Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Repurchase agreement

A repurchase agreement, commonly known as a repo, is a short-term secured loan in which one party sells securities, typically high-quality government bonds, to another party and agrees to repurchase them at a predetermined higher price on a specified future date, with the price difference representing the interest or repo rate. This structure provides liquidity to the seller (borrower) while minimizing credit risk for the buyer (lender) through collateral, making repos a cornerstone of money market funding. Repos facilitate trillions in daily short-term financing across financial institutions, including banks, broker-dealers, and money market funds, with the U.S. market gross volume reaching approximately $11.9 trillion in 2024. Primarily involving U.S. Treasury securities as collateral, transactions are often overnight but can extend to term repos, enabling efficient balance sheet management and monetary policy implementation by central banks like the Federal Reserve, which uses repos to adjust reserve levels and influence short-term interest rates. Despite their stability under normal conditions, repo markets have exhibited vulnerabilities during periods of stress, such as liquidity shortages that prompted Federal Reserve interventions to prevent broader disruptions, highlighting their systemic importance and potential for amplifying financial strains through runs or funding squeezes.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Mechanism and Economic Role

A repurchase agreement, commonly known as a repo, constitutes a short-term financial transaction wherein one party sells a security—typically a government bond or other high-quality debt instrument—to another party and simultaneously commits to repurchasing the same or equivalent security at a fixed higher price on a specified future date, often within one to several days. This price differential embeds the implied interest rate, known as the repo rate, reflecting the cost of borrowing. Legally framed as a sale and repurchase, the arrangement operates economically as a collateralized loan, with the transferred security serving as collateral to mitigate counterparty risk; in the event of default, the lender retains the security rather than pursuing unsecured claims. The core mechanism hinges on the transfer of legal ownership of the collateral during the agreement term, distinguishing it from outright securities lending while enabling efficient use of balance sheet capacity through collateral rehypothecation, where the lender may reuse the received securities in further transactions. Haircuts, or initial margins exceeding the loan value, further safeguard against fluctuations in collateral value, with typical discounts ranging from 2% to 5% for Treasury securities depending on maturity and market conditions. This structure ensures minimal credit exposure, as repos historically exhibit near-zero default rates due to overcollateralization and the liquidity of underlying assets. Economically, repos fulfill a vital role in liquidity provision across financial markets, allowing institutions with short-term funding needs—such as primary dealers and money market funds—to secure cash without liquidating long-term holdings, thereby preserving investment positions and reducing transaction costs. The U.S. repo market, valued at approximately $11.9 trillion in gross transactions as of 2024, underpins the broader money market by facilitating the matched funding of assets and liabilities, which enhances overall market efficiency and stability. Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, leverage repos as a primary tool for implementing monetary policy through open market operations, injecting or withdrawing reserves to steer short-term interest rates and counteract liquidity shortages, as evidenced by the Standing Repo Facility established in 2021 to serve as a backstop against money market stresses. This mechanism supports systemic resilience, particularly during periods of heightened demand, by enabling rapid adjustment of banking system liquidity without disrupting longer-term credit allocation.

Distinction from Sales and Loans

A repurchase agreement involves the outright transfer of legal title to securities from the seller to the buyer, accompanied by a binding commitment to repurchase equivalent securities at a fixed higher price on a specified future date, thereby distinguishing it from an outright sale, in which ownership transfers permanently without any repurchase obligation. In an outright sale, the seller relinquishes all economic risks and rewards associated with the asset indefinitely, whereas the repurchase commitment in a repo retains the seller's effective economic interest, albeit with temporary legal ownership vested in the buyer to facilitate collateralization. This structure ensures the transaction's reversibility, preventing the buyer from claiming permanent ownership absent default. In contrast to a secured loan, under which the borrower retains legal title to the collateral and grants the lender only a lien or security interest, a repo effects a genuine conveyance of title, endowing the buyer with full proprietary rights over the securities during the agreement's term, including the ability to use, rehypothecate, or sell them subject to repurchase obligations. This title transfer exposes the buyer to replacement risk if the seller defaults but provides superior protection against the seller's insolvency, as the securities are not deemed part of the seller's estate. Courts have historically characterized marketable securities repos as purchases and sales rather than loans to avoid recharacterization risks, such as subjection to usury limits or securities registration mandates that would apply to loan-like instruments. The repo's sale framework yields critical legal advantages in bankruptcy proceedings, particularly under U.S. law, where Section 559 of the Bankruptcy Code grants safe harbor protections to repo participants, permitting immediate termination, netting, and liquidation of positions without the automatic stay that encumbers secured lenders. Secured loans, by contrast, integrate collateral into the borrower's bankruptcy estate under Section 541, subjecting lenders to potential stays, valuation disputes, and equitable subordination. Economically, repos mirror secured loans—the sale proceeds fund the seller, the repurchase premium equates to interest, and haircuts function as equity cushions—but the legal sale characterization enhances enforceability and liquidity by isolating the collateral from the seller's other creditors.

Terminology and Ambiguities

A repurchase agreement, commonly abbreviated as repo, refers to a transaction in which one party sells securities to another with a simultaneous commitment to repurchase them at a specified higher price on a future date, functioning economically as a collateralized loan despite the legal form of title transfer. The difference between the initial sale price and the repurchase price constitutes the pricing differential, which embeds the implicit interest cost, legally termed as such under standard master agreements like the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) rather than "repo interest." The annualized rate implied by this differential is known as the pricing rate or market-convention repo rate, applied over the term of the agreement. From the buyer's viewpoint, the transaction is a reverse repo, involving the purchase of securities with an agreement to resell them later, effectively providing secured lending. A variant, the buy/sell-back, mirrors the repo economically but differs in execution: it entails a spot sale followed by a forward repurchase agreement, often quoted via forward pricing rather than a repo rate, and traditionally lacks formal documentation though increasingly uses the GMRA Buy/Sell-Back Annex. Key distinctions include income treatment—repos feature immediate manufactured payments for coupons or dividends paid on the underlying securities, while buy/sell-backs deduct such income (plus interest) from the final repurchase price—and legal enforceability, with undocumented buy/sell-backs risking weaker netting and margin rights in default. Significant ambiguities arise from the hybrid legal-economic substance of repos, structured as outright sales and repurchases (enabling title transfer, rehypothecation, and bankruptcy remoteness via "true sale" opinions) yet performing as secured deposits, which influences classification for accounting, taxation, and regulatory purposes. Terminological confusions compound this: the initial purchase price uses dirty pricing (including accrued interest) in standard repos but clean pricing in buy/sell-backs; haircuts denote discounts on collateral market value for risk mitigation, distinct from initial margin ratios applied to the purchase price (e.g., a 2% haircut on €100 million collateral yields €98 million effective value, versus 102% initial margin requiring €102 million for a €100 million loan). Negative repo rates introduce further uncertainty in default scenarios, as standard agreements assume positive rates, potentially inverting failure-to-deliver incentives without adjustments like resetting to zero or referencing benchmarks such as €STR. These variances across jurisdictions—e.g., buy/sell-backs prevalent in emerging markets versus documented repos in the US and UK—underscore the need for precise contractual specification to align legal form with economic intent.

