2025 Investment Funds Statistics Report

2025 Investment Funds Statistics Report

The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions

01/26 March 2026

FR/ FINAL REPORT

The International Organization of Securities Commissions website

© International Organization of Securities Commissions 2026. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated.

Copies of publications are available from

iosco.org

Table of contents

Chapter 1 - Executive Summary 2

1.1. Qualified Hedge Funds 3 1.2. Open-Ended Funds and Closed-Ended Funds 3

Chapter 2 - Introduction 5 Chapter 3 - Data and Methodology 6

3.1. Hedge Funds 7 3.2. Open-Ended and Closed-Ended Funds 8 Collection of UCITS Funds Data 8 Collection of US Form N-PORT and Form PF Data 9

Chapter 4 - Aggregate Data 11

4.1. Hedge Funds 11 4.2. Open-ended Funds 15 4.3. Closed-ended Funds 18

Chapter 5 - Investment Strategy & Fund Type 23

5.1. Hedge Funds 23 5.2. Open-ended Funds 25 5.3. Closed-ended Funds 27

Chapter 6 - Geographical Investment Area 29

6.1. Hedge Funds 29 6.2. Open-ended Funds 32 6.3. Closed-ended Funds 34

Chapter 7 - Assets Classes 37

7.1. Hedge Funds 37 7.2. Open-ended Funds 39

7.3. Closed-ended Funds 41

Chapter 8 - Derivatives 44

8.1. Hedge Funds 44 8.2. Open-ended Funds 46 8.3. Closed-ended Funds 47

Chapter 9 - Leverage 49

9.1. Hedge Funds 49 9.2. Open-ended Funds 53 9.3. Closed-ended Funds 56

Chapter 10 - Liquidity Risk 60

10.1. Hedge Funds 60

Chapter 11 -Counterparty Risk 61

11.1. Hedge Funds 61 11.2. Open-ended Funds 62 11.3. Closed-ended Funds 63

Chapter 12 - Conclusion 64 Qualified Hedge Funds 64

Open-Ended Funds and Closed-Ended Funds 64

A1 - NCA Fund Reporting 65 A2 - Jurisdictional Breakdown 67 A3 - Fund Exposures 69 A4 - Additional Figures 72

Chapter 1 - Executive

Summary

The Investment Funds Statistics Report (IFSR) presents aggregated information submitted by IOSCO members to provide a global overview of the size, composition, and risk characteristics of investment funds.

The report covers qualified hedge funds (QHFs), open-ended funds

(OEFs), and closed-ended funds (CEFs), drawing on regulatory data collected through existing reporting frameworks, including publicly available data from Form PF and Form N-PORT in the United States, and AIFMD and UCITS-related reporting in the European Union and the United Kingdom. The 2025 edition of the IFSR reflects submissions from a broad set of jurisdictions and captures a substantial share of global investment fund activity. The report contains information from 38 IOSCO member jurisdictions for the 2024 reporting year and encompasses 128,389 funds representing USD 72.6T in global aggregate net asset value (NAV) and ~85% of the global investment funds industry. While reporting 1 coverage varies by fund type and jurisdiction, the data provides meaningful insight into trends in fund numbers, NAV, investment strategies, geographical investment focus, asset-class exposures, derivatives usage, leverage, liquidity risk, and counterparty risk.

Gibraltar, Israel, and Norway appear in the IFSR for the first time. New

reporting jurisdictions for OEF are Hungary, Israel, and Norway. Gibraltar,

Hong Kong, and Norway reported QHF data for the first time. Hungary,

Spain and Norway reported CEF data for the first time. Overall, the data indicates continued growth in aggregate NAV across major fund types in 2024, alongside relatively stable risk profiles. Gross

and financial leverage remain structurally higher for QHFs than for OEFs

The percentage is calculated using Preqin's estimate for hedge funds as of 1 September 2024 of USD 4.98T, ICI's estimate for OEFs as of Q4 2024 of USD 79.27T less USD 5.39T for funds-of-funds, and a comparative figure for CEFs of USD 6.02T using the percentage of total NAV for OEFs IOSCO has collected compared to global estimates and Preqin's 2023 estimates of Private Equity. In total, the above combined provides an estimate of the global investments funds industry to be USD 85.01T.

and CEFs, while borrowing and leverage for OEFs and CEFs continue to be low in aggregate relative to QHFs. Investment activity remains concentrated in a small number of jurisdictions and asset classes, with

notable differences in strategy and risk characteristics across fund

types.

1.1. Qualified Hedge Funds

In 2024, QHFs continued to represent a comparatively small share of total

investment fund assets but accounted for a significant proportion of

derivatives activity and higher leverage compared to CEFs and OEFs. The

aggregate NAV of QHFs has increased year-over-year, reaching the highest

level observed since the inception of the IOSCO Investment Funds Statistics Survey in 2020, despite a modest decline in the number of reported funds. Activity remained heavily concentrated in a small number of jurisdictions, with

the United States accounting for the majority of reported QHF NAV.

Investment strategies continued to be dominated by a limited number of categories, notably macro strategies, equity long/short, relative-value approaches, and multi-strategy or "Other" funds. These strategies underpin

QHF's prominent role in sovereign bonds, equity, and repo markets. Consistent with prior reporting years, QHF asset-class exposures remained

concentrated in sovereign bonds, listed equities, cash, and repo-related instruments.

Leverage among QHFs increased in 2024, driven by higher gross and

synthetic leverage, though aggregate levels remained below the peaks observed in earlier reporting years. Borrowing activity also rose compared with 2023 but continued to be below 2021 levels. Liquidity metrics indicate that, on average and under normal market conditions, portfolio liquidity exceeds investor redemption capacity across time horizons. Counterparty risk remains largely associated with bilateral derivatives transactions, though aggregate exposures are low, with variation across jurisdictions.

1.2. Open-Ended Funds and Closed-Ended Funds

OEFs and CEFs together account for the majority of investment fund assets captured in the survey. In 2024, both fund types recorded increases in the

number of funds reported, while aggregate NAV developments differed across

segments. OEF aggregate NAV rose strongly, reflecting growth in major

markets whereas CEF aggregate NAV declined modestly year-over-year but remained well above levels observed earlier in the decade.

OEF portfolios continued to be dominated by equity and fixed-income funds.

Compared to OEF, CEF tend to have a longer-term investment horizon which

is reflected in their dominant asset categories (private equity and real estate). Geographically, both OEFs and CEFs maintained significant exposure to

North America and Europe, with Asia-Pacific showing signs of growth. Leverage and borrowing remained low for both OEFs and CEFs in aggregate.

It is important to keep in mind that the data presented may not be reflective

of the entire industry 's leverage for CEFs due to the lack of transparency in PE funds. Derivatives usage was limited relative to QHFs and was primarily associated with interest-rate and foreign-exchange risk management. Counterparty exposures remained modest overall, though bilateral clearing continues to dominate derivatives activity across both fund types.

Chapter 2 - Introduction

Fourth Edition of the Investment Funds Statistics Report

This report represents the fourth edition of the Investment Funds Statistics Report (IFSR). The IFSR aims to provide a consistent, high- level overview of the global investment funds industry, with a particular focus on leverage, liquidity risk, and counterparty risk.

The investment funds survey collects aggregate data on QHFs, OEFs, and CEFs across IOSCO member jurisdictions. Given differences in

regulatory frameworks, reporting obligations, and data availability, not all jurisdictions are able to provide information for all fund types or risk dimensions. Where relevant, the report highlights data limitations and methodological considerations to support appropriate interpretation of the results. The structure of the report is as follows. Chapter 3 describes the data sources and methodology. Chapters 4 through 11 present detailed analysis of aggregate data, investment strategies, geographical investment areas, asset-class and derivatives exposures, leverage, liquidity risk, and counterparty risk across fund types. Chapter 12

concludes by summarising key findings and highlighting structural

features observed in the data.

Chapter 3 - Data and

Methodology

Data Sourced from IOSCO Investment Funds Survey

The data is sourced from IOSCO's investment funds survey which is sent to all IOSCO members and is submitted to IOSCO on a voluntary basis. Due to

different reporting requirements in different jurisdictions, not all IOSCO

members are able to contribute to the survey in its entirety. The data is 2

cleaned and verified at the jurisdiction level and at an aggregate level. Data is

collected in USD, and where applicable is converted from local currencies using the closing rate for the last business day of 2024. The data

encompasses jurisdictions from around the world and makes use of different

reporting requirements already in place, such as publicly available data from Form PF and N-PORT in the US and AIFMD and UCITS (for some 3 jurisdictions) in the EU and the UK.

