SEBI's Side-Pocketing Norms And The Political Economy Of Risk In India's AIF Market

What is Side-Pocketing and Why is it Significant in India's AIF Market?

The treatment of illiquid and distressed assets within collective investment vehicles has long unsettled financial regulation. When impairment coincides with liquidity stress, funds confront a fundamental distributive choice: whether to preserve liquidity for exiting investors or to allocate losses among those who remain. This paper therefore treats side-pocketing not as a neutral accounting device, but as a subtle instrument of governance with distributive and systemic effects. Nowhere is this more evident than in India's rapidly expanding AIF sector. AIFs now play an increasingly central role in NBFC financing and are heavily exposed to private credit, structured debt, and stressed assets, often under avowedly ‘hold-to-maturity' strategies¹. These structural features intensify liquidity–maturity mismatches and render AIFs especially susceptible to redemption pressure and configurational contagion. India's regulatory response, however, is strikingly asymmetrical, while SEBI's mutual fund regime formalizes side-pocketing through prescribed triggers, governance safeguards, and disclosure duties shaped by retail investor vulnerability and crises such as the DHFL default², the AIF framework remains disclosure-centric and deliberately permissive, delegating critical design choices on side-pocketing to private contractual ordering within PPMs. Against this backdrop, the paper advances a single proposition: side-pocketing may contain short-term contagion by insulating a fund's liquid portfolio, but it reallocates and concentrates tail risk across investors and over time, thereby shifting rather than eliminating systemic exposure.

The analysis proceeds by situating side-pocketing within its institutional and regulatory setting, unpacking its containment mechanics, examining the balance-sheet reconfigurations through which tail risk is concentrated, tracing the system-level implications of temporal displacement, investor-class redistribution, and opacity, and finally outlining empirical implications and data constraints before concluding with a political-economy account of risk allocation.

How Does SEBI's AIF Side-Pocketing Framework Differ from Mutual Fund Regulation?

SEBI's approach to AIF regulation is principally disclosure-oriented and premised on investor sophistication. Regulatory architecture privileges contractual ordering (allowing managers and investors to negotiate terms in PPMs) over detailed prescriptive rules that typically govern vehicles with retail participation. The AIF industry has explicitly described its regulatory environment as “relatively light touch” compared with Mutual Funds and Portfolio Management Services (PMS). Although the AIF regulations do not specify side-pocketing rules, recent amendments and consultation papers demonstrate ongoing attention to valuation, governance, and operational integrity. SEBI amended the AIF Regulations on 15 June 2023 and issued a circular on 21 June 2023 to guide standardized valuation approaches for AIFs. Consultation papers also address governance reforms indicating an incremental regulatory focus on AIF operational standards. In the absence of prescriptive regulatory rules, side-pocketing authority in AIFs typically derives from ex-ante contractual provisions contained in the PPM. These private contracts specify triggers, valuation approaches, governance approvals, and redemption terms for segregated units.

The PPM-centric model enables heterogeneity in side-pocket design and places primary reliance on disclosure and investor negotiation rather than standardized regulatory safeguards. By design, SEBI's mutual fund side-pocketing framework is more prescriptive, imposing mandatory triggers, trustee involvement, and disclosure timelines intended to protect retail unitholders and preserve uniform treatment across investors. The AIF regime's deference to contractual ordering reflects a deliberate policy choice to calibrate regulatory intensity to the perceived sophistication of the investor base. This differential treatment is consequential because AIFs' asset composition (private credit, structured debt) and hold-to-maturity strategies complicate transfer of mutual fund valuation norms to AIF contexts⁸.

How Does Side-Pocketing Contain Liquidity Stress and Fire-Sale Risk?

When funds are compelled to liquidate illiquid assets under conditions of stress, the process of price discovery can deteriorate sharply, driving asset prices well below their fundamental recovery values and generating fire-sale externalities that transmit losses across investors holding similar exposures. These effects are particularly acute in credit markets characterized by thin trading and asymmetric information, where rapid disposal commonly entails deep discounts relative to long-run recoveries. Within open or semi-open fund structures, market illiquidity interacts with redemption dynamics to produce coordination failures. Early redeemers may exit at higher net asset values before impairments are fully recognized, thereby imposing disproportionate losses on remaining investors. This “first-mover advantage” can trigger run-like behaviour and compel funds to sell distressed assets at depressed prices, a pattern vividly illustrated by episodes such as the DHFL default, which was followed by abrupt NAV contractions. Side-pocketing intervenes in this destabilizing sequence through three interrelated mechanisms.

