两类市场的故事：美国国债与股权融资

and equity financing The recent rise in equity financing costs as Treasury reporemainssoftreflects a divergence in which balance sheetconstraints are binding across markets. SLR relief hasexpanded Treasury capacity, while equity repo is capital and Samuel Earl(i) + 1 212 526 5426samuel.earl@barclays.com Amrut Nashikkar(i)+1 212 412 1848amrut.nashikkar@barclays.comBCI, US US funding markets:Equity funding costs have surged, while money market conditionsremain relatively benign. We view this divergence as reflectingdifferentbinding constraintson bank intermediation. UST repo is a leverage-intensive activity, but with SLR reform for theUS GSIBs earlier this year, there is ample leverage capacity available. While equity financingalso consumes leverage, we see capital, liquidity, and counterparty constraints as limitingfinancing capacity in the current environment. With equity prices rising sharply and new Global Equity Derivatives Strategy Stefano Pascale+1 212 526 7983stefano.pascale@barclays.com Anshul Gupta+44 (0) 20 7773 0430anshul.gupta@barclays.comBarclays, UK Zhiyuan Fan+1 212 526 5530zhiyuan.fan@barclays.com Equity repo tightness signals balance-sheet limits:While core funding markets remainorderly, equity financing conditions have tightened meaningfully, highlighting a growingmismatch between strong, broad-based demand for equity exposure and increasinglyconstrained balance-sheet capacity. Structurally elevated funding costs have been Thisdocument is intended for institutional investors and is not subject to all of theindependence and disclosure standards applicable to debt research reports prepared for retailinvestors under U.S. FINRA Rule 2242. Barclays trades the securities covered in this report for its Barclays Capital Inc. and/or one of itsaffiliatesdoes and seeks to do business with companiescovered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have aconflict of interest that couldaffectthe objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this This research report has been prepared in whole or in part by equity research analysts basedoutside the US who are not registered/qualified as research analysts with FINRA. This author is a debt research analyst in the Fixed Income, Currencies and CommoditiesResearch department and is neither an equity research analyst nor subject to all of theindependence and disclosure standards applicable to analysts who produce debt research FOR ANALYST CERTIFICATION(S) PLEASE SEE PAGE 8.FOR IMPORTANT EQUITY RESEARCH DISCLOSURES, PLEASE SEE PAGE 8.FOR IMPORTANT FIXED INCOME RESEARCH DISCLOSURES, PLEASE SEE PAGE 9.Completed: 22-Jun-26, 22:34 GMTReleased: 23-Jun-26, 04:10 GMTRestricted - External competition for prime-broker balance sheets. The result is a more binding capacity constraintin equity markets, not a deterioration in system-wide liquidity, capping the market’s ability to Fixed Income Views: US funding markets Amrut Nashikkar(i)BCI, US | Samuel Earl(i) The recent sharp increase in equity funding costs (Figure 1) is easy to misread as a generalizedfunding signal. But it is not one. What we are seeing is not broad-based system pressure, but asplit in which balance sheet constraints are binding across these markets. In Q4 24, pressuresemerged simultaneously in both UST and equity repo, reflecting a system-wide tightening in The contrast starts with what constrains each market and how those constraints have evolved.In UST repo, the binding constraint has historically been leverage, specifically banks'Supplementary Leverage Ratios (SLR). Because it is an unweighted measure, low-risk activitiessuch as Treasury repo still consume capacity to the same extent as higher risk weighted assets.However, recent SLR reform has lowered requirements for US GSIBs,effectivelyexpandingleverage capacity (see here). As a result, this constraint is no longer meaningfully binding for thelargest US banks (Figure 3). The market is now characterized by smooth, and at timessoft, Equity repo operates under adifferentset of constraints. Here, capital and liquidity, notleverage, are typically binding. Equity exposures carry high risk weights, consuming more RWAs,and create greater HQLA needs under LCR through higher outflow assumptions. Critically,capital, liquidity, and balance sheet consumption rises with equity prices. Unlike USTs, withouta venue for central clearing, there is limited scope for netting. Equity financing is also more into tighter counterparty limits. The result is a market where incremental activity more quicklyencounters binding constraints—whether they be capital, liquidity, or counterparty. We think the recent move is largely driven by this valuationeffect.As equities rally, the notionalsize of dealer inventories increases mechanically. New equity issuance will also boost overallfinancing needs. That feeds directly into higher RWA and liquidity usage, meaning balance sheetconsumption is rising faster than c