For the sections on leverage, gross leverage is defined per the 2019 IOSCO

Recommendations for a Framework Assessing Leverage in Investment Funds ; 4 calculated as total aggregate market exposure over the total aggregate NAV. 5 Gross notional exposure (GNE) is used in order to aggregate and compare leverage across jurisdictions and fund types. As noted in the 2019 report, GNE can overstate leverage for certain asset classes, therefore leverage is also calculated excluding IR and FX derivatives. Further, due to the aggregate nature of the survey, netting can only be done on an aggregate basis by asset class and not at the individual fund or underlying asset level. Without a more Due to this, there may exist some selection bias, where only jurisdictions who are 2

capable of reporting will contribute to the survey. However, as noted in the

Executive Summary, the survey encompasses approximately 85% of the global

investment funds industry by total aggregate NAV, and is therefore reflective of a significant proportion of the population.

For the US, the data is sourced from publicly available information and is 3 aggregated in accordance with IOSCO's calculation methodologies and has not

been independently verified by the SEC.

See FR18/2019 Recommendations for a Framework Assessing Leverage in 4 Investment Funds, Final Report, Report of the Board of IOSCO, December 2019, available at: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD645.pdf Excluding cash and cash equivalents, as per the 2019 Recommendations for a 5 Framework Assessing Leverage in Investment Funds.

detailed calculation of netting, net notional exposure may not accurately

reflect the net leverage and is excluded from the report. In addition, synthetic leverage is defined as the total sum of the gross notional exposure of all derivatives over the total aggregate NAV, and financial

leverage is defined as the total aggregate notional amount of cash and securities borrowings over the total aggregate NAV. It is worth noting that IOSCO has excluded a dedicated section on counterparty risk from its analysis this year. This decision stems from a

methodological difference between IOSCO's counterparty risk definition and

the framework used within European jurisdictions. Namely, IOSCO's notion of counterparty risk, as used in the Investment Funds

Statistics Report, is aligned with the standard financial-stability concept of

counterparty credit risk. In practice, this focuses on credit exposure to contractual counterparties, mainly arising from OTC derivatives and securities

financing transactions (repos, reverse repos, securities lending). It does not

include exposures to issuers of equities or bonds. By contrast, under the AIFMD framework, reporting is broader and can capture exposures that are closer to economic or issuer exposure, rather than strictly counterparty credit

exposure. As a result, the figures are conceptually consistent within each

jurisdiction but not fully harmonised across countries. Because the European data includes these broader categories, attempting to reconcile it with IOSCO's narrower parameters could inadvertently misrepresent the risk landscape. As a result, to avoid misleading cross- jurisdictional comparisons, it was determined that the most prudent course of action is to omit the section entirely.

3.1. Hedge Funds

The data for hedge funds is captured based on the following criteria:

1. The fund must qualify as a hedge fund;
2. based on criteria defined in its local jurisdiction,
3. based on its own declaration to its regulator or,

4. based on a combination of criteria, such as the use of leverage,
   the complexity of strategies, and the application of performance fees.

5. The fund is at least partially managed by a regulated entity within their
   jurisdiction or marketed in that jurisdiction.

6. The fund is managed by a single fund manager; funds-of-funds and
   multi-manager funds are excluded from the data.

7. The fund is able to demonstrate that they are a QHF, in that the fund
   manages at least USD 500M of total global aggregate net assets (aggregate NAV). This includes the sum of all accounts managed under the same strategy (for example including pooled funds and separately managed accounts), to ensure the product is fully captured. 6 In some jurisdictions reporting is voluntary and subject to varying thresholds, however, the report has consistently captured the largest jurisdictions by total aggregate NAV and, therefore, has explanatory power capturing a majority of the hedge fund industry. It is important to note that data collected in the US

as a part of Form PF may contain QHFs that are managed outside the US but

whose investment advisers are required to register with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Due to the methodology and Form PF reporting capturing funds outside the US, the data may be skewed towards the US and under-represent the true value in certain jurisdictions where these funds have been excluded.

3.2. Open-Ended and Closed-Ended Funds

The NCA reporting is based on the domicile of the fund. However, in some

circumstances, data from funds whose asset managers are domiciled in other jurisdictions is not available to the NCA reporting data to IOSCO. In that case, an NCA does not need to provide data from these funds but has been encouraged, where possible, to provide an estimate of the total NAV of these funds.

Collection of UCITS Funds Data

There is currently no standardized reporting framework for UCITS at the EU level, meaning only a few EU jurisdictions receive UCITS data, based When the number of qualifying hedge funds is small, the National Competent 6 Authority (NCA) may provide data on all hedge funds in their jurisdiction.

on their own national regulatory reporting requirements. As such, most EU jurisdictions taking part in this exercise have not provided granular-

level data for UCITS. Unless specifically noted in the report, the

European data presented in this analysis is based solely on data submitted through the AIFMD (Directive 2011/61/EU) reporting framework. AIFMD applies to asset managers managing all types of funds that are not covered by the UCITS Directive (Directive 2009/65/EC) regardless of whether the alternative investment fund (AIF) is of an open-ended or a closed-ended type, whatever the legal form of the AIF, independently of whether the AIF is marketable to retail investors or not, and whether or not the AIF is listed. There are no rules on eligible assets and

investment limits in the AIFMD framework, these rules are specified by

national legislation. The revised AIFMD and UCITS Directive foresee the creation of harmonized EU UCITS reporting, which means that all EU NCAs will, within a few years' time, receive data on UCITS periodically.

Collection of US Form N-PORT and Form PF Data

US data on open-ended mutual funds was collected through publicly available N-PORT filings located on the SEC's EDGAR database. The data used in this analysis is obtained from all N-PORT filings made to the SEC with a reporting date of either October 31, November 30 or

December 31, 2024, as registered funds may select different fiscal year-

end reporting dates. To allow for data comparability, fund-level data obtained through this process is aggregated, in accordance with a pre-

defined template developed by IOSCO. In instances where there is not a

direct mapping, some discretion has been applied to identify the correct aggregation. In other instances, there may be no data directly available from the N-PORT database. Due to the lack of availability, the sections which do not include the US data have been noted. On August 28, 2024, the SEC adopted amendments to reporting requirements on Form N-PORT to require more frequent reporting of monthly portfolio holdings and related information to the SEC and the public, and to amend certain reporting requirements relating to entity

identifiers. The SEC has extended the effective date for the

amendments to Form N-PORT to November 17, 2027, and the compliance date to November 17, 2027 for larger entities and to May 18, 2028 for smaller entities.

US data on private funds was collected through publicly available data

from Form PF filings. Since October 2015, the SEC's staff has released

quarterly Private Fund Statistics reports which provide a summary of recent private fund industry statistics and trends by aggregating data reported to the SEC by private fund advisers on Form ADV and Form PF. Form PF information provided in the Private Fund Statistics report is aggregated, rounded, and/or masked to avoid potential disclosure of proprietary information of individual Form PF filers. It is important to note that data collected in the US as a part of Form PF may contain

QHFs that are managed outside the US, but whose investment advisers

are required to register with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On February 8, 2024, the SEC adopted amendments to Form PF. The compliance date for these amendments has been extended to October 1, 2026.

Chapter 4 - Aggregate Data

4.1. Hedge Funds

Number of hedge funds and aggregate hedge fund net assets Number of Hedge Funds 7 Fig.1: Aggregate number of qualifying hedge funds reported by all jurisdictions for 2024.

Throughout the report, gaps between years on the x-axis reflect differences in 7 reporting rounds rather than missing data.

Number of Hedge Funds by Jurisdiction, based on the domicile of the manager 8 Fig.2: Aggregate number of qualifying hedge funds by reporting jurisdiction for 2024.

The number of qualifying hedge funds (QHFs) increased by 3.3% between the 2023 and 2024 data years, from 2,622 to 2,709, following the increase observed in 2023. The green shading in Figure 1 highlights the contribution of new jurisdictions--Gibraltar, Hong Kong , and Norway--to the 2024 aggregate. 9 At the jurisdiction level, the United States continued to account for the

largest number of QHFs, though its total decreased slightly to 2,058 (from

2,107 in 2023). Among other established jurisdictions, the United Kingdom reported 139 funds (down from 159), while Luxembourg remained unchanged at 34. By contrast, a number of jurisdictions reported modest growth. The number of qualifying hedge funds increased in Ireland to 35 funds (from 21), in the Netherlands to 26 (from 22), in Jersey to 21 (from 17), and in Switzerland to 32 (from 23). Singapore reported a slight decline to 32 funds (from 33).