First, by segregating impaired assets, it insulates the NAV of the liquid portfolio from immediate valuation volatility, thereby dampening reported fluctuations that might otherwise accelerate redemptions. Second, the suspension of redemption rights on side-pocketed assets removes the pressure to liquidate illiquid positions at fire-sale prices, allowing managers the temporal space to pursue recovery or restructuring strategies. Third, the preservation of a liquid tranche enables the fund to continue meeting ordinary redemption requests and operational needs, preventing the entire vehicle from becoming illiquid due to a limited set of distressed holdings. In theoretical welfare terms, where fire-sale externalities are substantial and patient workouts offer materially higher recoveries, side-pocketing can improve aggregate outcomes by curbing forced sales and limiting price contagion. Empirical case evidence most notably JP Morgan's Amtek side-pocket, which reportedly achieved approximately 85% recovery of face value, supports the proposition that, for certain assets, delayed resolution may yield superior realized recoveries compared to immediate distressed liquidation.

Why Does Side-Pocketing Reallocate and Concentrate Tail Risk Among Investors?

Containment through side-pocketing is achieved not by eliminating risk but by reallocating economic exposure across investors and balance-sheet compartments, and this reallocation constitutes the primary channel through which tail risk becomes concentrated following segregation. The act of side-pocketing introduces an asymmetry in liquidity rights that functions as a form of implicit seniority, investors who redeem from the main portfolio before or at the point of segregation effectively secure liquidity and avoid the impaired assets, while those who remain holding side-pocket units bear a concentrated downside with only contingent upside linked to uncertain recoveries. This produces a de facto subordination structure in which main-portfolio investors enjoy preserved liquidity and side-pocket holders assume junior risk, a hierarchy that emerges ex post under stress rather than through explicit capital structuring at inception. Moreover, side-pocketing is typically triggered by common-factor shocks (sectoral downturns or phases of credit-cycle stress) that affect multiple portfolios simultaneously, thereby revealing correlation risk and exposing cross-fund concentrations that had previously been masked by the appearance of diversification.

The DHFL episode illustrates how systemically important counterparties can generate common exposures across funds, such that clustered or contemporaneous side-pocketing events would signal concentration at the system level even where individual funds appear diversified in isolation. Segregation also generates denominator effects that can distort regulatory and internal risk measurements, by removing impaired assets from the main portfolio, concentration and leverage ratios may shift mechanically, potentially reducing apparent risk, evading scrutiny, or permitting new investments that in fact intensify concentration. In India, the absence of systematic post-side-pocket volatility and performance data limits the ability to rigorously assess these measurement distortions. From an economic perspective, side-pocketing operates as a mechanism of volatility displacement: it relocates immediate NAV volatility into segregated units and defers loss recognition rather than resolving the underlying impairment. Because credit deterioration persists, deferred losses may eventually crystallize, with both timing and magnitude contingent on recovery processes and market conditions; the lack of realized recoveries in certain side-pockets, including some DHFL exposures, underscores the risk of indefinite deferral.

What are the Systemic and Macroprudential Implications of Side-Pocketing in AIFs?

At the system level, the fund-specific mechanics of side-pocketing scale into broader macroprudential concerns by displacing risk across time, investor classes, and institutional boundaries rather than resolving it outright. By deferring loss recognition, side-pocketing can generate pronounced cliff risks, if segregated assets ultimately fail to recover, losses that were previously obscured may crystallize suddenly and in concentrated form. Such temporal displacement can impair price discovery, mask the magnitude of stress during its acute phase, and delay corrective market and regulatory responses, as evidenced by the protracted, multi-year resolution of certain side-pockets in India. This intertemporal shift is accompanied by redistribution across investor classes. Institutional investors, benefiting from superior information, monitoring capacity, and execution speed, are often able to redeem ahead of segregation and thereby avoid exposure, while retail and less sophisticated investors are more likely to remain invested and become holders of side-pocketed claims.

