SEC Treasury Clearing Mandate Could Reshape Stablecoin Reserve Liquidity

US government debt is among the most liquid assets globally, allowing financial institutions to secure cash without permanently relinquishing their holdings.

Washington is overhauling the regulations governing these transactions, with the changes extending into the crypto sector through the firms that hold Treasuries as backing for their stablecoins.

The SEC is mandating that more Treasury transactions clear through a central counterparty, an entity that acts as the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer.

If a trading firm defaults, the opposing party can rely on the clearinghouse to settle the transaction according to its established rules, rather than attempting to recover funds directly from the failed entity.

This protection requires substantial capital, meaning the new framework will also influence trading and borrowing costs. Stablecoin issuers rely on these services to convert reserve assets into dollars for redemptions, so the cost and accessibility of Treasury trading directly impact token stability.

The SEC has set deadlines of December 31 for eligible outright Treasury purchases and sales, and June 30, 2027, for eligible repurchase agreements. Commissioner Mark Uyeda stated on September 22 that the agency currently has no plans to extend these deadlines.

These requirements apply specifically to trades involving clearing members, rather than encompassing every Treasury purchase by any holder.

Owning a Treasury Bond Is Only Half the Transaction

Consider an investment fund holding Treasuries but needing dollars immediately before the government repays the debt. The fund could sell the securities outright or use a repurchase agreement: selling them now with a contract to repurchase them on a set date, typically the next day, at a slightly higher price.

Economically, the fund has borrowed cash, with the Treasuries securing the loan and the price difference covering the interest. The borrower receives spendable funds while retaining a path back to its securities, and the lender earns a return on otherwise idle cash.

Dealers, typically banks or securities firms, facilitate much of this activity. The New York Fed describes the repo market as a channel directing cash from lenders like money-market funds through dealers to borrowers such as hedge funds.

Dealers can borrow in one segment of the market and lend in another, profiting from arranging and financing these transactions.

The scale is immense: activity underlying the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) grew from roughly $1 trillion in early 2022 to approximately $3 trillion, according to Federal Reserve research.

SOFR measures the cost of overnight borrowing secured by Treasuries, and these volumes reflect the transactions feeding that benchmark, rather than the entire repo market.

However, even with this immense volume, individual customers can struggle to secure favorable borrowing terms. Dealers face limits on the volume they can handle, partly because their trades consume capital and trigger regulatory constraints.

Abundant cash elsewhere in the market offers little help if the firm connecting you to it has hit its capacity limit.

Central clearing can alleviate some of this burden through netting, which recognizes offsetting positions. In a simplified example, a dealer owes $100 and is due to receive $95 on the same settlement date.

If both obligations qualify for netting through the same clearinghouse, the net cash payment can be reduced to $5.

Real Treasury trades also involve securities deliveries, and legal agreements dictate which obligations can be combined. However, the core benefit is straightforward: companies may require less capital to settle offsetting trades, and qualifying netting can also reduce the balance-sheet resources consumed by those trades.

This could enable a dealer to serve more customers with its existing resources. Whether customers secure cheaper borrowing depends on how much the dealer saves and how much of that saving it passes on after accounting for clearing costs.

Someone Still Has to Bring the Collateral

The clearinghouse can guarantee trade completion because it collects financial resources and has protocols for handling a defaulting member. International standards require clearinghouses to manage the exposures they assume and hold resources available during stress.

A key part of this protection is margin—cash or eligible securities posted against a position. If a company defaults and closing its trades incurs costs, that collateral helps cover the bill.

Until then, the company must keep it available, even if it would prefer to deploy the funds elsewhere.

This is where a safer transaction can become more demanding for its participants. Being able to afford a trade over its full life doesn’t guarantee a company has the correct collateral ready when due, especially when multiple obligations require funding simultaneously.

Many customers also need another entity to access the system. The Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC) operates a Sponsored Service where an approved sponsoring member handles operational duties and guarantees specified obligations for its customers.

That sponsor assumes work and risk, which can affect the terms it offers.

FICC’s Collateral-in-Lieu service for eligible cash lenders uses protections involving the Treasury collateral in the transaction, so those lenders don’t have to post initial margin under that model. This arrangement illustrates why being required to use a clearinghouse doesn’t automatically mean every participant must find the same amount of extra cash.

Customers still need to compare the full cost of access, including the fee they pay a provider and the cost of keeping collateral available.

Netting savings can make one part of the transaction cheaper while the new service adds expenses elsewhere, so the final cost depends on the arrangement the customer can obtain.

DTCC’s July survey of FICC members provides ample reason to monitor provider choices. While 79% of responding netting members already had the necessary account setups, only about a third expected to offer Treasury cash clearing to their clients.

Those numbers only describe the survey respondents and don’t prove customers will be shut out. However, they illustrate why a dealer being ready to comply isn’t the same as that dealer being willing to take on your business.

If customers have few providers to choose from, providers have less incentive to compete away the savings that clearing can produce.

Digital Dollars Inherit the Operating Hours

Issuers of dollar-linked stablecoins can hold part of their backing in short-term Treasuries because those securities earn income and have a large resale market. However, when an eligible customer redeems tokens, the issuer owes dollars, so it needs cash on hand or a reliable way to obtain it from its reserves.

This is a different arrangement from a bank placing an existing deposit on a blockchain. Tokenized deposits and the money behind bank lending explain how those products preserve the customer’s claim on the bank.

With a Treasury-backed stablecoin, the issuer’s reserve management and banking relationships determine whether it can meet its promised redemption terms.

The connection to clearing runs through those relationships, whether the issuer trades directly or uses a fund manager and other intermediaries.

If its providers can sell or finance Treasuries more efficiently, managing redemptions could become easier or cheaper. If access becomes more expensive, the issuer may face higher reserve-management costs, although that doesn’t automatically mean customers pay a new fee.

Central clearing does not make the reserve market operate around the clock. You can send a token on Sunday while the issuer’s banks and securities providers work on different schedules, and sending that token to another person differs from asking the issuer to pay dollars into a bank account.

The issuer must plan for that gap through its cash holdings and the redemption terms it promises.

Keeping more cash readily available can help meet withdrawals, but it may earn less than other permitted reserve investments. Relying more heavily on selling or financing securities can preserve flexibility elsewhere, but it makes dependable access to those services more critical.

Each issuer must choose an arrangement it can actually operate when customers want their money back.

The overhaul could improve access by making dealers’ resources go further and providing trading partners with a common process when a firm fails. It could also leave some customers dependent on a small number of providers, especially if opening a replacement account takes time.

Both outcomes can exist in the same market, with larger customers receiving better terms than smaller ones.

That makes the price of access and the ability to switch providers worth watching as the deadlines approach.

Treasury-backed tokens depend on entities that can turn securities into payments, and the benefit of Washington’s new rules will reach holders only if that process becomes more dependable at a cost the issuer can sustain.

Source link