French figures are the same as year-end 2023 throughout the report. 8 Certain hedge fund data has been excluded from reporting for Hong Kong due to 9

confidentiality reasons.

Newly available hedge-fund data from Gibraltar (107), Hong Kong (64), and Norway (25) further contributed to the 2024 total, as shown in Figure 2. 10 Overall, developments across jurisdictions were mixed, with declines in several

larger markets offset by growth in others and by the inclusion of new

reporting jurisdictions.

Hedge Funds Aggregate NAV

Fig.3: Aggregate Net Asset Value of qualifying hedge funds reported by all jurisdictions for 2024.

In a few cases, jurisdictions have included data for non-qualifying hedge funds. This 10 is for instance the case in jurisdictions in which the number of qualifying hedge funds (i.e. AUM > USD 500 millions) is limited, what could in turn compromise the

confidentiality of the aggregated data. These amounts are small relative to the global total and do not materially affect the cross-jurisdiction patterns shown in

this report.

Hedge Funds Aggregate NAV by Jurisdiction

Fig.4: Aggregate Net Asset Value of qualifying hedge funds by reporting jurisdictions for 2024.

The aggregate net asset value (NAV) of qualifying hedge funds increased by 8.2 % between the 2023 and 2024 data years, rising from USD 4.63 trillion to USD 5.01 trillion. This represents the highest aggregate NAV recorded since the start of the IOSCO Investment Fund Statistics Survey. In 2024, the United States continued to dominate, accounting for USD 4.23 trillion (up from USD 3.98 trillion in 2023). The United Kingdom also reported a modest increase to USD 392 billion (from USD 386 billion in 2023). Other jurisdictions recording gains included Switzerland (USD 73 billion), Singapore (USD 64 billion), and Ireland (USD 44 billion), while the aggregated hedge- fund NAV reported by Luxembourg at (USD 52 billion) and Canada (USD 31 billion), was broadly unchanged. By contrast, some smaller jurisdictions reported lower NAVs than in 2023, including Jersey (USD 6 billion), Germany (USD 5 billion), and the Netherlands (USD 3 billion).

For the first time, hedge-fund data were reported for Hong Kong (USD 91

billion), Norway (USD 6 billion), Gibraltar (USD 3 billion), Thailand (USD 1 billion), and Liechtenstein (USD 0.4 billion). The contribution of these jurisdictions is shown in green in Figures 3 and 4.

Overall, the 2024 increase in aggregate NAV reflects both continued

expansion in major markets and the inclusion of jurisdictions that did not report hedge-fund data in the previous cycle.

4.2. Open-ended Funds

Number of open-ended funds and aggregate open-ended fund net assets Number of Open-ended Funds

Fig.5: Aggregate number of Open-ended Funds reported by all jurisdictions for 2024.

Number of Open-ended Funds by Jurisdiction

Fig.6: Aggregate number of Open-ended Funds by reporting jurisdiction for 2024.

The number of OEFs increased by 6.1% between the 2023 and 2024 data years, rising from 85,517 to 90,805. This extends the increase observed in

2023 and reflects both growth in several large jurisdictions and the addition

of jurisdictions that did not report OEF data in the previous cycle. As a result, the total number of OEFs is now well above the levels reported in 2020-2022. The green portion in Figure 5 highlights the contribution of these additional reporting jurisdictions in 2024. In 2024, Luxembourg (12,983), Brazil (12,801), the United States (12,487), China (11,283), and Canada (6,445) reported the largest numbers of OEFs, together

accounting for the majority of the global total. Other significant contributors

included Ireland (5,595), Germany (4,375), and France (4,572). At a smaller scale, Thailand (2,202), Spain (2,138), Austria (1,984), Italy (1,177), and the United Kingdom (1,166) also recorded notable numbers of funds.

For the first time, data were reported for Israel (2,289), Hungary (567), and

Norway (102), as shown in Figure 6. The inclusion of these jurisdictions broadened the geographical coverage of the survey and contributed to the overall increase, although activity remains concentrated in a small number of large jurisdictions.

Open-ended Funds Aggregate NAV

Fig.7: Aggregate Net Asset Value of Open-ended Funds reported by all jurisdictions for 2024.

Open-ended Funds Aggregate NAV by Jurisdiction

Fig.8: Aggregate Net Asset Value of Open-ended Funds by reporting jurisdictions for 2024.

The aggregate NAV of open-ended funds increased by 15.3% between the 2023 and 2024 data years, rising from USD 54.1 trillion to USD 62.3 trillion. This represents a new high aggregate NAV and reflects both growth in most major jurisdictions and the inclusion of jurisdictions that did not report OEF data in the previous cycle. The United States remained by far the largest market, with USD 35.8 trillion (USD 29.4 trillion in 2023). Luxembourg also expanded to USD 5.17 trillion (USD 4.95 trillion in 2023), while China rose to USD 4.04 trillion (USD 3.42 trillion in 2023), Ireland to USD 3.82 trillion (USD 3.30 trillion in 2023), Canada to USD 3.06 trillion (USD 2.81 trillion in 2023). Germany edged lower to USD 2.34 trillion (USD 2.39 trillion in 2023), while Switzerland reported USD 1.27 trillion (USD 1.23 trillion in 2023), Japan rose to USD 1.19 trillion (USD 1.04 trillion in 2023), and Brazil USD 1.13 trillion (USD 1.32 trillion in 2023). Among jurisdictions below the trillion-dollar threshold, the United Kingdom increased to USD 812 billion (USD 726 billion in 2023). The Netherlands declined to USD 509 billion (USD 576 billion in 2023), while Spain rose to USD 414 billion (USD 389 billion in 2023). Increases were also reported by Italy (USD 327 billion -- USD 289 billion in 2023), Belgium (USD 242 billion -- USD 225 billion in 2023), Austria (USD 238 billion -- USD 234 billion in 2023), Mexico (USD 206 billion -- USD 200 billion in 2023), and Hong Kong (USD 168 billion -- USD 153 billion in 2023).

For the first time, data were reported for Israel (USD 164 billion), Hungary

(USD 43 billion), and Norway (USD 26 billion), as shown in Figure 8. The inclusion of these jurisdictions broadened the geographical coverage of the survey and contributed to the aggregate increase, although the global NAV of OEFs remains concentrated in a small number of large jurisdictions.

4.3. Closed-ended Funds

Number of closed-ended funds and aggregate closed-ended fund net assets Number of Closed-ended Funds

Fig.9: Aggregate number of Closed-ended Funds reported by all jurisdictions for 2024.

Number of Closed-ended Funds by Jurisdiction

Fig.10: Aggregate number of Closed-ended Funds by reporting jurisdiction for 2024.

The number of closed-ended funds increased by 8.3% between the 2023 and 2024 data years, rising from 32,002 to 34,651. This marks the highest level observed in the number of closed-ended funds and reflects growth in several major jurisdictions together with the inclusion of jurisdictions that did not report closed-ended funds (CEF) data in the previous cycle. In 2024, Brazil (10,127) and Luxembourg (6,413) reported the largest numbers of CEFs. France (3,117), the United Kingdom (2,523), Indonesia (1,574), Italy (1,383), and China (1,331) also reported substantial numbers of funds. Medium-sized totals were observed in Saudi Arabia (1,124), Spain (1,242), Chile (837), Portugal (659), the United States (658), Germany (640), the Netherlands (607), Ireland (560), Canada(528), and Jersey (298).

Spain reported CEF data for the first time in 2024, immediately ranking

among the larger reporting jurisdictions. Additional new reporters included

Norway (166), Hungary (127), and Nigeria (14). Several other jurisdictions

reported smaller numbers of CEFs, including Colombia (161), Belgium (92), Morocco (91), Austria (81), Thailand (71), Malta (46), Romania (30), and Slovakia (2).

Overall, the 2024 increase primarily reflects expansion in several markets and

the inclusion of new jurisdictions. The results underscore both the concentration of CEF activity in a small number of large jurisdictions and the gradual broadening of geographical coverage as additional jurisdictions provide data.