Transaction Mechanics

Basic Structure and Flow

A repurchase agreement, commonly known as a repo, involves two parties: the cash borrower, who sells securities and agrees to repurchase them, and the cash lender, who purchases the securities with an obligation to sell them back. The transaction consists of two legs: an initial spot sale of eligible securities for cash and a forward repurchase of equivalent securities at a predetermined higher price, reflecting the principal plus repo rate interest. This structure facilitates short-term secured funding, typically overnight or term, with maturities ranging from one day to several months. The flow begins at initiation, where the cash borrower transfers ownership of collateral securities—often high-quality government bonds or agency debt—to the cash lender in exchange for cash equal to the securities' market value minus any haircut. The cash lender holds the securities as collateral during the term, bearing the risk of issuer default but mitigated by overcollateralization via haircuts, which are percentage discounts applied to the collateral value to account for potential price fluctuations. Legal title transfers occur, distinguishing repos from outright loans, though economically they function as secured lending with the repurchase price incorporating the repo rate as the cost of funds. During the holding period, the cash borrower may pay any coupons received on the collateral to the lender, netted against the repo interest, ensuring the lender receives equivalent economic benefits as if holding the securities outright. At maturity, the cash borrower repays the initial cash amount plus accrued interest at the agreed repo rate, and the cash lender returns the securities. Failure to repurchase triggers default, allowing the lender to liquidate the collateral to recover funds, with any surplus or shortfall settled between parties. This bilateral settlement process underscores the repo's role in liquidity management, enabling efficient cash flow in money markets while minimizing credit risk through collateralization.

Collateral Requirements and Haircuts

Collateral in repurchase agreements must meet stringent requirements to ensure low risk and high liquidity for the cash lender. Acceptable securities typically include U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, as well as agency securities and certain asset-backed securities with investment-grade ratings. Eligibility is determined by factors such as creditworthiness, ease of pricing, and market depth, excluding assets prone to significant price volatility or default risk. Haircuts, defined as the percentage difference between the collateral's market value and the cash amount advanced, provide over-collateralization to protect against adverse market movements, liquidity squeezes, or borrower default during the agreement's term. For example, if a security valued at $100 is pledged, a 2% haircut means the cash borrower receives $98, with the excess collateral serving as a buffer. Haircut levels vary by collateral type and market conditions; U.S. Treasuries often receive zero or low haircuts (e.g., 0-3%) due to their safety and liquidity, while non-government securities may face higher discounts reflecting greater volatility. In central bank operations, open market operation-eligible collateral incurs standardized lower haircuts, whereas riskier assets command higher ones to account for potential valuation declines. Empirical analysis indicates that approximately 70% of U.S. repo transactions feature zero haircuts, predominantly involving high-quality sovereign debt. To maintain collateral adequacy, repos often include provisions for daily mark-to-market valuation and margin calls, requiring additional collateral or cash if the pledged securities' value falls below the required threshold. This dynamic adjustment mitigates intraday risks but can amplify liquidity demands during periods of market stress, as observed in events like the 2008 financial crisis where haircuts on certain assets surged.

Pricing, Rates, and Maturity Terms

The pricing of a repurchase agreement is determined by the agreed-upon repo rate, which represents the annualized interest cost to the cash borrower (the repo seller) for the duration of the transaction, calculated as the difference between the repurchase price and the initial sale price of the collateral securities, expressed relative to the initial price and term length. The repurchase price equals the initial sale price plus implied interest, where interest is computed using the formula: interest = initial price × repo rate × (term in days / day-count basis), with the day-count convention typically actual/360 for U.S. dollar repos or actual/365 for some other currencies, reflecting market standards for money market instruments. Repo rates are generally lower than comparable unsecured rates due to the collateralization, but they vary based on factors such as collateral quality, counterparty creditworthiness, and prevailing market liquidity, with general collateral (GC) repos—using high-quality securities like U.S. Treasuries—trading at rates closely aligned with benchmarks like the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) in the U.S. Maturity terms in repurchase agreements are predominantly short-term to minimize credit and market risks, with the majority of U.S. transactions executed as overnight repos that mature the following business day, facilitating daily liquidity management among dealers and investors. Term repos specify fixed maturities ranging from a few days to several weeks, with the Federal Reserve's open market operations typically involving terms of 1 to 14 days, though up to 65 business days are possible in exceptional cases; longer terms, such as one to six months, occur less frequently and command higher rates to compensate for extended exposure. Open or continuing repos lack a predefined maturity and can be terminated by either party with notice (often same-day or next-day), effectively rolling over daily unless adjusted, which provides flexibility but introduces reinvestment risk. In European markets, maturities are often one month or shorter, with growing activity in 1-3 month and forward-starting repos. Repo rates for term transactions incorporate a term premium over overnight rates, reflecting expectations of interest rate changes and liquidity conditions; for instance, in periods of stress, such as the September 2019 U.S. repo market spike, overnight GC repo rates briefly exceeded the Fed's policy target by over 300 basis points before intervention. Rates are quoted clean (excluding accrued interest on collateral) and negotiated bilaterally or via platforms, with special collateral (e.g., on-the-run Treasuries) trading at lower "specialness" rates due to scarcity value compared to GC rates. Overall, repo pricing ensures the transaction's economic equivalence to a collateralized loan, where the rate embeds the time value of money and any haircut adjustments from collateral valuation, though haircuts primarily affect initial margin rather than the rate itself.

Mathematical Formulation

The repurchase price in a standard repurchase agreement is determined by adding to the initial sale price the interest implied by the agreed repo rate over the transaction term. Specifically, for an initial principal amount P_N (typically the market value of the collateral adjusted for any haircut), repo rate r, and term t in days, the repurchase price P_F is given by P_F = P_N \left(1 + r \cdot \frac{t}{360}\right), employing the actual/360 day count convention common in money markets. This formula assumes simple interest accrual without compounding, reflecting the short-term nature of most repos. Conversely, the implied repo rate can be derived from observed sale and repurchase prices as r = \frac{P_F - P_N}{P_N} \cdot \frac{360}{t}, which annualizes the price differential on a 360-day basis to yield the effective interest rate borne by the cash lender (repo buyer). For example, with P_N = \$9,579,551.63, r = 0.0009 (0.09%), and t = 7 days, the interest equals P_N \cdot r \cdot \frac{7}{360} \approx \$167.64, yielding P_F \approx \$9,579,719.27. This rate embeds the time value of funds and any risk premia, distinct from unsecured rates like federal funds due to collateralization. Variations exist by market convention; some jurisdictions or instruments apply actual/365, altering the annualization factor to \frac{365}{t} for the implied rate, though U.S. Treasury repo markets predominantly adhere to actual/360 for consistency with broader money market practices. For securities with coupons, the initial P_N often uses dirty prices (including accrued interest), and P_F may adjust for coupons paid during the term to isolate the repo component, but the core interest formula remains unchanged. These formulations underpin repo pricing models, enabling comparison to benchmark rates like SOFR, which aggregates tri-party repo transactions under similar conventions.

Types and Variants

Bilateral and Hold-in-Custody Repos

Bilateral repurchase agreements, also known as bilateral repos, involve direct transactions between a cash lender and a cash borrower without an intermediary custodian or clearinghouse for settlement, though some may be cleared through entities like the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC). In these deals, securities collateral is typically transferred via delivery-versus-payment (DVP) mechanisms, where cash is exchanged for the securities at inception and reversed at maturity, reducing settlement risk compared to non-DVP variants. Bilateral repos dominate the U.S. repo market outside tri-party segments, accounting for a substantial portion of the overall $12 trillion daily volume as of mid-2025, often used by dealers, hedge funds, and banks for funding and liquidity management. Hold-in-custody (HIC) repos represent a higher-risk subset of bilateral transactions where the repo seller (cash borrower) retains physical and operational custody of the collateral securities throughout the term, despite transferring legal title to the buyer (cash lender). This structure avoids the costs and logistics of collateral delivery, allowing the seller to continue using the securities for other purposes like rehypothecation, but it exposes the lender to significant counterparty risk, as there is no independent verification or segregation of assets in case of seller default. HIC repos typically command higher interest rates to compensate for this elevated risk, with spreads over tri-party rates often reflecting operational frictions and credit concerns. The preference for bilateral and HIC repos has declined since the 2008 financial crisis due to their vulnerability to runs and liquidity squeezes; for instance, HIC arrangements amplified losses during Lehman Brothers' failure when counterparties struggled to seize untransferred collateral. Regulators and market participants have shifted toward tri-party and cleared structures for better risk mitigation, though bilateral repos persist for customized terms or non-standard collateral like equities. In bilateral deals, haircuts (discounts on collateral value) are negotiated directly and can vary widely, often starting at 0% for high-quality Treasuries but rising sharply in stressed conditions, underscoring the importance of bilateral trust over systemic safeguards.

