with organizational structures, and balancing tensions between control and drift.
... These may include regulatory frameworks, technological infrastructure and the need for investor education and awareness. Governments and regulatory bodies must adapt and create an enabling environment that balances investor protection with innovation (Ciriello, 2021;Tian et al., 2020;Zetzsche et al., 2020). In summary, tokenization holds significant promise for investment in developing economies. ...
Full-text available
Purpose: Tokenization offers several benefits for investment in many countries, including Thailand. It provides increased liquidity by enabling fractional ownership, allowing investors to buy and sell smaller portions of an asset. This opens up investment opportunities to a broader range of individuals who may not have had access to traditional investment avenues. This study aims to explore the factors that influence the utilization of the financial technology environment for tokenization in investment within Thailand. Research design, data, and methodology: A quantitative approach was employed as a research strategy. To collect the data, closed-ended questionnaires were administered. The study's sample consisted of 644 participants, who were conveniently selected through convenience sampling. The data was analyzed using binary regression. Results: The findings indicated that tokenization for investment in Thailand is influenced by multiple factors, including score, gender (specifically male), income, savings, financial assets, digital assets, mass media, social media, books and magazines as well as participation in seminars and meetings. However, the study did not find a significant association between tokenization and education or business. Conclusion: These findings emphasize the need to consider these factors when analyzing investment behavior in Thailand and offer valuable insights for individuals and organizations seeking to understand the dynamics of tokenization in the country.
... To begin with, the value of stablecoins relative to safe assets may still vary more than the value of other digital assets such as e-money (Adrian and Griffoli, 2019). Though stablecoins are less prone to speculative bubbles than first-generation cryptocurrencies (Ciriello, 2021), their market capitalization might fluctuate significantly in response to investor purchases and redemptions (Lyons and Viswanath-Natraj, 2020). Even worse, stablecoins might be susceptible to significant price discounts or self-fulfilling runs in the absence of additional private or public backstops, particularly when backed by risky assets and under volatile market conditions (Arner et al., 2020). ...
Industry 4.0 technologies have been revolutionizing the financial sector over the past few decades through the emergence of disruptive technologies. These disruptive technologies have also given rise to a new monetary taxonomy known as "digital currencies." One form of digital currency that provides a more effective, environmentally friendly, stable, and reasonably priced payment alternative is stablecoin, an artificial intelligence-driven payment rail. However, it poses unique risks to the broader financial system, putting the country's economy at risk if it is adopted as a mainstream means of payment. In this context, the present study identifies and prioritizes several major risk categories and their classifications that prevent stablecoins from becoming mainstream payment instruments. Three sequential stages were followed to complete the entire research. The initial phase identified four risk categories and their classifications through a systematic literature review. Thereafter, Pythagorean fuzzy delphi was used in the study to validate the identified risk categories. To prioritize these risks, the authors employed a Pythagorean fuzzy analytical hierarchy and a combined comprehensive solution approach in the final stage. The results of this study revealed that technical risks, which are the biggest impediment to the widespread adoption of stablecoins as a means of payment, were the most influential criterion , followed by macroeconomic risks and legal and regulatory risks. The least significant criterion has been discovered to be user-centric risks. In sub-criterion ranking, monetary stability risks, relative price stability risks, concentration risks, money laundering (ML)/terrorist financing (TF) and other illicit activities, oracle risks, smart contract failures, operational failures, privacy risks, and consumer protection risks are the leading risks. This study is relevant to individuals, investors, researchers, policymakers, and regulators in the long-term evolution of the stablecoin ecosystem.
... Recent proposals for stablecoins pegged to assets other than fiat currencies, such as index funds, suggest that, in order to issue a certain amount of stable cryptocurrency, the same amount of the same asset should be held in custody by regulated financial institutions (Ciriello, 2021). These "tokenized" index funds can be seen then as the equivalent of physical Exchanged Traded Funds (ETF) in the blockchain world. ...
... While the use of digital currencies has become a popular trend, it is also inherently controversial, especially for its volatility, which is a major deterrent to the choice of digital currencies [6,7]. e volatility of digital currencies is influenced by both external events and other digital currencies, and the COVID-19 outbreak has also changed this connection. ...