Closed-ended Funds Aggregate NAV

Fig.11: Aggregate Net Asset Value of Closed-ended Funds reported by all jurisdictions for 2024.

Closed-ended Funds Aggregate NAV by Jurisdiction

Fig.12: Aggregate Net Asset Value of Closed-ended Funds by reporting jurisdictions for 2024.

The aggregate net asset value (NAV) of CEFs declined by 3.7 % between the 2023 and 2024 data years, from USD 5.4 trillion to USD 5.2 trillion. Despite this modest contraction, the 2024 total remained well above the levels recorded in 2020-2022. The green portions in Figures 11 and 12 highlight the contribution of jurisdictions newly reporting CEF data in 2024. Luxembourg remained the largest jurisdiction, with USD 1.64 trillion (USD 1.46 trillion in 2023). Other sizeable markets included Japan (USD 641 billion -- USD 608 billion in 2023), China (USD 532 billion -- USD 541 billion in 2023), the United Kingdom (USD 492 billion -- USD 592 billion in 2023), and the United States (USD 370 billion -- USD 346 billion in 2023). Additional large markets were France (USD 312 billion- No change), Jersey (USD 250 billion -- USD 259 billion in 2023), the Netherlands (USD 189 billion -- USD 183 billion in 2023), Italy (USD 149 billion -- USD 142 billion in 2023), Canada (USD 135 billion -- USD 127 billion in 2023), and Ireland (USD 147 billion -- USD 118 billion in 2023).

Spain reported CEF data for the first time in 2024, at USD 52 billion,

immediately ranking among the mid-sized reporting jurisdictions. Additional

new reporters included Norway (USD 12 billion), Hungary (USD 7 billion), and

Nigeria (USD 0.3 billion). Their participation broadened the survey coverage and contributed modestly to the 2024 total. Among other jurisdictions, Saudi Arabia's aggregate CEF NAV increased to USD 57.5 billion (USD 45.0 billion in 2023). Germany remained stable at USD 48 billion, while Brazil declined sharply to USD 36 billion (USD 399 billion in

1. following significant reclassification of funds. NAV also declined slightly in Chile to USD 34 billion (USD 37 billion in 2023), while Portugal rose to USD 25 billion (USD 22 billion in 2023) and Thailand stood at USD 20 billion (USD 22 billion in 2023).

Chapter 5 - Investment

Strategy & Fund Type

5.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Investment Strategy

Fig.13: Aggregate NAV of qualified hedge funds as a percentage of total aggregate NAV broken down by investment strategy for

2024.

Figure 13 presents the distribution of QHF assets by investment strategy in

1. Activity remained concentrated in a small number of strategies. "Other" (which includes multi-strategy approaches) accounted for 37.4% of reported

NAV , followed by Macro (16.3%), Equity Hedge: Long/Short (13.6%), and Relative Value: Fixed Income Arbitrage (12.7%). Together, these four

categories represented close to 80% of reported QHF NAV. The next largest categories were Equity Hedge: Long Bias (6.6%) and Credit

Long/Short (4.4%), while all other strategies each accounted for 2.5% or less of the total.

Hedge Funds Investment Strategy Historical Comparison

Fig.14: Year-over-year comparison of the aggregate NAV as a percentage of total aggregate NAV of qualified hedge funds broken

down by investment strategy.

Note: Relative Value, Event Driven, and Managed Futures strategies have been rolled up into one category for comparison of

the following graphs.

In the 2024 data year, the dominant strategies for QHF remained "Other,"

Macro, Equity Hedge: Long/Short, and the combined Relative Value / Event

Driven / Managed Futures bucket, which together accounted for the majority of aggregate NAV. The share of the "Other" category increased sharply to 38.2% (from 23.4% in 2023), reinforcing its position as the largest single segment. The shares of

several main strategies declined modestly: Equity Hedge: Long/Short fell from

15.7% to 13.8% (-1.9 percentage points), the combined Relative Value / Event Driven / Managed Futures bucket declined from 18.0% to 15.1% (-2.9 percentage points), and Macro eased from 17.1% to 16.6% (-0.5 percentage

Mainly reflecting a higher proportion of assets reported under these headings by the largest jurisdictions. 11

points). Among equity-hedge sub-strategies, Long Bias decreased from 7.4% to 6.8% (-0.6 percentage points). Smaller categories, including credit strategies and market-neutral approaches, remained at low single-digit shares, broadly consistent with prior years.

5.2. Open-ended Funds

Open-ended Funds Type 12 Fig.15: Aggregate NAV of Open-ended funds as a percentage of total aggregate NAV broken down by fund type for 2024.

Please note that each jurisdiction might have a different classification for each fund 12 type.

In 2024, Fixed Income Funds (37.2 %) and Equity Funds (33.7 %) together accounted for just over 70 % of aggregate OEF NAV. Mixed Funds (13.4 %) and Other Funds (11.0 %) represented most of the remaining share, while Real Estate Funds (3.6 %), Alternative strategies aimed at achieving an absolute return (0.7 %), and Commodity Funds (0.2 %) together represent a relatively small proportion of OEF NAV.

Open-ended Funds Type Historical Comparison

Fig.16: : Year-over-year comparison of the aggregate NAV as a percentage of total aggregate NAV of Open-ended funds broken

down by fund type.

Note: for year-over-year comparison of Open ended funds type, Alternative strategies aimed at achieving an absolute return

and Commodity Funds were merged into Other due to their relatively small size.

Between the 2023 and 2024 data years, the distribution of OEF NAV remained dominated by Fixed Income and Equity Funds. Fixed Income represented 37.2% of total OEF NAV in 2024 (37.4% in 2023), while Equity Funds increased to 33.7% (31.3% in 2023). Mixed Funds declined to 13.4% (from 15.1%), while "Other" -- which for comparability includes alternative and commodity funds -- was broadly stable at 12.1% (12.1% in 2023). Real Estate edged down slightly to 3.6% (from 4.0%).

Overall, the 2024 results confirm that Fixed Income and Equity Funds

together continued to account for more than two thirds of total OEF NAV, while the relative shares of Mixed and Real Estate Funds eased, and the "Other" category remained small. This composition is broadly consistent with

previous reporting years, although the rising share of Equity Funds and the slightly lower weight of Fixed Income and Mixed Funds may reflect valuation

effects--particularly the rising share of equity funds coinciding with positive

equity market developments.

5.3. Closed-ended Funds

Closed-ended Funds Type

Fig.17: Aggregate NAV of Closed-ended funds as a percentage of total aggregate NAV broken down by fund type for 2024.

In 2024, the distribution of CEF NAV remained concentrated in "Other" (50.7%) and Private Equity Funds (35.6%), which together accounted for 86.3% of reported CEF NAV. Real Estate Funds represented the remaining 13.6%.

This composition underscores the continued structural weight of Private Equity within the CEF universe, while also indicating a modest increase in the share of "Other" funds compared with the previous year and a relatively stable overall distribution across fund types.

Closed-ended Funds Type Historical Comparison

Fig.18: Year-over-year comparison of the aggregate NAV as a percentage of total aggregate NAV of Closed-ended funds broken

down by fund type.

The aggregate NAV composition of CEFs changed between the 2023 and 2024 data years. The share of "Other" strategies decreased slightly from 53.5% to 50.7% (-2.8 percentage points), while Private Equity (PE) rose from 32.4% to 35.6% (+3.2 pp). Real Estate funds remained broadly stable at 13.6% (2023: 14.1%).

This shift reflects the continued strengthening of Private Equity within the

closed-ended segment, partly offset by a decline in the "Other" category. Take n together, Other and PE represented more than 86% of total CEF NAV in 2024, highlighting the concentration of NAV in these two categories.

Chapter 6 - Geographical

Investment Area

6.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Geographical Investment Areas

Fig.19: Total aggregate NAV of qualified hedge funds broken down by geographical investment area for 2024. Note: This graph does not include data for US qualified hedge funds due to lack of availability.

Figure 19 shows the geographical investment focus of QHFs in 2024,

excluding US-domiciled QHFs due to lack of available data.

Excluding the US, the majority of QHF assets were directed to North America

(44.3 %), followed by Global mandates (20.5 %) funds without a specific regional focus -- Europe (15.9 %), and Asia-Pacific (16.6 %). Latin America (2.7%) and Africa (0.1 %) accounted for only small shares of reported NAV. Overall, the distribution highlights the continued dominance of North America

and globally diversified strategies, with only limited allocations to other

regions.