Tri-Party and Cleared Repos

Tri-party repurchase agreements involve a third-party agent, typically a clearing bank such as BNY Mellon or JPMorgan Chase, that facilitates the transaction by custodying collateral, performing daily mark-to-market valuations, and managing margin calls on behalf of the cash lender and securities seller. This structure shifts operational responsibilities from the counterparties to the agent, reducing settlement risks and allowing lenders, often money market funds, to invest in general collateral pools without direct handling of securities transfers. Unlike bilateral repos, tri-party arrangements do not involve central clearing or novation by a central counterparty, leaving bilateral credit exposures intact, though the agent's role mitigates some operational failures. In the U.S., tri-party repos predominantly finance U.S. Treasury and agency securities, with daily volumes exceeding $2 trillion as of 2024, primarily in overnight terms. Cleared repurchase agreements are processed through a central counterparty (CCP), such as the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), which novates trades, becoming the legal buyer to the seller and seller to the buyer, thereby guaranteeing performance and enabling multilateral netting of positions across participants. This netting reduces the notional amount of collateral and cash exchanged, lowering liquidity demands and systemic risk compared to uncleared segments. FICC's Government Securities Division (GSD) handles cleared repos, including General Collateral Finance (GCF) repos where dealers trade without specifying collateral upfront, settling net via the CCP; sponsored repos allow non-members like hedge funds to access clearing through a sponsor. Average daily cleared repo volumes through FICC reached approximately $1.1 trillion in recent years, with peaks exceeding $11.8 trillion in single-day activity as of June 30, 2025. Central clearing mandates, implemented post-2008, have driven growth in this segment to mitigate contagion from bilateral failures. While both tri-party and cleared repos enhance efficiency over bilateral trades, tri-party relies on agent intermediation for collateral management without CCP guarantee or netting, exposing parties to agent-specific risks in default scenarios, whereas cleared repos centralize risk mutualization but require stricter membership and collateral standards. Tri-party dominates funding for money market investors seeking operational simplicity, comprising a larger share of general collateral financing, while cleared repos, particularly GCF, support inter-dealer liquidity with lower operational burdens due to netting. Post-crisis reforms have expanded cleared volumes through sponsored access, yet tri-party persists for its flexibility in non-Treasury collateral, though both face scrutiny for concentration risks in key agents or CCPs.

Specialized Forms (Equity, Whole Loan, Sell/Buybacks)

Equity repurchase agreements, or equity repos, utilize corporate stocks or other equity securities as collateral rather than fixed-income instruments like government bonds. These transactions carry elevated risk due to the higher volatility of equity prices compared to treasuries, necessitating larger haircuts—typically 20-50% or more—to mitigate potential declines in collateral value during the repo term. Equity repos are predominantly conducted with liquid securities from major indices, facilitating short-term financing for hedge funds, prime brokers, and market makers, and have seen increased volumes amid rising funding costs as of November 2024. Specialized master agreements, such as the Global Master Repurchase Agreement's Equities Annex, govern these to address equity-specific risks like dividend adjustments and corporate actions. Whole loan repurchase agreements involve entire loans—such as residential or commercial mortgages—as collateral, distinct from repos backed by securitized assets like mortgage-backed securities. These facilities enable mortgage originators and servicers to obtain funding by transferring legal title of the underlying loan obligations while agreeing to repurchase them, often on a term basis matching pipeline durations of 30-90 days. Collateral valuation relies on the loans' expected cash flows and credit quality, with haircuts applied based on loan-to-value ratios and delinquency risks; for instance, non-agency whole loans may face 5-15% haircuts. This structure supports the non-agency mortgage market by providing liquidity without immediate securitization, though it exposes lenders to idiosyncratic loan defaults absent diversification in pooled securities. Sell/buyback transactions function economically as repos but differ legally as paired spot trades: an immediate outright sale of securities followed by a forward agreement to buy back equivalent securities at a predetermined price, without a unified repurchase contract. Unlike standard repos, which mandate written master agreements for title transfer and repurchase obligations, sell/buybacks may lack formal documentation, potentially altering beneficial ownership upon default and complicating netting under insolvency regimes. This form prevails in certain European and emerging markets for its simplicity in undocumented short-term trades, though it yields higher costs from bilateral settlement risks; the price differential embeds the implied interest rate, akin to repo yields. Regulatory scrutiny post-2008 has diminished their prevalence in favor of documented repos for enhanced transparency and collateral management.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements

A reverse repurchase agreement, commonly abbreviated as reverse repo or RRP, constitutes the viewpoint of the cash-providing party in a repurchase transaction, wherein the lender acquires securities as collateral and agrees to resell them to the original owner at a fixed higher price on the specified maturity date, thereby extending a collateralized loan. This mirrors the mechanics of a standard repurchase agreement but inverts the roles: the reverse repo participant supplies liquidity in exchange for temporary ownership of high-quality assets, typically U.S. Treasury securities, earning the repo rate as implicit interest via the repurchase price differential. The transaction minimizes credit risk through overcollateralization and daily marking-to-market in many cases, though it exposes participants to reinvestment and liquidity risks if collateral values fluctuate adversely. In practice, reverse repos facilitate short-term cash management for institutional investors such as money market funds, government-sponsored enterprises, and primary dealers seeking secure, low-risk returns on excess funds amid volatile money markets. For central banks, reverse repos serve as a key tool for liquidity absorption and monetary policy implementation; the Federal Reserve's Trading Desk at the New York Fed conducts reverse repo operations by selling securities to eligible counterparties with a commitment to repurchase them, often overnight, to drain reserves and establish a floor for short-term rates like the federal funds rate. The Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement Facility (ON RRP), operational since 2013 and expanded post-2008 crisis, caps rates at the offered reverse repo rate—set at 4.55% as of September 2024—and has seen usage surge during periods of ample reserves, with daily take-up exceeding $1 trillion in late 2021 to counter downward pressure on yields. Beyond policy applications, reverse repos underpin broader financial intermediation, enabling dealers to source funding or park cash securely; for example, in tri-party structures, a clearing bank handles collateral valuation and substitution, reducing operational burdens while maintaining segregation of assets. Empirical evidence from Federal Reserve data indicates reverse repo volumes correlate inversely with repo lending pressures, as cash-rich entities prefer the safety of reverse repos during stress events like the March 2020 market turmoil, when ON RRP usage provided a backstop absent broader disruptions. However, overreliance on central bank facilities can signal distortions in private intermediation, potentially compressing spreads and incentivizing riskier off-balance-sheet activities elsewhere in the system.