Empirical anecdotes reinforce this asymmetry, institutional exits during stress episodes appear common, whereas retail investors (particularly in hybrid fund structures where retail participation has been reported as high as 71 percent) may disproportionately absorb concentrated losses once assets are segregated. These dynamics unfold within a wider shadow-banking ecosystem in which AIFs are linked to NBFCs, banks, and credit markets, such that episodes of redemption pressure and funding strain (historically visible in crises such as 2008 and the DHFL collapse) can propagate through interconnected balance sheets. While side-pocketing may relieve immediate liquidity stress at the individual fund level, it can simultaneously concentrate unresolved credit risk within less transparent segments of the financial system. This dynamic may heighten systemic fragility. Opacity further compounds these risks, segregation curtails market trading and suppresses observable price signals, weakening price discovery, while limited public disclosure on side-pocket composition, valuation, and recovery progress constrains supervisory oversight and creates macroprudential blind spots. The potential use of side-pocketing to shield management fees or obscure deficiencies in risk controls intensifies these transparency concerns.

These systemic claims yield concrete empirical implications and testable predictions, even as data constraints limit definitive evaluation. Observable indicators include recovery rates on side-pocketed assets such as JP Morgan's Amtek case, which reportedly achieved approximately 85 percent recovery of face value benchmarked against counterfactual forced-sale outcomes to assess whether patient workouts genuinely improve aggregate returns. Timing correlations across funds provide a second indicator, clustering of side-pocketing events during periods of systemic stress would suggest that segregation reveals common-factor exposures rather than idiosyncratic risk management. A third indicator lies in changes to investor composition before and after segregation, with shifts in institutional versus retail holdings serving as evidence of loss redistribution across investor classes. If the Proposition holds, side-pocketing events should cluster around credit or liquidity shocks, deferred recoveries (once adjusted for time value and opportunity costs) may fail to materially outperform immediate distressed sales, and early institutional redemptions should correlate with a higher incidence of losses among remaining retail or less-informed investors. Empirical testing in India, however, faces substantial limitations, comprehensive public data on side-pocket recoveries remain scarce beyond isolated cases, granular disclosure on redemption flows, investor composition, and NAV volatility surrounding segregation events is not systematically available for AIFs, and existing regulatory reporting frameworks may omit critical variables required for cross-fund analysis.

This paper has analyzed SEBI's approach to side-pocketing in the AIF market by tracing a continuous line from institutional design, through fund-level mechanisms, to system-wide consequences, while maintaining a disciplined focus on a single proposition: although side-pocketing can be effective in containing immediate contagion, it reallocates and concentrates tail risk rather than eliminating it. In this sense, side-pocketing operates as a governance choice that exchanges short-term liquidity stabilization for the temporal deferral and distributive concentration of credit losses. Case evidence underscores this duality, episodes such as the Amtek side-pocket suggest that patient workouts can, in certain circumstances, deliver materially higher recoveries, whereas other cases, notably unresolved DHFL exposures, demonstrate the risk of prolonged deferral without realized recovery, leaving losses suspended rather than resolved. These outcomes carry salient political-economy implications, as side-pocketing determines which agents benefit from immediate market stabilization and which agents ultimately absorb concentrated losses, often remaining unitholders and specific retail cohorts. The AIF regime's reliance on contractual ordering, grounded in assumptions of investor sophistication, may therefore be insufficient to internalize systemic externalities when exposures are correlated across funds or when disclosure is incomplete. Properly understood, side-pocketing is a reallocation device: it reshapes who bears risk and when losses are recognized, without altering the underlying quantum of risk embedded in impaired assets. Its macroprudential significance thus hinges on recovery outcomes, the timing of loss realization, cross-fund correlation structures, and the informational environment, dimensions that remain only partially observable in the public record for Indian AIFs. Closing these empirical gaps is a necessary precondition for assessing whether the trade-offs inherent in contractual side-pocketing are ultimately welfare-enhancing or welfare-eroding at the level of the financial system.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.