Hedge Funds Geographical Investment Areas (w/ US Approximation)

Fig.20: Total aggregate NAV broken down by geographical investment area including an approximation of the US geographical

investment focus based on US large hedge funds for 2024.

Note: The approximation for US Qualified Hedge Fund geographical investment focus is obtained from geographical

exposure for large US hedge funds

Figure 20 provides a breakdown of the geographical investment focus of

QHFs in 2024, including an approximation for the United States based on aggregated information from public regulatory filings by large US hedge

funds. On this basis, North America accounted for 66.9 % of aggregate NAV -- by far

the largest regional focus of QHFs. Europe represented 20.5 %, while 9.4 % of

NAV was directed to Asia-Pacific (including the Middle East). It is estimated that allocations to Global mandates (funds without a specific regional focus) represented (1.8 %), South America (1.2 %), and Africa (0.3 %) were smaller. Overall, this concentration pattern remains broadly consistent with previous reporting years.

Hedge Funds Geographical Investment Areas by Jurisdiction

Fig.21: Total aggregate NAV of qualified hedge funds broken down by jurisdiction and geographical investment for 2024.

Figure 21 shows hedge funds' geographical investment areas by jurisdiction

for the 2024 data year (excluding US QHFs). North America remained the

principal investment focus, driven by hedge funds domiciled in the United Kingdom, which allocated about USD 248 billion to this region (around two- thirds of the non-US total). Canada was the next largest allocator to North America, at about USD 30 billion, followed by Switzerland, whose North American exposure was smaller and accompanied by sizeable allocations to Global and European mandates.

Within Asia and the Pacific, allocations were concentrated in Hong Kong

(about USD 64 billion) and Singapore (about USD 41 billion), which together represented over four-fifths of reported allocations to the region. Both jurisdictions also reported meaningful allocations to Global mandates. In Europe, hedge-fund allocations are presented separately for the European Economic Area (EEA) and for Europe (Other) jurisdictions. Within the EEA,

allocations were led by Luxembourg (≈ USD 18 billion), and Ireland (≈ USD 10

billion), with additional amounts from Norway and the Netherlands. Europe (Other) allocations were driven by hedge funds domiciled in the United Kingdom (≈ USD 50 billion). Global allocations were also significant,

particularly for the United Kingdom (≈ USD 71 billion) and Switzerland (≈ USD

44 billion).

Overall, while North America remained the leading geographical investment focus, the results highlight the growing role of Asia-Pacific jurisdictions --

particularly Hong Kong -- alongside continued diversification within Europe.

6.2. Open-ended Funds

Open-ended Funds Geographical Investment Areas

Fig.22: Total aggregate NAV of open-ended funds broken down by geographical investment area for 2024.

Figure 22 provides a breakdown of the geographical investment focus of OEFs (excluding the United States) for 2024. Reported allocations were concentrated in North America (32.2 %), Europe (29.8 %), and Asia and

Pacific (21.6 %), which together accounted for more than four-fifths of total

OEF NAV. Global mandates--funds without a specific regional focus-- represented 15.3 % of reported NAV. Allocations to South America (0.7 %),

Africa (0.3 %), and the Middle East (≈ 0.1 %) remained marginal.

Overall, the 2024 results highlight a continued concentration of OEF investment in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, with stable though modest shares for Global mandates and minimal allocations to other regions.

Open-ended Funds Geographical Investment Areas by Jurisdiction

Fig.23: Total aggregate NAV of open-ended funds broken down by jurisdiction and geographical investment for 2024.

Figure 23 presents the distribution of OEF allocations by jurisdiction and geographical investment area in 2024. For Europe, allocations were dominated by Luxembourg, Ireland, and

Germany. Luxembourg allocated materially to both Europe (EEA) (≈ USD 2.0 trillion) and North America (≈ USD 1.7 trillion). Ireland was heavily tilted toward North America (≈ USD 2.3 trillion) alongside Europe (EEA) (≈ USD 0.7 trillion). Germany was concentrated in Europe (EEA) (≈ USD 1.6 trillion), with a sizeable Global share (≈ USD 0.6 trillion). Within Asia and Pacific, allocations were highly concentrated in China, which accounted for the vast majority of the region (≈ USD 4.0 trillion). Japan (USD

0.22 trillion) and Hong Kong (USD 0.12 trillion) contributed smaller amounts to Asia-Pacific and USD 0.03 trillion to Global mandates.

Global allocations were also significant, led by Luxembourg (≈ USD 0.9 trillion), Germany (≈ USD 0.6 trillion), Japan (≈ USD 0.6 trillion), Switzerland (≈ USD 0.5 trillion), and Ireland (≈ USD 0.4 trillion). Among other jurisdictions, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Mexico, Hong Kong, and Liechtenstein

contributed smaller volumes, broadening the geographical coverage.

Overall, the results underscore a diversified geographical allocation across

major European jurisdictions and a highly concentrated profile in Asia-Pacific,

with increasing participation from smaller jurisdictions that add incremental breadth to global OEF investment patterns.

6.3. Closed-ended Funds

Closed-ended Funds Geographical Investment Areas

Fig.24: Total aggregate NAV of Closed-ended funds broken down by geographical investment area for 2024.

Figure 24 presents the geographical investment focus of CEFs in 2024, the

coverage of this figure represents 96.8% of the CEF NAV. Reported

allocations were concentrated in Europe (43.2 %), split between the

European Economic Area (EEA, ≈ 36.8 %) and Europe (Other, ≈ 6.4 %), followed by Asia and Pacific (24.6 %) and North America (21.2 %). Global

mandates accounted for 9.8 %, while allocations to South America (0.8 %) and Africa (0.3 %) remained marginal. Overall, the distribution underscores the continued concentration of CEF investment in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific with other regions remaining marginal.

Closed-ended Funds Geographical Investment Areas by Jurisdiction

Fig.25: Total aggregate NAV of Closed-ended funds broken down by jurisdiction and geographical investment for 2024.

Figure 25 shows the distribution of CEF allocations by jurisdiction and geographical investment area in 2024. For Europe (EEA), activity was led by Luxembourg (≈ USD 998 billion), followed by the France (≈ USD 287 billion), United Kingdom (≈ USD 176 billion),

Italy (≈ USD 142 billion), the Netherlands (≈ USD 104 billion), Jersey (≈ USD 76.8 billion), Ireland (≈ USD 66.1 billion), and Germany (≈ USD 44.3 billion).

CEFs domiciled in many of these European jurisdictions also allocated sizeable amounts to North America--notably Luxembourg (≈ USD 225.7

billion), the United Kingdom (≈ USD 102.3 billion), the Netherlands (≈ USD 78.7 billion), and Ireland (≈ USD 65.6 billion)--and to Global mandates, including Luxembourg (≈ USD 293.1 billion), Jersey (≈ USD 63.7 billion), and the United Kingdom (≈ USD 54.6 billion). These cross-regional allocations highlight the

global reach of European-domiciled CEFs. For Asia and Pacific, Japan (≈ USD 628 billion) and China (≈ USD 532 billion) dominated, together accounting for nearly the entire regional total. Additional

amounts were reported by Indonesia (≈ USD 27 billion), Luxembourg (≈ USD 26 billion), and the United Kingdom (≈ USD 19 billion). The United States reported allocations concentrated in North America (≈ USD 457 billion), with smaller shares to Global (≈ USD 41 billion) and Europe (EEA) (≈ USD 29 billion).

Overall, CEF allocations from European-domiciled funds were the largest in aggregate, while maintaining diversified geographical investment profiles extending beyond their home region. Japan and China anchored Asia-Pacific, and the US remained a major North American center.

Chapter 7 - Assets Classes

7.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Long/Short Assets

Fig.26: Aggregate long/short exposures of qualified hedge funds broken down by asset class for 2024.

Hedge Funds Gross Assets

Fig.27: Aggregate gross exposures of qualified hedge funds broken down by asset class for 2024. Assets classes refer exclusively to cash securities in the fund's portfolios, exposures 13 through derivatives are not included

Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the aggregate long/short and gross exposures of

QHFs by asset class in 2024. The distribution remained highly concentrated

in four asset classes -- sovereign bonds, listed equities, reverse repos, and cash -- which together accounted for the bulk of reported exposures.