Market Overview and Participants

Key Players and Market Segments

Primary dealers, including major broker-dealers such as JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, serve as key intermediaries in the repurchase agreement (repo) market, matching cash lenders with borrowers and often acting as net borrowers to facilitate liquidity. Money market funds (MMFs), which invest in short-term, low-risk instruments, are principal cash providers, particularly in the tri-party segment, accounting for a significant portion of lending activity due to their need for secure overnight investments. Hedge funds and other leveraged investors act as major cash borrowers, using repos to finance positions in Treasury securities and other assets, often facing low or zero haircuts from dealers. Commercial banks and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) participate as both lenders and borrowers, while central banks like the Federal Reserve engage via facilities such as the Overnight Reverse Repo (ON RRP) to manage liquidity, with eligible counterparties including primary dealers and certain MMFs. The U.S. repo market, which dominates global activity, divides into four primary segments based on settlement method and clearing status: centrally cleared tri-party, non-centrally cleared tri-party, centrally cleared bilateral (including General Collateral Finance or GCF repos), and non-centrally cleared bilateral. Tri-party segments, processed through custodians like BNY Mellon or JPMorgan, represent about 20-25% of daily volume and primarily involve MMFs lending general collateral Treasuries to dealers, with the agent handling collateral valuation and substitution. Bilateral segments, comprising the majority of volume, enable direct peer-to-peer trades, often for specific or "special" collateral, and include both cleared transactions via the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), which reduces counterparty risk through netting and margining, and uncleared ones reliant on bilateral agreements. Additional segmentation occurs by maturity (overnight versus term, with overnight dominating at over 90% of activity) and collateral type (primarily U.S. Treasuries and agency securities, with equities or other assets in specialized niches). Globally, similar structures prevail, though European markets emphasize sovereign bonds and feature platforms like Eurex Repo for cross-currency segments.

Global and U.S. Market Size and Volumes

The global repurchase agreement market supports extensive short-term secured financing, with the United States and Europe comprising its largest segments. Comprehensive worldwide outstanding totals are not centrally aggregated due to varying reporting standards and jurisdictional differences, but data from major surveys indicate activity in the tens of trillions of dollars. In Europe, the outstanding value of repo contracts hit a record €11.1 trillion (approximately $12 trillion) as of June 2024, reflecting a 7.1% year-over-year increase driven partly by heightened demand for U.S. dollar-denominated collateral amid elevated Treasury yields and issuance. In the United States, the repo market's gross outstanding size reached $11.9 trillion in 2024, based on comprehensive data from a panel of dealers, bank holding companies, and other intermediaries, surpassing earlier estimates that overlooked certain non-centrally cleared segments. This total encompasses both repo (securities seller financing) and reverse repo (securities buyer financing) positions, with dealers holding $3.71 trillion in repos and $3.43 trillion in reverse repos, while non-dealer bank subsidiaries added $1.41 trillion in repos and $1.56 trillion in reverse repos. The market has expanded 70% since 2014, with accelerated growth in 2023 adding over $1 trillion to repo positions. U.S. repo activity segments into tri-party and bilateral forms, further divided by central clearing status, as shown below for 2024 gross outstanding amounts:
SegmentOutstanding ($ trillions)
Centrally cleared tri-party (GCF)0.351
Non-centrally cleared tri-party3.618
Centrally cleared bilateral (DVP)3.417
Non-centrally cleared bilateral4.561
Non-centrally cleared bilateral repos dominate at 38% of the total, highlighting reliance on uncleared dealer-to-client transactions despite post-crisis clearing mandates. Daily transaction volumes in the Treasury repo segment alone average over $8 trillion, underscoring the market's role in liquidity provision and underscoring high turnover relative to outstanding stocks. Primary dealer financing volumes, tracked by SIFMA, fluctuate between $3.6 trillion and $7.8 trillion on an average daily basis, influenced by quarter-end reporting and monetary policy dynamics.

Liquidity Provision and Dynamics

Repurchase agreements function as a core mechanism for short-term liquidity provision in global financial markets, enabling cash borrowers—primarily securities dealers and banks—to obtain immediate funds by pledging high-quality collateral such as government securities, with an obligation to repurchase at a predetermined higher price. This collateralized structure minimizes counterparty risk through haircuts and legal repurchase rights, allowing efficient funding of asset inventories without forced sales, while providing cash lenders—such as money market funds and corporates—with low-risk, yield-bearing investments secured by liquid assets. In the U.S., the triparty segment alone clears over $1 trillion in daily overnight transactions, predominantly backed by Treasury securities, supporting the broader Treasury market's liquidity by redistributing excess cash from institutional investors to primary dealers funding positions. Market dynamics in repo liquidity exhibit intraday patterns and term sensitivities shaped by participant behaviors and structural factors. Trading volumes peak around 8 a.m. and spike again near 1 p.m. Eastern Time in triparty markets, reflecting settlement cycles managed by clearing banks like BNY Mellon, with persistent borrower-lender relationships influencing rates—stronger ties yielding lower borrowing costs due to reduced perceived risk. Collateral quality drives pricing, with Treasuries commanding the lowest rates and minimal 2% haircuts, while reuse of pledged securities amplifies systemic liquidity by enabling multiple funding rounds from the same assets, though this heightens leverage and procyclical effects. Regulatory constraints, such as balance sheet limits under leverage ratios, constrain bank intermediation, leading to volatility spikes at quarter-ends where repo rates rise modestly as institutions window-dress holdings to meet reporting requirements. Liquidity dynamics can strain during periods of imbalance, as repo markets redistribute funds from surplus entities like money market funds to deficit ones like dealers, but segmentation—evident in bilateral versus triparty channels—may exacerbate fragility even amid abundant collateral, as seen in isolated rate spikes from mismatched supply-demand timing. Short maturities, typically overnight or term up to weeks, ensure rolling liquidity but expose the system to rollover risks if haircuts widen or collateral values fluctuate procyclically, underscoring repos' role in efficient capital allocation tempered by potential amplification of stress through rehypothecation chains. Overall, these features position repos as resilient yet sensitive conduits, with dynamics influenced by monetary policy, issuance volumes, and evolving intermediation via non-banks and central counterparties.

Historical Development

Origins and Pre-2008 Evolution

Repurchase agreements, commonly known as repos, were first introduced by the Federal Reserve System in 1917 as a mechanism to extend short-term credit to member banks, utilizing U.S. government securities as collateral. This innovation arose amid wartime fiscal pressures, including high taxes that diminished the appeal of traditional lending forms, prompting the Fed to structure transactions where banks would sell securities with an agreement to repurchase them at a slightly higher price, effectively functioning as collateralized loans. Early repos excluded accrued interest from pricing and incorporated automatic liens on the collateral, establishing basic conventions that emphasized the transaction's secured nature over outright sales. Through the mid-20th century, repo usage remained limited primarily to interbank and dealer financing, with Federal Reserve banks employing them sporadically for reserves management. In the 1950s and 1960s, as interest rates rose from post-World War II deflationary lows, primary dealers increasingly turned to repos to borrow funds against Treasury holdings, marking a shift toward broader market participation beyond central bank operations. By the 1970s, amid accelerating inflation and expanding money markets, dealers expanded repo applications to finance customer securities purchases, fostering liquidity in the growing secondary market for government debt. This period saw repos evolve from ad hoc tools into standardized instruments, with daily transaction volumes beginning to reflect their role in efficient short-term funding. The 1980s brought significant structural maturation, including legal clarifications that repos constituted secured lending rather than sales, reducing bankruptcy risks and encouraging institutional adoption. Contracting conventions standardized around general collateral (GC) repos using Treasuries, while the market's size surged due to deregulation and the proliferation of money market instruments, with inflation pressures in the late 1970s amplifying demand for low-risk overnight funding. Entering the 1990s and 2000s, repos became central to dealer balance sheet management and monetary policy implementation, with the tri-party segment—facilitated by clearing banks—emerging to handle larger volumes, though primarily backed by high-quality sovereign collateral. By the mid-2000s, the U.S. repo market underpinned trillions in annual turnover, serving as a cornerstone of global liquidity provision without the systemic strains that would later surface.

