Replication package for: Do NBFIs Stabilise Bank Funding? Origin-Specific Evidence from Chile

This paper studies whether domestic non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) stabilise or amplify bank-funding shocks in an emerging market.We use quarterly bilateral sector-instrument exposures from Chile's NationalAccounts by Institutional Sector over 2002q4--2025q2, covering bank deposits,loans, and bonds held by pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, other financial institutions, households, firms, government, the Central Bank,and non-residents. Using local projections with Driscoll--Kraay and joint-significance inference, we compare bank-funding responses to five shock origins: domestic monetary policy, US monetary policy, domestic uncertainty, global uncertainty, and the 2020--21 Early Pension Fund Withdrawals (EPFWs). We find that the role of NBFIs is shock-origin contingent. Under external shocks, globally exposed pension funds increase their claims on domestic banks, partially offsetting non-resident retrenchment and supporting bank funding. Under domestic shocks, responses are more heterogeneous and less clearly stabilising. By contrast, the EPFW episode generated a large reallocation of bank funding across sectors: pension funds and money-market funds reduced bank claims, households accumulated deposits, and the Central Bank provided short-run liquidity support. The results are robust to a sectoral-share specification and to alternative clustering of the standard errors. The findings suggest that deep domestic capital markets can \emph{partially mitigate} some external-shock transmission channels, especially through globally exposed pension funds, while transmitting stress when liquidity shocks originate inside the NBFI sector itself --- with implications for macroprudential monitoring and emergency-liquidity design in small open emerging markets.