Mutual Fund Mastery interview preparation

Questions

100

Traced to a firm

32

Firms

19

Updated

September 2026

Asked at

All firmsVanguard5BLBlackRock3FTFranklin Templeton3Invesco3PIMCO3Fidelity Investments2J.P. Morgan2Morningstar2Neuberger Berman2SCSchroders2T. Rowe Price2Amundi1BMBNY Mellon1Goldman Sachs1Man Group1Northern Trust1SSState Street1Sycamore Partners1WMWellington Management1

Topic

All topicsFund structure and regulation7NAV and operations6Scheme categorisation4Equity schemes5Debt schemes7Risk, liquidity and disclosure7Index funds and ETFs6Hybrid and solution schemes3Costs, plans and commissions6SIP and investor mechanics5Performance measurement6Taxation5Distribution, compliance and NISM5Portfolio construction and advice5Estimation and numeracy5Markets and industry6Career and fit12

Level

AnyCoreIntermediateHard

Type

AnyTechnicalCaseFitBrainteaserMarket view

1. 031Tell me what happened at Franklin Templeton India in April 2020 and what the industry learned from it.Risk, liquidity and disclosureHardsuperdayIndian AMCsRisk and compliance

   Say this

   On 23 April 2020 Franklin Templeton wound up six open-ended debt schemes holding roughly 26,000 crore, froze redemptions overnight and told investors they would get their money back as the underlying bonds matured or could be sold. It was a liquidity failure, not primarily a credit failure, and it is the single most important case in Indian mutual funds.

   Then walk it

   1. The schemes — Low Duration, Ultra Short Bond, Short Term Income, Credit Risk, Dynamic Accrual and Income Opportunities — had reached for yield in lower-rated, often unlisted and structured paper, in a market where such bonds barely trade at the best of times.
   2. Then Covid hit. Redemptions accelerated, the secondary market for sub-AAA corporate paper effectively stopped, and the funds had already borrowed to meet earlier redemptions. With nothing left to sell at any reasonable price, the AMC chose to wind up rather than keep selling the best assets and leave the remaining investors with the worst.
   3. The regulatory sequel: SEBI found violations of the regulations, barred the AMC from launching new debt schemes for two years and ordered repayment of over 500 crore of investment management fees with interest. The Supreme Court required unitholder consent for the wind-up, and SBI Mutual Fund was appointed to monetise the portfolios.
   4. Investors did get their money back — in aggregate more than the 23 April NAV — but over roughly two and a half years, in instalments, with no ability to plan around it. That gap between eventual recovery and immediate access is the definition of liquidity risk.
   5. What changed as a result: minimum liquid asset buffers of 10 percent for open-ended debt schemes and 20 percent for liquid funds, full mark to market on the debt book, the swing pricing framework, tighter caps on unlisted and structured paper, and the Potential Risk Class matrix.
   6. The lesson I would give an interviewer in one line: in debt funds the yield you can see is small and the liquidity you cannot see is the whole risk. A 60 basis point yield pickup never compensates for a portfolio you cannot exit.

   Where candidates lose it

   Calling it a default or a fraud. Most of the paper eventually paid. The failure was the mismatch between daily redemption promises and a portfolio of bonds nobody would bid for. Getting that distinction wrong on a fixed income or risk interview is fatal, because the whole post-2020 rulebook follows from it.

   Expect next

   • Could it happen again under the current rules?
   • What is the liquid asset requirement now?
   • How would you have spotted the risk in those portfolios beforehand?
2. 034How would you assess liquidity risk in a debt fund's portfolio before recommending it?Risk, liquidity and disclosureHardcase studyIndian AMCsRisk and compliance

   Say this

   Pull the monthly portfolio and ask one question of every line: who would buy this from me next Tuesday, and at what price? Then look at the other side of the balance sheet — who owns the units. Liquidity risk is the interaction of an illiquid asset book with a concentrated investor base.