2008 Financial Crisis and Repo Role

The repurchase agreement (repo) market played a central role in amplifying the 2008 financial crisis through its function as a short-term funding mechanism for highly leveraged institutions holding mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and other structured assets. Prior to the crisis, non-bank financial entities, including investment banks like Lehman Brothers, relied heavily on repo financing to fund large positions in securitized subprime debt, using these assets as collateral with low initial haircuts (typically 2-5%). This maturity transformation—borrowing overnight or for short terms against longer-duration assets—created vulnerabilities akin to traditional bank runs when confidence eroded. As subprime mortgage defaults escalated in 2007 and intensified in 2008, repo lenders demanded higher haircuts on non-government collateral, shortening maturities to overnight and ultimately withdrawing funding entirely for MBS and related securities, leading to a liquidity freeze. By September 2008, the tri-party repo market, which handled about $1.6 trillion daily, saw volumes plummet as money market funds and other cash providers refused to roll over loans backed by Lehman Brothers' assets, contributing directly to its bankruptcy on September 15. This "repo run" forced asset fire sales, exacerbating price declines in securitized products and spreading contagion to other dealers. Lehman Brothers specifically exploited repo mechanics via "Repo 105" transactions, where it sold $50 billion in assets under repurchase agreements structured to recognize sales for balance-sheet purposes (due to a 105% repurchase price exceeding standard repo thresholds), temporarily reducing reported leverage ratios by up to 20 percentage points in quarterly reports during 2007-2008. These off-balance-sheet maneuvers, totaling over $200 billion in peak usage, masked deteriorating capital positions but failed to prevent funding withdrawal when counterparties balked at Lehman's collateral amid broader market panic. In response, the Federal Reserve initiated term repo operations in March 2008, injecting liquidity against a wider range of collateral, including MBS, with outstanding balances reaching $200 billion by late 2008 to stabilize primary dealers. These interventions mitigated a complete repo market collapse but highlighted systemic reliance on central bank backstops, as private funding evaporated for all but U.S. Treasuries, where repo rates briefly turned negative in flight-to-quality moves. The crisis underscored repo's procyclical nature, where collateral valuation spirals intensified leverage unwindings, contributing to an estimated $10-15 trillion in global asset value losses.

Post-Crisis Reforms and Events (2010s-2020s)

Following the 2008 financial crisis, regulators focused on mitigating systemic risks in the tri-party repo market, where clearing banks like BNY Mellon had extended significant intraday credit to facilitate settlements. Reforms initiated in 2010 by the New York Fed's Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform Group aimed to automate the allocation of collateral after trade unwind, reducing reliance on manual processes and daylight overdrafts that peaked at over $1 trillion daily pre-crisis. By 2016, BNY Mellon implemented a new allocation agent system, sponsored by cash lenders, which cut intraday credit exposure by more than 90% during wind-down periods. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 imposed enhanced prudential standards on large banking organizations, indirectly constraining repo activity through higher capital and liquidity requirements under Basel III, which treated repos as encumbered assets and limited dealer balance sheet capacity. These measures, while not directly targeting repos, contributed to a contraction in bilateral repo volumes as dealers faced elevated costs for holding collateral. Central clearing adoption accelerated modestly in the 2010s via the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), but remained limited until later mandates. In April 2018, the New York Fed introduced the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) as a benchmark derived from overnight Treasury repo transactions, aggregating nearly $1 trillion in daily volume across tri-party, GCF, and cleared segments to replace LIBOR amid manipulation concerns. SOFR's transaction-based nature enhanced transparency, though its volume-weighted average occasionally exhibited volatility tied to repo market dynamics. Market stress resurfaced on September 16-17, 2019, when the SOFR spiked to 5.25%—far above the Fed's 2.25% target range—driven by a $120 billion reserve drain from Treasury coupon settlements and quarterly tax payments, compounded by reduced money market fund lending and dealer balance sheet constraints. The Federal Reserve responded with temporary overnight and term repo operations, injecting over $300 billion in liquidity by late September, followed by $60 billion monthly Treasury bill purchases starting October 2019 to rebuild reserves to $1.5 trillion. The COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 triggered acute funding pressures, with repo rates fluctuating amid Treasury market dysfunction and a flight to cash; the Fed expanded repo offerings to $500 billion daily in overnight operations and introduced term repos up to 90 days, stabilizing markets by providing $1 trillion in additional liquidity alongside quantitative easing. In July 2021, the Fed established the Standing Repo Facility (SRF) as a permanent backstop, allowing primary dealers and select counterparties to access overnight repos against Treasury collateral at a minimum bid rate above the federal funds target, aiming to prevent future spikes without active intervention. Recent SEC rules adopted in October 2023 mandate central clearing for most Treasury cash trades and "cash" repos by June 2025 (for interdealer) and December 2026 (for client), covering over 80% of bilateral volumes to reduce counterparty risk, though implementation challenges include multilateral netting benefits versus initial margin costs. These reforms build on post-crisis efforts but face scrutiny over potential concentration at FICC and impacts on SOFR volatility.

Institutional and Policy Uses

Central Bank Liquidity Tools

Central banks employ repurchase agreements (repos) as core tools for liquidity management within open market operations, enabling precise adjustments to the money supply and short-term interest rates. In a standard repo, the central bank acts as the buyer, providing cash to eligible counterparties in exchange for high-quality collateral such as government securities, with a commitment to reverse the transaction at a predetermined price and date; this injects temporary liquidity into the financial system. Reverse repos, where the central bank sells securities with an agreement to repurchase them, serve to absorb excess reserves and tighten conditions. These operations facilitate monetary policy transmission by influencing interbank lending rates and ensuring financial stability without permanent balance sheet expansion. The Federal Reserve conducts repo and reverse repo operations daily through the New York Fed to align the federal funds rate with the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) target range, using Treasury securities and agency debt as collateral. Temporary operations vary in size based on reserve needs, while the Standing Repo Facility (SRF), established on July 28, 2021, offers a permanent overnight backstop for primary dealers and select banks, accepting U.S. Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities at a rate capped at the top of the federal funds range to deter routine use and activate primarily during stress. The SRF enhances market functioning by providing a safety valve against funding pressures, as evidenced by its deployment to counter repo rate spikes in late 2025. The European Central Bank (ECB) integrates repos into its framework for steering euro area liquidity, with main refinancing operations (MROs) executed weekly as fixed-rate tenders providing one-week funds against broad collateral, allotting €11.06 billion on October 22, 2025, for instance. Longer-term refinancing operations (LTROs), including pandemic-era targeted LTROs (TLTROs) with maturities up to four years, supply sustained liquidity to support lending amid economic challenges, while fine-tuning repos address intraday or short-term imbalances. These tools signal policy intent and calibrate excess liquidity, with reinvestments from prior asset purchases influencing ongoing repo dynamics until December 2024. Other institutions, like the Bank of England, rely on short-term repo (STR) facilities to implement the Monetary Policy Committee's official repo rate, conducting market-wide sterling operations to control overnight rates and distribute liquidity efficiently across participants. Globally, repos enable central banks to respond to shocks—such as the 2008 crisis or 2019 U.S. repo turmoil—by scaling operations to prevent systemic spillovers, though reliance on them underscores vulnerabilities in collateral markets and counterparty access.

Dealer and Banking Applications

Primary dealers, primarily broker-dealers affiliated with large investment banks, rely on repurchase agreements (repos) as a primary mechanism to finance their inventories of Treasury securities and other assets. This secured funding allows dealers to hold positions necessary for market-making, facilitating liquidity in the U.S. Treasury market by enabling rapid buying and selling to clients. For example, repos support dealers' bids at Treasury auctions and their underwriting commitments in syndicated bond issues, where short-term collateralized borrowing matches the maturity of these activities, typically overnight or term lengths up to several weeks. In the interdealer segment, primary dealers act as intermediaries, borrowing securities via reverse repos to cover short positions or lend excess collateral, with aggregate outstanding repo volumes for dealers reaching $1.355 trillion and reverse repo volumes at $927 billion as of November 2024. This intermediation involves high degrees of collateral reuse, where dealers transform cash from lenders into funding for borrowers, amplifying market efficiency but also exposing the system to balance sheet constraints during stress, as evidenced by quarter-end reporting pressures that temporarily elevate repo rates. Commercial banks utilize repos for liquidity management, often engaging in reverse repos to invest excess reserves securely and earn yields slightly above federal funds rates, particularly in triparty platforms cleared by Bank of New York Mellon or JPMorgan Chase. Banks also borrow via repos to fund asset purchases or meet intraday liquidity needs, diversifying from unsecured interbank lending amid post-crisis regulations like the Liquidity Coverage Ratio, which incentivize high-quality collateral use. However, reliance on repo funding can amplify vulnerabilities, as seen in 2019 when bank-affiliated dealers faced rollover risks, prompting Federal Reserve interventions to stabilize rates.

