Allegations of financial manipulation by hedge funds in the run-up to and during the financial crisis have resulted in one of the largest dragnets by financial regulators in recent memory. What’s more, it appears that the mutual fund industry may be peripherally involved.

When a financial scandal breaks it’s easy to assume that mutual funds are somehow involved. From leveraged pyramid schemes in the 1920s to allegations of illegal market timing and late trading in the 2000s, the mutual fund industry has been no stranger to criminal activity.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets, the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission are bringing a three-year investigation of alleged financial malfeasance to a close. The sweeping investigation of systemic insider trading involves investment consultants, hedge funds, investment banks, analysts and mutual fund traders from each corner of the nation. At the heart of the inquiry is the allegation that so-called expert networks–widely used firms that connect analysts and other interested parties with industry experts–have engaged in insider trading.

Although no firms have been accused of wrongdoing, federal regulators have sent requests for information to a number of storied mutual fund houses, including Janus Capital Group (NYSE: JNS), Wellington Management Company, MFS Investment Management, Prudential Financial (NYSE: PRU) and Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB). That these mutual fund industry stalwarts may be involved in the mess reflects how the research process has evolved within the mutual fund industry.

Fund managers love to talk about the depth of their firms’ research capabilities. Whenever I speak with managers I like to ask about the size and diversity of their analyst teams. What I’ve heard over the past few years isn’t encouraging.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that there’s been a significant reduction in the number of researchers working in the industry, particularly in the wake of mass layoffs amid the financial crisis. This means either that analysts have suddenly found themselves able to singlehandedly produce volumes of research, or that the information comes from another source.

The use of outside research–including contacts developed through expert networks and research provided by major brokerage houses and investment banks–has become prevalent over the past decade. It’s been the industry’s dirty little secret for years.

There’s no Machiavellian design to this shift; it’s been driven by simple economics.

It’s expensive to maintain a large staff of analysts, all of whom draw salaries and benefits and are subject to tight regulation.

Another major issue is that hedge funds have not only greatly increased the pace of trading–average portfolio churn has risen from 90 percent annually in the 1990s to 105 percent in 2009–they’ve become more competitive with mutual funds as inflation and rising asset prices have allowed more people to achieve qualified investor status.

It should come as little surprise that mutual fund managers have turned to outside researchers and expert networks to maintain a competitive edge. That’s particularly true when the number of companies offering such research and connections has exploded, while the cost has dropped for both á la carte services and full-service access to reports and experts in almost any field.

Still, as logical as the shifting paradigm might be, it’s become clear that it exposes funds to new liabilities at a particularly bad time. More than $90 billion has been withdrawn from mutual funds since the beginning of 2009. These outflows came on the heels of the market timing scandals of 2004 that saw more than two dozen companies pay over $3 billion in fines. As it stands, it won’t take much to trigger another fall from grace for the industry.

For now though, investors should stay put in mutual funds. Thus far no mutual fund manager has been clearly implicated in any wrongdoing; there’s only been innuendo and guilt by association. Although there’s always the possibility that some managers might have been involved in insider trading, given the safeguards in place in the industry it’s tough to imagine that this is a pervasive problem among mutual funds.

Additionally, the mutual fund industry could actually benefit from this latest brush with the law. While I understand the economic rationale for using more amounts of outside research, I can’t help but question the value of this research.

It’s tough enough to find unbiased information in the financial industry and the only opinions that investors, including fund managers, can truly rely upon are their own. It certainly can’t hurt if increased reliance on internally generated research is the worst outcome of this most recent investigation.

Benjamin Shepherd is editor of Louis Rukeyser’s Mutual Funds and Louis Rukeyser’s Wall Street. He is also the co-editor of GlobalETFProfits.com.