On a gross basis (Fig. 27), exposures were largest in sovereign bonds (≈ USD 7.9 trillion), followed by listed equities (≈ USD 3.7 trillion), reverse repos (≈ USD

3.6-3.7 trillion), and cash and cash equivalents (≈ USD 3.0 trillion). The long/short breakdown (Fig. 26) shows substantial activity on both sides of the book in sovereign bonds and listed equities, consistent with strategies such as relative-value fixed income and equity long/short. Cash and repo balances were likewise sizeable on both the long and short sides, reflecting

their role in financing, liquidity management, and positioning.

Other asset classes -- including unlisted equities, loans, corporate bonds, Collective Investment Undertakings (CIUs) , and structured/securitised products -- were present but comparatively small in aggregate.

Overall, the 2024 results confirm the persistence of a concentrated asset- class profile for QHFs, with sovereign bonds and equities forming the core,

supplemented by cash and repo activity, while other categories remained secondary in scale.

7.2. Open-ended Funds

Open-ended Funds Long/Short Assets

Fig.28: Aggregate long/short exposures of Open-ended Funds broken down by asset class for 2024.

Open-ended Funds Gross Assets Fig.29: Aggregate gross exposures of Open-ended Funds broken down by asset class for 2024.

Figures 28 and 29 illustrate the long/short and gross exposures of OEFs by asset class in 2024. The coverage of jurisdictions for these figures is 31/36 jurisdictions representing 96.8% of the OEF NAV. Consistent with earlier reporting years, OEFs reported very limited short positions across asset classes -- aggregate shorts amounted to only ≈ 0.4 % of total OEF NAV -- so gross exposures provide the most informative view of portfolio composition.

Exposures remained highly concentrated. Equities dominated at ≈ USD 34.4 trillion (≈ 55 % of OEF NAV), followed by corporate bonds (≈ USD 5.1 trillion) and sovereign bonds (≈ USD 4.7 trillion). Together, these three asset classes

accounted for roughly 70 % of OEF NAV. The remaining share was distributed across collective investment

undertakings (≈ USD 2.5 trillion), cash (≈ USD 2.2 trillion), structured/securitised products (≈ USD 1.9 trillion), reverse repos (≈ USD 0.95

OEFs report very limited short exposures. As a result, gross exposures are 14

dominated by long positions, and the gross asset profile shown here appears

visually similar to the long side of the long/short breakdown in Figure 28.

trillion) and loans (≈ USD 0.88 trillion), with other categories contributing only

marginal amounts.

This distribution reflects the structural composition of OEFs, which are

primarily organised as Equity Funds and Fixed Income Funds. The results

confirm that equities remain the dominant driver of exposures, with corporate

and sovereign bonds providing substantial, though comparatively smaller exposures.

7.3. Closed-ended Funds

Closed-ended Funds Long/Short Assets 15 Fig.30: Aggregate long/short exposures of Closed-ended Funds broken down by asset class for 2024.

The coverage of jurisdiction for this section is 92.4% of the CEF NAV 15

Closed-ended Funds Gross Assets

Fig.31: Aggregate gross exposures of Closed-ended Funds broken down by asset class for 2024.

Figures 30 and 31 present the long/short and gross exposures of CEFs by asset class for 2024. Exposures were concentrated in a small number of

categories: equities (listed and unlisted) were the largest at ≈ USD 1.94 trillion, followed by collective investment undertakings (CIUs, ≈ USD 1.05 trillion), physical real estate (≈ USD 0.64 trillion), corporate bonds (≈ USD 0.42 trillion),

and loans(≈ USD 0.39 trillion). Sovereign bonds(≈ USD 0.36 trillion) also represented a material category, while remaining asset classes --including cash, structured/securitised products, and municipal/public local debt--were modest in scale. Short positions were limited across asset classes, so gross exposures provide the clearest view of portfolio composition. Relative to previous reporting years, equities have remained the largest single asset class, though their share has stabilised. At the same time, exposures to CIUs and real estate have expanded. By contrast, exposures to sovereign

bonds and cash remain comparatively smaller, reflecting the sector's focus on private and alternative assets rather than traditional fixed income.

Chapter 8 - Derivatives

8.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Long/Short Derivatives

Fig.32: Aggregate long/short notional exposure of qualified hedge funds broken down by derivative class for 2024.

Hedge Funds Gross Derivatives

Fig.33: Aggregate gross notional exposure of qualified hedge funds broken down by derivative class for 2024.

Figures 32 and 33 show the long/short and gross notional exposures of QHFs by derivative class for 2024. Long exposures are bets that the underlying instrument will rise; in the case of a plain vanilla interest rate (IR)swap, a long position will be a contract that increases in value when interest rates rise (pay

fixed, received floating). It is important to note that aggregate notional

exposure to IR swaps does not accurately depict the size of the market due to the nature of the contracts. The short-term nature of many IR Swaps, and

the tendency to hold off-setting positions with counterparties, significantly

overstates the size of the IR Swap markets. Exposures remained highly 16 concentrated in interest rate derivatives, which accounted for about 73% of

aggregate gross notional (≈USD 30.0 trillion of ≈USD 41.1 trillion total).

Foreign-exchange derivatives were the second-largest class (≈USD 6.1 trillion,

14.7%), followed by equity derivatives (≈USD 3.0 trillion, 7.3%). Credit,

commodity, and other derivatives represented comparatively smaller shares

of ≈USD 1.2 trillion, 0.5 trillion, and 0.3 trillion, respectively.

Relative to 2022, aggregate gross notional across all derivative classes rose

by about 21%, from ≈USD 33.9 trillion to ≈USD 41.1 trillion. Interest-rate

derivatives remained dominant, though their share eased slightly (74.6% → 72.9%). By contrast, FX, equity and credit derivatives all grew strongly, increasing their respective shares. Commodity and other derivatives declined both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the total. Overall, the results highlight the continued central role of interest rate contracts, alongside a gradual broadening of activity into other derivative classes.

See the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Staff Research Paper "Introducing 16ENNs: A Measure of the Size of Interest Rate Swap Markets", January 2018,

available at:

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@economicanalysis/do cuments/file/oce_enns0118.pdf

8.2. Open-ended Funds

Open-ended Funds Gross Derivatives 17 Fig.34: Aggregate gross notional exposure of Open-ended Funds broken down by derivative class for 2024.

Figures 34 show the gross notional exposures of OEFs by derivative class for

1. Interest-rate derivatives remained the largest class, accounting for about class (≈USD 3.9 trillion, mostly long). FX derivatives were the second-

largest class (≈USD 3.2 trillion, mostly long), while equity and credit exposures

were modest, and commodity/other derivatives remained marginal.

Interest-rate exposures rose from ≈USD 3.3 trillion in 2022 to ≈3.9 trillion in

1. FX derivatives rose from ≈USD 2.6 trillion in 2022 to ≈USD 3.2 trillion in
2. Equity derivatives increased moderately (≈USD 0.7 → 1.2 trillion), credit derivatives contracted (≈USD 0.5 → 0.3 trillion), and other categories

remained small.

The coverage of jurisdiction for this figure is 92.7% of the OEF NAV. 17

8.3. Closed-ended Funds 18

Closed-ended Funds Long/Short Derivatives

Fig.35: Aggregate long/short notional exposure of Closed-ended Funds broken down by derivative class for 2024.

Closed-ended Funds Gross Derivatives

Fig 36: Aggregate gross notional exposure of Closed-ended Funds broken down by derivative class for 2024.

The coverage of jurisdiction for this section is 80.4% of CEF NAV 18

Figures 35-36 show the derivative exposures of CEFs for 2024. Aggregate usage remained limited, with foreign-exchange (FX) derivatives representing

the largest share of gross notional (≈USD 0.20 trillion, ~59%), followed by

interest-rate derivatives (≈USD 0.08 trillion, ~23%) and equity derivatives

(≈USD 0.05 trillion, ~14%). Positions in credit, commodities, and other

derivatives were marginal. Short exposures accounted for only about 3% of

gross notional, leaving the profile predominantly long across classes.

Aggregate notional nearly doubled between 2022 and 2024 (≈USD 0.18 trillion → ≈USD 0.34 trillion, +88%). Growth was broad-based: interest-rate

derivatives tripled, FX derivatives rose by about two-thirds, and equity derivatives increased by more than three-quarters. Credit and other derivatives also expanded from low bases, while commodity exposures remained negligible.

Chapter 9 - Leverage

9.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Leverage

Fig.37: Aggregate leverage metrics of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Gross Leverage: Gross Exposure/NAV 19 Synthetic Leverage: Synthetic Exposure/NAV Synthetic Exposure: Gross exposures of investment funds the sum of the absolute values of the notional amounts of a fund's derivatives Gross Exposure = Gross exposures of investment funds the sum of the absolute values of the notional amounts of a fund's derivatives and the value of the fund's other investments. NAV: Aggregate net asset value (NAV)

Hedge Funds Gross Leverage by Jurisdiction

Fig.38: Aggregate gross leverage of qualified hedge funds by jurisdiction for 2024.

Figure 37 shows that gross leverage of QHFs rose to 11.9× NAV in 2024 (2023: 10.5×), though it remained below the 2020 peak (12.5×). Synthetic leverage also increased, reaching 8.2× (2023: 7.2×), while gross leverage excluding IR and FX derivatives climbed to 4.7×, its highest level since 2018.

After a period of relative stability, gross leverage resumed its upward trend in

1. Synthetic leverage continued to recover toward earlier highs, and leverage excluding IR/FX derivatives extended its steady climb. While aggregate measures remain below 2020 levels, the results point to a slight increase of leverage across both derivatives-based and non-IR/FX channels. At the jurisdictional level (Figure 38), the United Kingdom reported the highest gross leverage (56.0× NAV). Other jurisdictions with higher levels of leverage included Austria (33.7×), Ireland (26.1×), and the Netherlands 20 (25.3×). Reported leverage was lower elsewhere: Switzerland (14.3×), The Austrian hedge fund sector consists of only four small funds. Furthermore, 20

these funds are only distributed to institutional investors and qualified retail

investors and follow futures-based strategies.

Singapore (12.5×), the United States (8.1×), Canada (6.1×), and France (5.4×)

formed a middle tier, while Hong Kong (2.6×), Luxembourg (2.0×), Thailand

(1.9×), Japan (1.5×), Gibraltar (1.4×), Germany (1.0×), Liechtenstein (0.93×), and Norway (0.91×) reported the lowest levels.

Overall, leverage in the QHF sector remains higher in a small number of

jurisdictions.

Hedge Funds Borrowing

Fig 39: Aggregate cash and securities borrowing of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Hedge Funds Financial Leverage

Fig.40: Aggregate financial leverage of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Figure 39 shows that aggregate borrowing by QHF increased in 2024, reversing the declines of 2022 and extending the partial rebound in 2023. Cash borrowing rose to about USD 4.1 trillion (2023: USD 3.0 trillion), while securities borrowing increased to USD 2.9 trillion (2023: USD 2.2 trillion). Cash borrowing continued to exceed securities borrowing, consistent with earlier reporting years. Despite the rebound, combined borrowing remained below

the 2021 peaks (cash ≈ USD 4.3 trillion; securities ≈ USD 4.0 trillion).

Figure 40 illustrates the corresponding impact on financial leverage. Total

financial leverage (cash + securities) rose to 1.42× NAV in 2024 (2023: 1.15×),

remaining below the 2020-2021 highs (≈ 1.7-1.8×). Both components increased: cash leverage reached 0.82× (2023: 0.66×), while securities leverage rose to 0.59× (2023: 0.48×). Compared with 2023, borrowings expanded materially across both cash and

securities financing, and total financial leverage increased by about 23%

(from 1.15× to 1.41×). While leverage remains below the levels observed in 2020-2021, the 2024 results indicate a renewed reliance on borrowing relative to the prior two reporting years.

9.2. Open-ended Funds

Open-ended Funds Leverage

Fig.41: Aggregate leverage metrics Open-ended Funds for 2024.

Open-ended Funds Gross Leverage by Jurisdiction

Fig.42: Aggregate gross leverage of Open-ended Funds by jurisdiction for 2024.

Figure 41 shows that OEFs' gross leverage was stable in 2024 at 1.15× NAV (2023: 1.16×). The same trend was seen in the gross leverage excluding interest-rate (IR) and foreign-exchange (FX) derivatives remained broadly stable at 1.02×, while synthetic leverage fell from 0.18× to 0.16×. The results indicate that the rise in overall leverage was primarily derivative-driven-- notably through FX positions--while "core" leverage (excluding IR/FX) was largely unchanged. Figure 42 illustrates the jurisdictional breakdown. The most striking case is Mexico, where gross leverage rose to ≈14.9× by far the highest level across all jurisdictions. By contrast, most European markets (including Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) remained clustered around 1×, showing modest declines or stability relative to the prior year. Several smaller jurisdictions--such as Hungary and Colombia--reported relatively low but slightly rising leverage.

Year-over-year, leverage growth is concentrated in a few emerging markets (notably Mexico), while most established domiciles remain roughly ~1x with modest changes.

Open-ended Funds Borrowing

Fig.43: Aggregate cash and securities borrowing of Open-ended funds for 2024.

Open-ended Funds Financial Leverage

Fig.44: Aggregate financial leverage of Open-ended funds for 2024.

Figure 43 shows aggregate borrowing by OEFs, split between cash and securities borrowing. As in prior reporting years, cash borrowing remained dominant, while securities borrowing continued to play a comparatively small role. In 2024, total borrowing declined relative to 2023: cash borrowing fell to

about USD 240 billion (2023: ≈ USD 330 billion), and securities borrowing decreased to about USD 28 billion (2023: ≈ USD 70 billion). Despite these

changes, borrowing levels remain modest compared with total OEF NAV,

underscoring the limited use of debt financing within the sector.

Figure 44 presents the corresponding financial leverage metrics. Total

financial leverage stayed very low--0.017× NAV in 2024 (2023: 0.021×)--with

only marginal variation across years. Both components declined slightly: cash leverage edged down to 0.014× (2023: 0.017×), and securities leverage to 0.003× (2023: 0.004×).

Compared with 2023, both borrowing and financial leverage eased modestly

in 2024, reversing part of the previous year's increase. Overall, OEFs continue to employ negligible levels of borrowing, both in absolute terms and relative to NAV--in sharp contrast with hedge funds and some CEFs, where borrowing remains a more prominent structural feature.

9.3. Closed-ended Funds

Closed-ended Funds Leverage

Fig.45: Aggregate leverage metrics of Closed-ended Funds broken for 2024.

Closed-ended Funds Leverage by Jurisdiction

Fig.46: Aggregate gross leverage of Closed-ended Funds by jurisdiction for 2024.

Figure 45 shows that aggregate leverage for CEFs remains low relative to other fund types. Gross leverage increased modestly to 1.15x NAV in 2024 (2023: 1.11x; 2022: 1.05x), staying close to unity. Gross leverage excluding IR and FX derivatives was 1.08x (2023: 1.05x), while synthetic leverage rose slightly to 0.09x (2023: 0.08x). These results confirm that derivatives exposures contribute only marginally to overall leverage, consistent with the structural characteristics of CEFs, which typically pursue long-term, illiquid strategies such as private equity and real estate. CEFs (particularly private equity funds) do not display a high degree of leverage as provided under AIFMD because they do not report the leverage borne at the underlying company level. Figure 46 presents the jurisdictional breakdown. Ireland remained a clear outlier at 14.2×, down slightly from the previous year but still far above other markets. Brazil (3.6×) and the United States (1.6×) also stood above the global aggregate, while most other jurisdictions clustered close to 1× or below. These included Canada, Germany (1.3×), Luxembourg (1.2×), Belgium (1.1×), the Netherlands (1.1×) and the UK (1.0×). Leverage remained lower in Italy (0.9×),

Hungary (0.4×) and Colombia (0.2×).

Compared with 2023, overall CEF leverage increased slightly at the global level, driven mainly by higher values in Brazil and the United States, while Ireland remained highly leveraged despite a modest decline. Most European and other jurisdictions stayed concentrated around 1×, confirming the sector's

stable and structurally conservative leverage profile, at least at fund level . 21

Closed-ended Funds Borrowing

Fig.47: Aggregate cash and securities borrowing of Closed-ended funds for 2024.

Closed-ended Funds Financial Leverage

Fig.48: Aggregate financial leverage of Closed-ended funds for 2024.

For instance, in Europe, AIFs whose core investment policy is to acquire control of non-listed companies 21

or issuers [i.e. private equity funds and only them] are exempted to include in the calculation of the

leverage any exposure that exists at the level of the non-listed companies and issuers they control provided that the AIF or the AIFM acting on its behalf does not bear potential losses beyond its investment in the respective company or issuer.