Money Market Fund Involvement

Money market funds (MMFs) serve as major cash providers in the repurchase agreement (repo) market, investing surplus liquidity in short-term repos to generate yield while adhering to regulatory requirements for high-quality, liquid assets. Primarily, U.S. MMFs participate as buyers of repos, extending cash against collateral such as U.S. Treasury securities and government agency debt, without typically incurring repo liabilities. This involvement supports their portfolio management, as repos offer near-cash equivalents with minimal credit risk due to overcollateralization, often by a 2% margin for Treasuries. The bulk of MMF repo activity occurs in the tri-party segment, where a third-party agent handles settlement, collateral selection, and custody, reducing operational risks for funds. As of September 30, 2020, MMFs accounted for approximately 22% of total U.S. repo assets, holding around $1 trillion in repo investments out of a $4.6 trillion market. By 2024, MMF repo holdings had grown to about $2 trillion, reflecting their status as the largest cash lenders in the market amid overall repo gross volumes reaching $11.9 trillion. Collateral composition emphasizes safety: roughly 64% backed by Treasuries and 31% by agency securities, with the remainder in other eligible assets. Maturities are predominantly short-term, with 70% overnight or open and 24% ranging from 1 to 7 days. Counterparties for MMF repos are concentrated among securities dealers, comprising 82% of exposures, including $642 billion with primary dealers as of late 2020; other participants include government-sponsored enterprises, the Federal Reserve, and clearing entities like the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Government MMFs, which dominate post-2016 SEC reforms requiring prime funds to use floating net asset values and impose gates or fees during stress, favor Treasury- and agency-backed repos to meet liquidity mandates. These reforms shifted assets toward government funds, amplifying their repo demand and influencing market dynamics, such as during periods of elevated short-term funding needs. MMFs' repo investments compete with alternatives like the Federal Reserve's overnight reverse repo facility, where funds park excess cash when repo rates approach the facility's floor, stabilizing money market rates.

International Examples (e.g., RBI)

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) utilizes repurchase agreements as a core mechanism within its Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF) to regulate short-term liquidity in the banking sector, allowing commercial banks to borrow funds overnight against eligible collateral at the prevailing repo rate or deposit surplus funds via reverse repos at a lower reverse repo rate. This framework, established to align liquidity with monetary policy targets, enables the RBI to inject or absorb rupees as needed to stabilize interbank rates around the policy repo rate, which stood at 6.50% following the Monetary Policy Committee's decision on October 9, 2024. For example, during periods of frictional liquidity deficits, such as those observed in early 2023 due to tax outflows and currency withdrawals, the RBI conducted variable rate repo (VRR) auctions to provide targeted overnight liquidity, with auction sizes ranging from ₹25,000 crore to ₹1 lakh crore. In addition to standard repos, the RBI has employed longer-term and targeted repo operations to address structural liquidity challenges and support specific economic sectors. Introduced in 2020 amid the COVID-19 crisis, targeted long-term repo operations (TLTROs) allowed banks to borrow at the policy repo rate for tenures of 1-3 years, with funds directed toward corporate bonds, commercial paper, and non-convertible debentures in stressed sectors, totaling over ₹1.3 lakh crore in disbursements by mid-2021. Empirical analysis of these operations indicates they reduced borrowing costs for targeted issuers by approximately 30 basis points, facilitating credit flow without broad-based rate distortions. More recently, on October 25, 2025, the RBI expanded eligible collateral for repo and reverse repo transactions to include municipal debt securities under the RBI Act, aiming to enhance liquidity for urban local bodies and broaden market participation. Beyond India, other central banks integrate repos into their liquidity frameworks with adaptations to local market structures. The European Central Bank (ECB) conducts weekly main refinancing operations (MROs) as fixed-rate repos with a one-week maturity, allotting €2-3 trillion in liquidity against a wide collateral pool to maintain eurozone banking stability, as evidenced by peak usage exceeding €500 billion during the 2022 energy crisis. Similarly, the Bank of England (BOE) relies on repo-based operations in its Sterling Monetary Framework, including indexed long-term repos for gilts, to manage reserves; a September 2025 discussion paper highlighted vulnerabilities in the gilt repo market, where daily turnover averages £50-60 billion, prompting proposals for intraday liquidity enhancements to mitigate rollover risks. These examples illustrate repos' versatility in non-U.S. contexts, where they balance monetary transmission with collateral constraints unique to sovereign debt markets.

Risks and Systemic Concerns

Counterparty and Collateral Risks

In repurchase agreements (repos), counterparty risk arises when the cash borrower fails to repurchase the securities at maturity or the cash lender defaults on returning the collateral, exposing the non-defaulting party to potential losses despite the collateralized nature of the transaction. This risk persists because repos, even those backed by high-quality assets like U.S. Treasuries, remain subject to credit exposure during periods of market stress, as evidenced by "repo runs" where lenders refuse to roll over funding due to doubts about the borrower's solvency. For instance, in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, primary dealers experienced sharp withdrawals of repo funding collateralized by safe assets, amplifying liquidity strains and counterparty fears. Mitigation of counterparty risk relies on overcollateralization through haircuts, where the collateral value exceeds the cash lent, providing a buffer against default. Haircuts are negotiated based on the perceived credit quality and volatility of the collateral, with zero or low haircuts common for U.S. Treasuries due to their liquidity and low default probability, though this leaves limited protection in scenarios of widespread dealer insolvency. Proportionate margining adjusts haircuts dynamically to align with exposure, reducing the need for frequent margin calls while preserving protection; however, in bilateral repos without central clearing, reliance on bilateral risk assessments can lead to inconsistent application and heightened vulnerability during volatility. Collateral substitution clauses allow borrowers to replace pledged assets, but they introduce operational risks if substitutions degrade quality without lender approval. Collateral risk manifests as adverse changes in the market value of pledged securities between transaction initiation and maturity, potentially eroding the buffer against counterparty default. This is particularly acute in term repos exceeding overnight durations, where price fluctuations from interest rate shifts, credit events, or liquidity droughts can diminish collateral worth; for non-government securities like corporate bonds or equities used as collateral, volatility is higher, necessitating larger initial haircuts. Rehypothecation, or reuse of received collateral by lenders, can chain risks across the market, as a default at one link may force fire sales, depressing values systemically and impairing multiple repos. Empirical evidence shows that elevated collateral reuse correlates with increased repo rate volatility, as seen in the UK gilt market, where delivery failures spike under stress. In low-quality collateral repos, such as those backed by riskier assets, lenders demand higher repo rates to compensate for elevated default and valuation risks, though this can strain borrowers during funding squeezes. Ongoing monitoring of collateral marks-to-market is essential, with daily valuation adjustments triggering margin calls to restore coverage ratios, but illiquid collateral may prove difficult to liquidate without loss in distressed conditions. Despite these safeguards, the interconnectedness of repo markets—evident in the $11.9 trillion U.S. repo volume as of 2024—means isolated counterparty or collateral failures can propagate, underscoring the non-riskless profile of these instruments.

