Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines regulatory impacts on liquidity and market function through non-bank intermediation in Treasury markets, suggesting new fragility sources.
This paper examines the post-crisis restructuring of US Treasury market intermediation through a Minskyan and post-Keynesian evolutionary lens, highlighting the growing centrality of non-banking financial institutions, such as mutual funds, hedge funds, principal trading firms, and prime brokers, in a financial architecture increasingly organized around derivatives and synthetic leverage. Post-crisis regulatory reforms, particularly those associated with Basel III, functioned as deliberate thwarting mechanisms by constraining dealer balance sheets and limiting traditional market-making. While these measures strengthened bank resilience, they also triggered adaptive responses that reconfigured the infrastructures of liquidity provision. This paper argues that futures contracts have emerged as a workaround to these constraints, enabling market participants to replicate Treasury exposures, intermediate liquidity, and economize on balance sheet usage under regulatory constraint. Focusing on practices such as the cash-futures basis trade, it shows how futures-based intermediation allows leverage and duration transformation to migrate away from dealers toward non-banks’ balance sheets. In doing so, the paper shows how regulatory stabilization at the level of banks has generated new, endogenous sources of fragility within Treasury markets, consistent with post-Keynesian accounts of financial instability as an evolutionary and recurrent process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexandru Stefan Goghie (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: