logo
Analysis:Stablecoins' step toward mainstream could shake up parts of US Treasury market

Analysis:Stablecoins' step toward mainstream could shake up parts of US Treasury market

CNAa day ago

As stablecoins take a step toward becoming mainstream, some segments of the U.S. Treasury market, notably securities with short-term maturities, could be vulnerable to volatility as they become more closely tied to the world of cryptocurrency.
Congress is poised to pass legislation establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins, expected to help legitimize the dollar-pegged cryptocurrencies which are commonly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens.
Proponents of the bill argue that clear rules will spur further stablecoin activity, and support a growing sector of buyers of short-term U.S. government debt, or T-bills, that are typically considered cash-equivalent securities. But others worry a larger footprint for a relatively new and more volatile industry could in turn spur volatility in the bills market.
"In the event of a sudden loss of confidence, regulatory pressure, or market rumors, this could trigger large-scale liquidations, potentially depressing Treasury prices and disrupting fixed-income markets," said Cristiano Ventricelli, vice president and senior analyst of digital assets at Moody's Ratings.
"A problem in the stablecoin sector could spill over into broader financial markets, affecting institutions holding similar assets or (that) rely on stablecoin liquidity," he added.
If signed into law, the stablecoin bill would require tokens to be backed by liquid assets - like U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury bills - and monthly disclosures from issuers on the composition of their reserves. That means if stablecoins are expected to grow, issuers will have to purchase more T-bills to back their assets.
The bill could be passed by the Senate as early as next week and could eventually increase the amount of U.S. Treasuries held by stablecoin issuers such as Tether and Circle, the latter of which debuted on the NYSE on Thursday. They together hold $166 billion in U.S. Treasuries, according to a report by Bain & Company's financial services practice.
The stablecoin market, currently about $247 billion according to crypto data provider CoinGecko, could grow to $2 trillion by 2028 if legislation were to pass, Standard Chartered estimated. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent encouraged lawmakers to pass legislation to codify federal rules for stablecoins, arguing that it could lead to a surge in demand for U.S. government debt.
Currently, there are about $29 trillion in Treasury securities outstanding, of which $6 trillion are bills.
RED FLAGS
In an April research note, JP Morgan analysts estimated that stablecoin issuers could become the third-largest buyer of Treasury bills in the coming years.
That raises red flags for some, who worry that would lead to closer ties between the crypto ecosystem and the traditional financial world.
The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of banks and investors that advise the government on its funding, said in a study in April that growth of the stablecoin market at the expense of bank deposits could reduce banks' demand for U.S. Treasuries, as well as have an impact on credit growth.
"If (stablecoin issuers) have to move those Treasuries quickly, or the market demands that, it could create some credit crunches there," said Mark Hays, associate director for cryptocurrency and financial technology at Americans for Financial Reform. Hays said this assumes that stablecoins become more widely used after legislation passes.
Money market funds, which invest in short-term debt, could be impacted. Money market expert Pete Crane, president of Crane Data, said money funds are watching stablecoin closely but the size of the market would have to become significantly bigger to create concerns over financial stability.
"Treasury bills are normally so short (in maturity) that people don't concern themselves with price movements, but of course in case of a rapid liquidation the price is going to go down," he said.
Issues with stablecoins have not so far been large enough to cause systemic problems but the calculus could shift if federal legislation were to spur widespread adoption.
In 2022, a meltdown in the crypto markets sent Tether's stablecoin below its dollar peg, which caused no impact on the Treasury market. At the time, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said stablecoins like Tether didn't pose a systemic risk to the financial system because they were too small in scale. In 2023, Circle's USD Coin also lost its dollar peg after the company revealed it held a portion of its reserves at failed Silicon Valley Bank. Circle and Tether declined comment.
POTENTIAL UPLIFT TO MARKET
Still, some argue that there could be benefits from increasing demand for government debt.
"If we pass stablecoin legislation, dollars will be exported around the world, which will extend the strength of the dollar as the world's reserve currency," said Matt Hougan, chief investment officer at Bitwise Asset Management, a crypto asset manager.
Roger Hallam, global head of rates at Vanguard, said higher demand for short-term government debt instruments could incentivize the Treasury Department to increase T-bill issuance, rather than long-dated debt, to cover its deficit funding need.
Yields of long-dated U.S. debt have been rising recently, partly due to concerns over the country's fiscal health.
"You could choose to issue more bills to meet that demand, which would relieve some of the tensions we currently see in the market ... around the scale of future issues and who's going to buy all these bonds," Hallam said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

From bromance to blow-up: Trump and Musk's bitter spat
From bromance to blow-up: Trump and Musk's bitter spat

Independent Singapore

time2 hours ago

  • Independent Singapore

From bromance to blow-up: Trump and Musk's bitter spat

The most ballyhooed bromance on earth blew up in spectacular fashion on Thursday when the world's most powerful leader traded barbs online with the world's richest man. In the middle of a meeting with the German chancellor, US President Donald Trump posted that he was 'disappointed in Elon', stung by the tech tycoon's unrelenting criticism of his 'big, beautiful bill'. The spat between these high-profile bromates lit up the internet, with live-blogging websites offering tweet-by-tweet updates, and others speculating—sometimes behind paywalls—on whether the erstwhile bosom buddies had become bitter enemies. Only the most incorrigible punters would dare wager whether the rift is permanent or passing. Given their mercurial temperaments, today's feud could easily become tomorrow's flirtation. Supporters of strong governance may, nevertheless, be relieved. The world's most powerful leader is still more potent than its richest man—at least for now. Musk blinked first. Musk indicated on X he is ready to relent, but the White House has turned a cold shoulder. The president reportedly continues to criticise the Tesla, X and SpaceX boss in private. Costly spat The spat could prove costly for both men. While Trump and his political action committees may not receive the $100 million or more reportedly pledged by Musk, the tycoon risks losing billions. Trump has threatened to cancel his government contracts, posting: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' The rift widened after Musk lambasted Trump's signature tax-and-spending bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' sure to wreck the nation's finances. To add insult to injury, he claimed Trump wouldn't have won the election without his support. Trump said he was 'very disappointed in Musk,' accused him of turning 'hostile' after being turfed out of government, and charged that the billionaire was meddling in politics to further his business interests. Musk, who spent over $250 million supporting Trump's re-election bid last year and once declared, 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man,' hit back hard. He called for Trump's impeachment and replacement by Vice President JD Vance and warned that the president's tariffs could trigger a US recession. See also Hillary Clinton urges Biden not to concede in close election He also insinuated that Trump's name appeared in sealed files relating to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Still, Musk eventually toned down his rhetoric. After threatening to decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which NASA uses to transport astronauts, he responded to a netizen urging calm with: 'Good advice… Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' His conciliatory tone, however, received no response from the White House. Trump may struggle to find alternatives if he scraps contracts with Musk's companies. SpaceX remains the only US firm transporting astronauts to and from space. Several government agencies also depend on its Falcon rockets, in-orbit vehicles, and the Starlink network—more than 7,500 internet satellites, which Ukraine has used in its war against Russia. Media pundits are almost unanimous in concluding that the bromance was doomed from the start—doomed by two towering egos unwilling to share the spotlight. Ideological divide? But Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland sees more than just a personality clash. He believes there is also an ideological divide. See also Trump and Biden outline competing visions for US economy Musk's opposition to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' may be linked to its failure to extend tax credits for electric vehicles—a provision that might have boosted Tesla's sagging sales. Publicly, however, Musk has criticised the bill on fiscal grounds, warning that it will deepen the already gargantuan US deficit. In doing so, he has recast himself as a champion of traditional, deficit-conscious Republicans. Freedland notes a growing divide on the American right: between old-school conservatives who worry about fiscal responsibility, and nationalists like Trump's former strategist Steve Bannon, who support tariffs and oppose global immigration. Musk, by contrast, has argued against tariffs and in favour of keeping the US open to highly skilled, tech-savvy immigrants. He has even called for the formation of a new political party. No wonder the bromance has broken down. But then again, politics makes strange bedfellows—and anything's possible. Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only)

‘FIRE' paints an attractive picture of achieving financial freedom early in life, but retirement shouldn't be the end goal
‘FIRE' paints an attractive picture of achieving financial freedom early in life, but retirement shouldn't be the end goal

CNA

time4 hours ago

  • CNA

‘FIRE' paints an attractive picture of achieving financial freedom early in life, but retirement shouldn't be the end goal

Over the past decade, the FIRE movement (Financial Independence, Retire Early) has been gaining widespread popularity online, inspiring and motivating more people to manage their money better in order to retire sooner. Some fantasise about how they can 'fire' their boss once they retire early. Others dream of being able to stop working entirely to spend time on family or passion projects. There's nothing wrong with FIRE as a goal, but true financial freedom can look very different from the picture this ethos paints. NO LONGER TRAPPED BY OUR NEXT PAY CHEQUE The relationship between our work and finances is a tightly entwined one – most of us need our next pay cheque in order to cover our living expenses and bills, so we keep working. As such, it can be easy to equate the idea of 'financial freedom' with that of 'freedom from work'. But in reality, financial independence and early retirement are two distinct, different things. Not everyone wants to stop working. Studies show that purpose and productivity are essential for our long-term happiness – even post-retirement. Many who reach financial independence continue working, not because they have to but because they want to. But what financial freedom really gives us is the power to make decisions about how we work without worrying too much about financial repercussions. It allows us to choose roles that align with our values, take breaks when needed, or say no to toxic work environments. When we're no longer trapped by the need to rely heavily on our next pay cheque, we gain the freedom to work for our own growth and purpose. WHAT IS YOUR VERSION OF FIRE? The original FIRE ethos called for saving aggressively (usually more than half your income) and investing wisely so you can retire early. It sounded great in theory, but for most, it often required high income and extreme frugality. Today, the FIRE movement has evolved to encompass varying definitions of financial independence. It is no longer about reaching an end goal, but more about the type of lifestyle we desire and the level our finances will need to hit in order to support our aspirations. For instance, 'Lean FIRE' refers to a minimalist lifestyle where you retire with a lower budget. There's also 'Barista FIRE', describing a point where withdrawing from your savings and investments can cover your major expenses and bills, while you supplement the shortfall with part-time or passion-based work (such as being a barista). These newer variations of FIRE may seem like dilutions or compromises – but in reality, they are just as true to the core essence of financial freedom. True financial freedom empowers us with choice rather than demanding retirement. It should mean more options, not less. This shift in mindset can be liberating. Instead of chasing a retirement date or age, we can focus on building a lifestyle where money supports flexibility, purpose, and well-being rather than escape. Perhaps you might decide to stay in your current job, but negotiate fewer work hours that would allow you to care for your children or ailing parents. You might explore part-time roles, start a small business, or pull a Jeremy Tan and pursue advocacy for change (even if it's not as an independent candidate in a general election). ARE WE LOOKING FOR ESCAPE, OR A BETTER BALANCE? Out of all the people I know who've successfully achieved financial independence, the happiest ones are those who never quit working – but it's not because they particularly love slogging. A friend downsized his role to two days a week to spend more time looking after his mother after her cancer diagnosis. Another stopped chasing yearly pay increments and started mentoring juniors instead, finding deeper fulfilment in growing the next generation than a fatter pay cheque. Clearly, the real problem isn't work itself – many people find meaning, identity, and purpose through their work. Rather, it is the lack of control over what, how, when, and why we work that has us dissatisfied. Financial freedom can still mean not working at all, but it's important for us to understand that this isn't the only version of true freedom. Maybe it'll mean a smaller pay cheque, but while it may look to others like you're settling for less, you're in fact gaining more in time, autonomy, and peace of mind. Ironically, when we do work that we're passionate about – work that energises us instead of draining us – we are much more likely to stay the course. WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT Even so, I get why FIRE remains so popular not just in Singapore but around the world. Trying to achieve financial security is getting trickier and trickier, especially in a world where inflation only seems to keep climbing and job stability is quickly vanishing in the face of repeated layoffs and the proliferation of artificial intelligence. That's why the FIRE movement appeals to millions of people around the world, because it seems to offer a solution. A way to regain control. But the core tenet of financial independence was never about never working again – it about never needing to work out of fear or survival. So instead of running towards an arbitrary finish line, consider the path you're on instead. Is there a way to redesign the way work fits into your life now? We don't have to wait until we retire, whether it's early or not.

Singapore and the US still in early stages of tariff negotiations, says Vivian Balakrishnan
Singapore and the US still in early stages of tariff negotiations, says Vivian Balakrishnan

Straits Times

time13 hours ago

  • Straits Times

Singapore and the US still in early stages of tariff negotiations, says Vivian Balakrishnan

Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said he had fairly extensive discussions on tariffs during his visit to the US. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH Singapore and the US still in early stages of tariff negotiations, says Vivian Balakrishnan SINGAPORE – It will be some time yet before countries can know for certain the final shape of the United States' tariff regime against virtually all its trading partners. This is as, aside from the revisions and legal challenges to the trade barriers that have been announced, it is clear that the US is looking to conduct multiple rounds of bilateral negotiations with its trading partners, which will take time, said Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on June 7. His meetings with US senators and members of Congress also showed there was bipartisan recognition between the Republicans and Democrats that trade, investment, intellectual property protection, reliability and supply chain security remain vital issues to the Americans, he added. In a video call with the Singapore media to wrap up his five-day visit to Washington, Dr Balakrishnan said both sides reaffirmed the strong and stable bilateral relationship during his visit. 'The relationship with the United States is a vital, critical one for Singapore – it spans the entire gamut ... the economy, defence, security, and we're also pursuing emerging opportunities in areas like cyber security and energy,' he said. 'So it's a relationship which needs to be tended to, and attended to carefully.' In his meetings with senior US administration officials and members of Congress, Dr Balakrishnan conveyed Singapore's appreciation for the bipartisan support that enabled bilateral cooperation to flourish across a wide range of areas. Both sides also expressed commitment to continued constructive engagement and to advance cooperation in both traditional areas such as defence, as well as new and emerging areas such as critical technologies, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. Dr Balakrishnan told reporters he had fairly extensive discussions on tariffs during his visit, including their impact on open economies like Singapore, and that his US counterparts understood his perspective. At his meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on June 4, Dr Balakrishnan said he raised the impact of the US tariff s, a nd came away assured that the measures were not directed at Singapore. 'Nevertheless, I expressed our concern with the secondary impact, because any impact on global trade, any friction in the system, will have an impact on an open economy like ours, where our trading volume is three times our GDP,' he said. 'So that point needed to be made.' Manufacturing activity in Singapore shrank for the second consecutive month in May on the back of global trade uncertainty, according to purchasing managers' index figures released on June 2. Dr Balakrishnan said he 'made the point repeatedly' to his US counterparts that America has a trade surplus against Singapore, and that the city-state should not be subjected even to the baseline 10 per cent tariff. That said, Singapore is more concerned with sectoral tariffs, and will be looking at them 'very carefully' so as to minimise these as much as possible, he said. The majority of US President Donald Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs announced on April 2 have been paused for 90 days, but on June 4, Mr Trump signed an order to double tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. In May, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong said there were early indications that Washington was open to discussing how the Republic could ensure a continued supply of semiconductors to the US, and that talks were on for preferential or even zero US tariffs on Singapore's pharmaceutical exports. Dr Balakrishnan said: 'We're still in the early stages of our discussions and negotiations, so let's watch this space.' Responding to a question from the media on whether he faced any challenges engaging US officials on his visit, he said there were no hurdles to interactions with the Americans. 'They were very welcoming, courteous. We got along in our own usual direct and constructive manner, so I have no anxiety on that front,' he said. The anxiety is that the world order that had prevailed for 80 years and which helped Singapore to succeed – premised on free trade and the free flow of investments – is clearly changing, and this period of transition is 'the time of greatest danger', he added. This is a time when the Republic needs to be alert and prompt in responding to change, said Dr Balakrishnan. 'And it is also important to interact frequently, candidly, openly and constructively with our interlocutors, and especially with a superpower which is of great strategic importance to us,' he added. 'So what's important is to recognise that situation has changed, to be able to have complete, comprehensive and candid conversations, and then for us to take the appropriate precautionary measures or to make the necessary adjustments domestically as well.' Prior to being in Washington, Dr Balakrishnan met the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Lammy in London, with whom he discussed economic ties, geostrategic issues and potential areas of cooperation. Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store