Figure 47 shows aggregate borrowing of CEFs between 2020 and 2024, split into cash and securities borrowing. Aggregate borrowing remains small in absolute terms and relative to NAV. Borrowing is almost entirely cash-based, with securities borrowing negligible throughout. In 2024, cash borrowing totalled about USD 217 billion (2023: ≈USD 262 billion), while securities

borrowing was ≈USD 0.8 billion (2023: ≈USD 1.3 billion)--well below 1 percent

of the total in both years. The series shows a decline in 2021, a modest recovery in 2022, a peak around 2023, and a pullback in 2024. Figure 48 presents borrowing scaled to NAV, expressed as financial leverage.

Total financial leverage stood at 0.072× NAV in 2024 (2023: 0.065×), with the cash component at ≈0.071× and securities at ≈0.001×. Given the negligible

role of securities borrowing, total financial leverage remains effectively identical to cash leverage across the period.

Compared with 2023, aggregate cash borrowing increased by about 12.5 percent in 2024, while securities borrowing remained immaterial. Total

financial leverage edged up from 0.065× to 0.072×, reflecting movements in

both borrowing and NAV across reporters. Overall, borrowing continues to play only a minor role in CEF funding structures, and leverage remains low across jurisdictions which could be due to some closed-end funds (private equity funds for example) not reporting the leverage borne at the underlying company level.

Chapter 10 - Liquidity Risk

10.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Liquidity Mismatch

Fig.49: Aggregate liquidity mismatch metrics of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Figure 49 shows the cumulative investor and portfolio liquidity profiles of

QHFs for 2024. Portfolio liquidity measures the share of assets that could be liquidated within each time horizon, while investor liquidity reflects the share

of fund equity that investors are contractually able to redeem over the same period. As in previous years, portfolio liquidity remains consistently higher than investor liquidity across all horizons, indicating that hedge funds generally

maintain portfolios that are more liquid than the redemption terms offered to

investors. Within 90 days, around 61-68% of portfolios could be liquidated, compared with 20-37% of investor equity being redeemable. By the six- month horizon (181-365 days), cumulative investor liquidity reached about 50%, while portfolio liquidity stood near 74%. Overall, both curves rise gradually with longer time frames, but cumulative

values remain relatively low, suggesting that a significant share of hedge fund

assets require extended periods to unwind. This pattern is consistent with structural features of hedge funds, such as longer-dated investment strategies and the use of contractual redemption restrictions to manage

outflows.

Chapter 11 -Counterparty

Risk

11.1. Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds Clearing 22 Fig 50: Aggregate central clearing vs. bilateral clearing of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Figure 50 shows the breakdown between trades cleared centrally through a

central counterparty (CCP) and those conducted bilaterally for QHFs in the

2024 data year. As in 2022, most OTC derivatives continue to be transacted bilaterally rather than cleared centrally. The median share of trades cleared through a CCP remains limited, with around half of jurisdictions reporting less than 20 percent of trades centrally cleared. This indicates that counterparty

exposures in QHFs continue to be driven mainly by bilateral trading

arrangements rather than by CCP intermediation.

Note: The box plot shows the interquartile range (IQR), lower fence (Q1-(1.5IQR)), 22

upper fence (Q3+(1.5IQR)), upper quartile - (Q3), lower quartile (Q1), and the

median (solid line). Additionally, the dotted line represents the mean, and the dotted triangles represent the standard deviation.

Relative to the 2023 reporting year, bilateral clearing continues to dominate, with little evidence of a structural move toward central clearing.

11.2. Open-ended Funds

Open-ended Funds Clearing

Fig.51: Aggregate central clearing vs. bilateral clearing of open-ended funds for 2024.

Figure 51 shows the breakdown of OTC derivatives trades by OEFs between those cleared centrally through a central counterparty (CCP) and those transacted bilaterally for the 2024 data year. As in prior years, OEFs continue to rely predominantly on bilateral transactions. The distribution indicates that the median proportion of bilateral trades remains substantially higher than CCP-cleared trades, with bilateral activity also exhibiting a wider dispersion across jurisdictions. By contrast, CCP clearing remains comparatively limited, with the median and upper quartile well below bilateral levels. Overall, the results suggest that counterparty exposures in OEFs continue to be primarily driven by bilateral relationships.

Between the 2022 and 2024 data years, clearing practices show little structural change. Bilateral transactions continue to dominate, while CCP clearing remains limited.

11.3. Closed-ended Funds

Closed-ended Funds Clearing

Fig.52: Aggregate central clearing vs. bilateral clearing of closed-ended funds for 2024.

Figure 52 shows the split between OTC derivatives cleared centrally through a central counterparty (CCP) and those transacted bilaterally by CEFs in

1. Consistent with prior years, nearly all CEF derivatives continue to be cleared bilaterally, with CCP use remaining negligible. The distribution indicates that the median and upper-quartile levels of bilateral clearing are close to 100 percent, while CCP clearing is minimal across most jurisdictions.

This reflects the composition of CEF derivatives activity, which is typically

concentrated in foreign-exchange contracts such as non-deliverable forwards (NDFs) that are not generally subject to mandatory clearing.

Between 2023 and 2024, bilateral clearing continues to dominate, with no material change in the use of CCPs.

Chapter 12 - Conclusion

Qualified Hedge Funds

The 2024 data confirm that QHFs remain a relatively small but highly influential segment of the global investment funds industry. QHFs continue to

exhibit higher leverage and more extensive derivatives usage than other fund

types, reflecting their investment strategies and active role in key financial

markets, including sovereign bond and repo markets. While aggregate leverage and borrowing increased in 2024, levels remain below earlier peaks, and liquidity indicators suggest that, on average, QHFs are well positioned to meet investor redemptions under normal market conditions. At the same time, the data highlights the concentration of activity within a small number of jurisdictions and strategies, as well as the continued predominance of bilateral derivatives transactions. These features underscore the importance of ongoing monitoring of leverage, liquidity, and counterparty

exposures within the QHF sector in this report.

Open-Ended Funds and Closed-Ended Funds

For OEFs and CEFs, the 2024 results indicate broadly stable risk profiles alongside continued growth in the scale of the industry. OEFs remain primarily exposed to traditional asset classes, with low leverage and limited borrowing relative to CEFs and QHFs, while CEFs continue to focus on private equity, real estate, and other alternative strategies with longer investment horizons than OEFs. Derivatives usage and counterparty exposures remain modest for both fund types in aggregate relative to usage by QHFs.

Differences in reporting coverage and regulatory frameworks continue to affect data availability, particularly for UCITS in some jurisdictions and private

equity funds. Nevertheless, the results provide a consistent picture of low leverage and limited interconnectedness through derivatives markets relative

to QHFs. As reporting frameworks evolve and coverage expands, future

editions of the IFSR are expected to further enhance the analysis of trends and risks across the global investment funds industry.

A1 - NCA Fund Reporting

Jurisdictions Reporting AuM Only

Tab.1: AuM only reported by jurisdiction for 2024.

Fund Reporting by Jurisdiction

Tab.2: Types of funds reported NCA / jurisdiction for 2024.

A2 - Jurisdictional

Breakdown

Hedge Fund Leverage by Jurisdiction

Tab.3: Qualified hedge fund leverage broken down by jurisdiction for 2024.

Open-ended Fund Leverage by Jurisdiction Tab.4: Open-ended fund leverage broken down by jurisdiction for 2024.

Closed-ended Fund Leverage by Jurisdiction

Tab.5 : Close d-ended fund leverage broken down by jurisdiction for 2024.

Luxembourg figures are based on a subset of reporting funds for open-ended and 23 closed ended funds.

A3 - Fund Exposures

Hedge Fund Exposures

Tab.6: Qualified hedge fund exposures for 2024.

Open-ended Fund Exposures

Tab.7 : O p en -ended fund exposures for 2024.

Closed-ended Fund Exposures

Tab.8: Closed-ended fund exposures for 2024.

A4 - Additional Figures

Hedge Funds Long/Short Credit Derivatives

Fig.62: Aggregate long/short notional credit derivatives exposures of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Hedge Funds Gross Credit Derivatives

Fig.63: Aggregate gross notional credit derivatives exposures of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Hedge Funds Long/Short Commodity Derivatives

Fig.64: Aggregate long/short notional commodity derivatives exposures of qualified hedge funds for 2024.

Hedge Funds Gross Commodity Derivatives

Fig.65: Aggregate gross notional commodity derivatives exposures of qualified hedge funds for 2024.