Many inaccuracies in this article. You can't compare apples with oranges. A bank is not a fair comparison to make against an asset manager. As they play different roles with the financial system. As a result, have different degrees of risk. Risk itself is not one dimensional. The idea of reducing systemic risk is simply fantasy. One simply shifts risk to different areas within the system. Yes asset managers' balance sheets have low leverage. However, the risk of interconnectedness as a result of QE is false. This was present before QE and made apparent since the "big bang deregulation " and abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act. Is illiquidity a bad thing when investing in a particular fund (mandate dependent)? You would expect to be compensated for this illiquidity. Furthermore, bond investing and equity investing are two very things in terms of risk. You speak of symmetry but bond investing by nature is asymmetric, as the downside outweighs the upside potential. It is not the job of an asset manager to provide liquidity per se. It should however be the managers responsibility to educate investors of the risks of investing in a particular fund. The exit of Bill Gross did have a short term impact on TIPS and MBS. If there was another liquidity crisis, cross-asset correlations would turn positive anyway. I do agree that central banks have exacerbated systemic by hiding the true leverage within the system and driving up asset prices (note no bubbles as there is no mania). So while "printing" money does create new risks, such as model risk relating to RWAs and leverage ratios to name a few, you cannot assume they are systemic. Particularly as you point out there is no "one size fits all" definition of systemic risk. Let us not forget that increased regulation has lead to more concentration of risk and reduced liquidity.