   Then walk it

   1. Asset side, in order: how much is in cash, treasury bills, government securities and repo, against the 10 or 20 percent minimum. How much is unlisted. How much is rated below AA. How much sits in structured obligations or credit-enhanced paper.
   2. Then issuer and group concentration. A 9 percent position in one mid-sized NBFC is a bigger liquidity problem than a 20 percent position in government securities, because the exit is a single phone call to a market that may not answer.
   3. Then maturity profile against the fund's own category. A short duration fund holding three-year unlisted paper has reached for yield by taking illiquidity, and the yield pickup is the tell — if the portfolio YTM is 150 basis points above the equivalent gilt, something in there does not trade.
   4. Liability side: the top-10 investor concentration disclosed in the fact sheet. If a handful of institutions hold half the AUM, a single quarter-end redemption forces the sale, and retail unitholders eat the impact cost.
   5. Then the stress question I would actually run: if 20 percent of AUM redeemed on Monday, what would the manager have to sell, and would the printed NAV survive it? That is the Franklin Templeton question asked in advance.
   6. And check AUM trend. A fund shrinking steadily is concentrating its illiquid tail, because the liquid assets are the first to go out of the door. A shrinking credit fund is a warning, not a bargain.

   Where candidates lose it

   Assessing credit quality and calling it liquidity analysis. AAA paper from a small issuer can be untradeable. The two things candidates miss entirely are the top-10 investor concentration on the liability side and the AUM trend, and both are printed in the monthly fact sheet.

   Expect next

   • Where would you find the top-10 investor concentration?
   • Is a shrinking debt fund safer or riskier?
   • What yield spread over gilts would make you suspicious?
3. 035A client calls, angry. His debt fund's NAV has fallen and he was told debt funds are safe. What do you say?Risk, liquidity and disclosureIntermediatecase studyDistribution and salesWealth and advisory

   Say this

   Establish which of the two causes it is before saying anything reassuring. If it is rates, the loss reverses over time and the fund's yield has actually improved. If it is a credit write-down, the loss is permanent and the conversation is completely different. Never blend them.

   Then walk it

   1. Diagnose first: check whether the fall is broad across the category and matches a move in bond yields, or whether it is a single-day drop specific to this scheme, which almost always means a downgrade or a default.
   2. If it is rates, explain the mechanism in his language. Bond prices fall when yields rise. A fund with a modified duration of 3 loses about 3 percent when yields move up a percentage point, and it earns that back through higher accrual over roughly the duration period if he stays.
   3. If it is credit, say so plainly, tell him whether a segregated portfolio has been created, what the written-down value is, and that the recovery timeline is not in the AMC's control. Do not describe a permanent loss as temporary volatility.
   4. Then the honest part about the original advice. Debt funds are lower risk than equity, not risk-free. Since the move to full mark to market, even liquid fund NAVs move. If he was sold 'safe', he was sold badly, and admitting that protects the relationship better than defending it.
   5. Then match the product to the horizon properly. Money needed within a year belongs in liquid or money market. One to three years in short duration. Anything with duration or credit exposure requires the ability to sit through a drawdown.
   6. And a number to anchor it: over the last two decades, a short duration fund's worst twelve-month period has been a small negative, while the same period in an equity fund has been minus 40 percent. The relative claim is defensible; the absolute one never was.

   Where candidates lose it

   Reassuring first and diagnosing later. If the fall is a default and you have told him it will recover, you have destroyed your credibility and possibly created a compliance issue. Diagnose, then explain, then fix the product fit.

   Expect next

   • How would you explain duration to a 70-year-old client?
   • What if a segregated portfolio has been created?
   • How should he have been positioned in the first place?

Firm tags come from public, anonymous candidate reports on Wall Street Oasis: strong signal, not sworn testimony. Firms are named as the places a question was reported, not as partners of Fin Maverick. Answers are written for this page to show how to think out loud; they are not scripts to recite.