Rollover and Funding Stress

In repurchase agreements, rollover refers to the refinancing of maturing transactions, often on a daily basis for overnight repos, where the borrower repurchases the collateral and immediately enters a new agreement to maintain funding. This process exposes participants to rollover risk, as lenders may refuse to renew due to perceived counterparty weakness or market-wide liquidity constraints, forcing borrowers to seek alternative funding or liquidate assets at potentially distressed prices. Funding stress in the repo market manifests as spikes in repurchase rates, reduced transaction volumes, and widened haircuts on collateral, signaling a mismatch between funding demand—typically from securities dealers financing inventories—and supply from cash providers like money market funds. During the 2007-2009 financial crisis, rollover failures intensified as lenders pulled back from non-government collateral, with prime brokerage repo volumes contracting by over 60% from peak levels by late 2008, contributing to liquidity evaporation and firm insolvencies like Lehman Brothers, where inability to roll over repos accelerated balance sheet deleveraging. In September 2019, a confluence of events—including quarterly corporate tax payments depleting cash reserves and a large Treasury securities settlement draining bank balances—triggered a sharp repo rate spike, with the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) reaching 5.25% on September 17 from around 2.4% the prior day, prompting the Federal Reserve to inject $75 billion daily via standing repo facilities to restore smooth rollovers. Similarly, in March 2020 amid COVID-19 market turmoil, repo rates surged as non-bank lenders reduced exposure, highlighting persistent vulnerabilities in term repo segments where rollover horizons extend beyond overnight. These episodes underscore systemic implications of rollover-induced funding stress: dealers reliant on repo for 70-80% of Treasury inventory financing face amplified pressure to sell assets during rate spikes, potentially depressing bond prices and transmitting shocks to broader credit markets, as evidenced by correlated increases in Treasury yields and equity volatility in 2019 and 2020. Mitigation efforts, such as central bank standing facilities post-2019, have reduced acute rollover failures but not eliminated underlying fragilities tied to high leverage and collateral concentration in Treasuries. Operational risks in repurchase agreement (repo) markets stem from settlement processes, where failures to deliver cash or securities on maturity dates—known as settlement fails—can propagate through interconnected transactions, creating "daisy chains" of delays and exposing participants to liquidity shortfalls and opportunity costs. Such fails, common in bilateral and tri-party repos, arise from mismatches in inventory, processing errors, or temporary operational disruptions rather than credit events, but they amplify during high-volume periods like quarter-ends when balance sheet constraints intensify. Repo markets, like other financial systems, face broader operational vulnerabilities including IT system failures, human errors in collateral substitution or valuation, and breakdowns in post-trade processing, which can lead to unmatched trades or erroneous margin calls. Mitigation efforts, such as central clearing via entities like the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), reduce settlement risks by netting positions and automating delivery-versus-payment, though bilateral repos—comprising a significant market share—remain prone to manual interventions and higher operational exposure. The shift to shorter settlement cycles, such as T+1 in U.S. Treasury markets implemented in May 2024, has heightened these risks by compressing timelines for reconciliation and collateral management, necessitating upgraded automation to avoid amplified fails. Legal risks in repos center on the enforceability of contracts, particularly the characterization of transactions as true sales (transferring ownership) versus secured financings, which determines bankruptcy remoteness and creditor priority. In the United States, Section 559 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a safe harbor for qualifying repurchase agreements, permitting counterparties to terminate, liquidate collateral, and apply proceeds without the automatic stay, a protection expanded in 2005 to include mortgage-related repos amid concerns over systemic liquidity freezes. Disputes frequently arise over whether specific agreements meet the statutory definition of "repurchase agreements," involving mortgage loans or servicing advances, as seen in the 2019 HomeBanc Mortgage bankruptcy where the court affirmed safe harbor applicability to servicing advance repurchase facilities, allowing swift termination despite debtor challenges. Mischaracterization risks persist if documentation fails to evidence a forward repurchase obligation, potentially reclassifying repos as secured loans subject to Bankruptcy Code preferences and clawback provisions, undermining the intended collateral liquidity. Cross-jurisdictional variances exacerbate these issues; for instance, European repo markets under English law emphasize title transfer for close-out netting, but differing insolvency regimes can invalidate foreign counterparties' claims, prompting reliance on netting opinions from law firms to confirm enforceability.

Controversies and Debates

Accounting Abuses (e.g., Lehman Repo 105)

Lehman Brothers employed Repo 105 transactions, a variant of repurchase agreements, to temporarily de-leverage its balance sheet by accounting for them as outright sales rather than secured borrowings, thereby reducing reported assets and liabilities at quarter-end reporting dates. In standard repurchase agreements under U.S. GAAP, transactions are treated as financing with assets remaining on the balance sheet as collateral; however, Repo 105 involved overcollateralization at 105% or more of the asset's value, which allowed Lehman—relying on UK GAAP standards applied through its London subsidiary and auditor Ernst & Young—to classify the deals as sales, asserting surrender of effective control over the securities. This maneuver enabled Lehman to receive cash (e.g., $100 for $105 in collateral), use it to pay down other liabilities, and repurchase the assets shortly after reporting, masking higher leverage ratios that exceeded internal limits and regulatory scrutiny. The practice began in late 2001 but escalated dramatically in 2007–2008 amid mounting subprime exposure and liquidity pressures, with Lehman executing up to $50 billion in Repo 105 transactions in the second quarter of 2008 alone, reducing reported net leverage from 13.4 to 12.1. By the quarter ended August 31, 2008, volumes peaked at approximately $60 billion, temporarily shrinking balance sheet assets by that amount and improving the gross leverage ratio from 12.2 to 11.0, despite underlying deteriorating conditions that led to Lehman's bankruptcy filing on September 15, 2008—the largest in U.S. history at $639 billion in assets. Internal emails and documents revealed awareness among executives of the transactions' primary purpose as balance sheet "window dressing," with one 2008 memo describing them as a means to "manage" earnings and leverage appearances, though Lehman maintained they complied with accounting rules and were not material. The abuse came to light in the March 2010 report by bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas, which criticized the transactions as materially misleading to investors, creditors, and regulators by obscuring Lehman's true risk profile and contributing to its undetected vulnerability during the financial crisis. No criminal charges resulted against executives, but the scandal prompted U.S. accounting standard changes in 2011 via FASB ASU 2011-03, limiting sale accounting for repos to cases without forward repurchase commitments, effectively closing the loophole for U.S. entities. Similar misuse occurred at MF Global in 2011, where over $200 billion in Eurozone sovereign debt repos were treated as sales to lower reported leverage before its collapse, highlighting persistent vulnerabilities in repo accounting until reforms standardized treatment as secured loans. These cases underscore how repos, intended as short-term funding tools, can enable off-balance-sheet manipulation when accounting discretion exploits jurisdictional differences, eroding transparency without altering economic substance.

Regulatory Distortions and Breakdowns

Regulatory frameworks such as Basel III capital and liquidity requirements have induced distortions in repurchase agreement (repo) markets by incentivizing banks to adjust balance sheets temporarily to meet reporting thresholds, particularly at quarter-ends. This "window dressing" behavior leads to reduced repo lending volumes and elevated rates during these periods, as institutions offload assets or curtail intermediation to optimize metrics like the leverage ratio and liquidity coverage ratio (LCR). For instance, non-U.S. banks with lower capital ratios have been observed withdrawing an average of $170 billion in tri-party repo assets from the U.S. market around reporting dates to evade stricter capital scrutiny, fragmenting liquidity and amplifying short-term volatility. The Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR), a non-risk-weighted capital measure under Basel III, further constrains dealer banks' repo participation by treating low-risk activities like Treasury repo intermediation as equivalent to higher-risk exposures, thereby limiting market-making capacity. This has resulted in procyclical effects, where banks hoard reserves or reduce repo desk activity amid rising demand, exacerbating funding pressures during stress. Empirical analysis shows that tighter leverage ratios diminish repo liquidity, especially for smaller counterparties, increasing transaction costs and reducing overall market depth. A notable breakdown occurred in September 2019, when overnight repo rates spiked above 5%—far exceeding the Federal Funds target—due to a confluence of factors including regulatory frictions that deterred banks from deploying reserves into the market. Corporate tax payments, Treasury auction settlements, and low system reserves strained supply, but banks' reluctance to lend stemmed partly from SLR constraints and internal liquidity stress testing requirements, which prioritized balance sheet resilience over short-term intermediation. The Federal Reserve responded by injecting over $300 billion in reserves via repo operations, highlighting how post-crisis regulations, intended to bolster stability, can inadvertently reduce market resilience during transient shocks. These distortions persist, with Basel III's LCR and net stable funding ratio (NSFR) influencing repo pricing and volumes by altering incentives for collateral usage and funding tenors, often leading to segmentation between bank and non-bank participants. Studies of the UK repo market post-Basel III implementation reveal non-uniform impacts, including shifts toward central bank intermediation and reduced bilateral activity, underscoring broader fragmentation risks absent targeted exemptions or adjustments.