Full-text available
The continuous increase in the market capitalization of digital currencies has determined them to be an essential force driving global financial development. Research on digital currency connectedness has implications for the pricing of related financial products and the development of risk hedging strategies. This study aims to analyse the changing relationship among four prominent digital currencies over time. Our research period covers normal periods, outbreaks, and the post-epidemic phase. A refined TVP-VAR method was adopted to conduct this study, which ensures time-varying analysis and avoids errors caused by the rolling-window size and the calculation of the observation loss. It is found that the total connectedness of major digital currencies is in an upward trend in the majority of the time, which, however, dropped dramatically in 2020 as the epidemic spreads internationally. It is also found that ETH is a consistent spillover transmitter and that although BTC is often shown as a transmitter, its spillover initially declines considerably and then remains weak until recently. BNB and XRP are typically spillover recipients, with BNB’s spillover varying more greatly.
This paper profiled blockchain studies in information systems (IS) journals from 2016 to 2022. Drawing on the 443 selected articles from 77 IS journals, we proposed a classification scheme from the IS perspective. Current blockchain articles are highly skewed, focusing on research agendas and system design. We proposed a theoretical framework by summarizing the current status of the blockchain literature and highlighting 15 future research questions for the IS research community. We are optimistic that the proposed framework and future research questions can guide blockchain research and advance its scale and impact.
The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of inflation, foreign exchange rates, interest rates and trade balance on economic growth through an increase in the balance of payments. The research method used in this study is a quantitative descriptive research method using path analysis using AMOS 18. Variables of inflation, interest rates and the balance of trade affect economic growth through an increase in the balance of payments, where these three macroeconomic variables are capable of boosting economic growth, while the moderator variable for an increase in the balance of payments is the link and driver for the three variables such as inflation, interest rates and the trade balance did not contract against the increase in economic growth. The conclusion of this study is that partially inflation, interest rates and the trade balance have a significant effect on the economic growth variable and the moderator variable for increasing the balance of payments, while simultaneously the inflation variables, foreign exchange rates, interest rates and the trade balance has a significant effect on the variable of economic growth through the variable of increasing the balance of payments. Through the results of research that has been stated that the inflation variable, interest rates and trade balance affect economic growth through an increase in the balance of payments, where these three macroeconomic variables are things that are able to boost economic growth, while the moderator variable for an increase in the balance of payments is a link and a driving force for the three variables such as inflation, interest rates and the trade balance did not contract to the increase in economic growth.
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need for rapid, population-wide digital contact tracing. One solution, Bluetooth-enabled digital proximity tracing using smartphones, promises to preserve individual privacy while helping to contain society-wide viral outbreaks. However, this digital solution works effectively only if adopted by the majority of the population. This poses a collective action problem: everyone would benefit from wide-spread proximity tracing, but the benefits for the individual are indirect and limited. To facilitate such collective action at the societal level, this paper conceptualises the option space of IT governance actions for proximity tracing adoption along two dimensions: decision-making entities (who will govern the roll-out) and accountability enforcement (how strictly will adoption and use be enforced). Examining coherent governance approaches that arise from the framework, we show that there are no globally ideal approaches but only locally contextualised ones that depend on immediate health risk, prior experience with pandemics, societal values and national culture, role of government, trust in government and trust in technology in each society. The paper contributes specific propositions for governing digital contact tracing in the COVID-19 pandemic and general theoretical implications for IT governance for collective action at the societal level.
Some have called bitcoin a real bubble, while, according to others, it is the most radical invention of the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, there is a consensus regarding the disruptive potential of blockchain technology, which is the basis of bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies. As the interest in these digital currencies is growing, many vendors around the globe now accept payments in blockchain-based currencies. However, not much is known about how individuals around the world would react to using blockchain-based currencies as spending currencies. Given the global reach of these currencies, in this study, we explore the role of national cultural values in influencing individuals’ willingness to use blockchain-based currencies. To do so, we collected survey data from the U.S. and India. We found that national cultural values (collectivism, power distance, masculinism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation) significantly affect blockchain-based currency usage.
Various technology innovations and applications have been developed to fight the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic also has implications for the design, development, and use of technologies. There is an urgent need for a greater understanding of what roles information systems and technology researchers can play in this global pandemic. This paper examines emerging technologies used to mitigate the threats of COVID-19 and relevant challenges related to technology design, development, and use. It also provides insights and suggestions into how information systems and technology scholars can help fight the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper helps promote future research and technology development to produce better solutions for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics.
The blockchain has received significant attention from technology focussed researchers, highlighting its perceived impact and emerging disruption potential, but has been slow to engender any significant momentum within the Information Systems (IS) and Information Management (IM) literature. This study approaches the subject through an IS/IM lens developing the key themes from the blockchain based research via a comprehensive review. This analysis of the body of literature highlights that although few commercial grade blockchain applications currently exist, the technology demonstrates significant potential to benefit a number of industry wide use cases. This study expands on this point articulating through each of the key themes to develop a detailed narrative on the numerous potential blockchain applications and future direction of the technology, whilst discussing the many barriers to adoption. The study asserts that blockchain technology has the potential to contribute to a number of the UN Sustainability Development Goals and engender widespread change within a number of established industries and practices.
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many organisations to undergo significant transformation, rethinking key elements of their business processes and use of technology to maintain operations whilst adhering to a changing landscape of guidelines and new procedures. This study offers a collective insight to many of the key issues and underlying complexities affecting organisations and society from COVID-19, through an information systems and technological perspective. The views of 12 invited subject experts are collated and analysed where each articulate their individual perspectives relating to: online learning, digital strategy, artificial intelligence, information management, social interaction, cyber security, big data, blockchain, privacy, mobile technology and strategy through the lens of the current crisis and impact on these specific areas. The expert perspectives offer timely insight to the range of topics, identifying key issues and recommendations for theory and practice.
The modern trends of digitalization have completely transformed and reshaped business practices, whole businesses, and even a number of industries. Blockchain technology is believed to be the latest advancement in industries such as the financial sector, where trust is of prime significance. Blockchain technology is a decentralized and coded security system which provides the capability for new digital services and platforms to be created through this emerging technology. This research presents a systematic review of scholarly articles on blockchain technology in the financial sector. We commenced by considering 227 articles and subsequently filtered this list down to 87 articles. From this, we present a classification framework that has three dimensions: blockchain-enabled financial benefits, challenges, and functionality. This research identifies implications for future research and practice within the blockchain paradigm.
The Covid-19 pandemic has led to an inevitable surge in the use of digital technologies due to the social distancing norms and nationwide lockdowns. People and organizations all over the world have had to adjust to new ways of work and life. We explore possible scenarios of the digital surge and the research issues that arise. An increase in digitalization is leading firms and educational institutions to shift to work-from-home (WFH). Blockchain technology will become important and will entail research on design and regulations. Gig workers and the gig economy is likely to increase in scale, raising questions of work allocation, collaboration, motivation, and aspects of work overload and presenteeism. Workplace monitoring and technostress issues will become prominent with an increase in digital presence. Online fraud is likely to grow, along with research on managing security. The regulation of the internet, a key resource, will be crucial post-pandemic. Research may address the consequences and causes of the digital divide. Further, the issues of net neutrality and zero-rating plans will merit scrutiny. A key research issue will also be the impact and consequences of internet shutdowns, frequently resorted to by countries. Digital money, too, assumes importance in crisis situations and research will address their adoption, consequences, and mode. Aspects of surveillance and privacy gain importance with increase digital usage.
The active money management industry is characterized by both strong competitive pressure from passive investment vehicles and high fees. This paper investigates how the introduction of low-cost index funds affects fund company strategies. The retail mutual fund market is segmented, where unsophisticated investors rely on financial advisers and sophisticated ones invest directly. Exploiting the staggered entry of low-cost Vanguard index funds as competitive shocks, I show that, in response to competition, incumbents sold to self-directed investors reduce their fees by 5% of the mean; however, funds sold with broker recommendations increase their fees by 6% of the mean. Index fund entry also slows the growth of actively managed funds. The responsiveness of broker-sold fund flows to distribution fees increases, suggesting a shift in composition toward less elastic consumers. Further, incumbents increase the degree of active management. The results illustrate why mutual fund fees slowly decline in the aggregate despite competition from lower-cost alternatives. This paper was accepted by Gustavo Manso, finance.