Moral Hazard and Central Bank Dependency

Repurchase agreements facilitate short-term funding but expose participants to moral hazard when central banks routinely intervene to stabilize the market, as lenders and borrowers may underestimate liquidity risks anticipating official backstops. This dynamic emerged prominently during the September 2019 repo market disruption, where overnight rates spiked intraday to over 10% on September 17 amid reserve shortages and corporate tax payments, prompting the Federal Reserve to launch temporary repo operations injecting up to $75 billion daily from September 17 to October 2019. Such interventions, while averting broader turmoil, signal to market actors that the central bank will absorb funding stresses, potentially encouraging higher leverage in non-bank entities like hedge funds that dominate repo activity. Central bank dependency has intensified post-2008, with the repo market's structure—relying on high-velocity collateral reuse—amplifying rollover risks that private mechanisms fail to mitigate during stress, as evidenced by the 2019 event's roots in declining reserves from the Fed's balance sheet normalization ending in 2019. The Fed's establishment of a Standing Repo Facility (SRF) in July 2021, allowing eligible counterparties to borrow against Treasury collateral at a penalty rate above the policy target, formalizes this backstop role to support monetary policy transmission and prevent rate spikes, yet it risks entrenching expectations of perpetual liquidity provision. Critics argue this fosters ex ante risk-taking, as participants price in the SRF's safety net, mirroring broader concerns from emergency lending where anticipated bailouts distort incentives toward excessive short-term borrowing. Empirical analyses of central bank facilities indicate that while they reduce immediate systemic spillovers, repeated use correlates with heightened moral hazard in leveraged funding markets, including repos, where non-banks' growing share—reaching 60% of tri-party repo volume by 2023—exacerbates vulnerability without private discipline. During the COVID-19 onset in March 2020, the Fed expanded repo support alongside asset purchases, injecting trillions in liquidity that stabilized rates but reinforced market reliance, with subsequent studies showing reduced long-term risk premia partly attributable to perceived intervention guarantees. This dependency cycle undermines market self-correction, as causal links from historical data reveal that without backstops, repo haircuts and spreads widen sharply, yet post-intervention complacency delays structural reforms like enhanced collateral haircuts or limits on rehypothecation.

Bankruptcy Treatment Preferences

In the United States, repurchase agreements are granted preferential treatment in bankruptcy proceedings under specific safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, which exempt qualifying transactions from the automatic stay and certain avoidance powers, allowing non-defaulting counterparties to terminate, liquidate, or accelerate positions promptly. This framework, outlined in 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(46) and 101(47), defines repurchase agreements as contracts for the transfer of securities with a simultaneous agreement to repurchase them, often encompassing master netting agreements under § 101(38A). Such designations classify repos as securities contracts per § 741(7), enabling repo buyers—typically financial institutions—to enforce contractual rights without interference from the debtor's bankruptcy estate, thereby prioritizing their claims to collateral over those of general unsecured creditors. The core protection arises from § 559, which explicitly permits the exercise of contractual rights to liquidate, terminate, or accelerate a repurchase agreement in response to the debtor's default, unhindered by the Bankruptcy Code's operation or judicial orders, except in limited cases involving stockbrokers or securities clearing agencies under the Securities Investor Protection Act. Complementary exemptions under §§ 555 and 561, along with exceptions to the automatic stay in §§ 362(b)(6) and 362(b)(27), further insulate repo counterparties from ipso facto clauses that might otherwise invalidate termination rights triggered by bankruptcy filing. In practice, this treatment views repos as secured financing arrangements rather than outright sales susceptible to recharacterization, granting buyers a superior claim to pledged securities, which they may sell to cover repurchase obligations, with any excess proceeds returning to the estate subject to setoff. Courts have upheld this in cases like In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (Bankr. D. Del. 2008), where a mortgage loan repurchase agreement qualified for safe harbor status, permitting immediate liquidation despite the debtor's retention of certain servicing rights. Repo participants also benefit from immunity against avoidance actions for preferential or fraudulent transfers. Sections 546(e) and 546(j) limit the trustee's powers to claw back pre-petition transfers made in connection with securities contracts or master netting agreements, including repos, thereby shielding short-term funding flows from redistribution to other creditors. This exemption contrasts with standard preference rules under § 547, which target transfers enabling creditors to receive more than in a Chapter 7 liquidation, as repo safe harbors prioritize systemic stability in money markets by preventing disruptions that could amplify insolvencies. While enhancing liquidity for participants, these preferences have drawn critique for subordinating non-financial claimants, though empirical evidence from the 2008 financial crisis underscores their role in averting broader repo market freezes.

Regulatory Responses and Recent Developments

Major Regulations and Mandates

In the United States, repurchase agreements have historically operated with limited uniform regulation, as the market itself lacks overarching oversight, while participants such as banks, broker-dealers, and money market funds face varying requirements under existing securities and banking laws. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-203) incorporated repos into the definition of qualified financial contracts, preserving bankruptcy safe harbors for these transactions to mitigate systemic risk during defaults, while imposing enhanced prudential standards on large financial institutions engaging in such activities. This framework aimed to address vulnerabilities exposed in the 2008 financial crisis without directly mandating structural changes to repo markets. More targeted mandates emerged in response to ongoing liquidity stresses, including the 2019 repo market turmoil. On May 6, 2024, the Office of Financial Research (OFR) adopted a final rule requiring large U.S. reporters to submit daily data on non-centrally cleared bilateral repurchase agreements, covering trade details, collateral, and valuations to enhance systemic monitoring and identify concentration risks. Complementing this, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on December 13, 2023, amended Rule 17Ad-22 to mandate central clearing for eligible repurchase and reverse repurchase transactions collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities conducted by registered broker-dealers, major market participants, and certain other entities, with phased compliance deadlines culminating in June 30, 2026, for most cash and repo trades (extended to December 31, 2026, for specific Treasury cash transactions via a February 2025 SEC order). These requirements apply to transactions exceeding specified volumes, excluding inter-affiliate deals and those with central banks, to reduce counterparty exposure and improve market resilience. Internationally, the Basel III framework indirectly influences repo activities through liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and net stable funding ratio (NSFR) standards, which treat high-quality liquid assets like Treasuries used in repos as eligible for buffering short-term outflows, effective from 2015 with phased implementation through 2022. In the European Union, the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR), effective from 2016, mandates reporting of repos to trade repositories for transparency, building on earlier Financial Stability Board recommendations post-2008. These mandates prioritize data aggregation and risk mitigation over outright prohibitions, reflecting a regulatory emphasis on monitoring rather than curtailing repo usage.

Central Clearing and Post-2019 Reforms

Central clearing in repurchase agreement (repo) markets involves interposing a central counterparty (CCP), such as the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), between trading parties to novate transactions, thereby mutualizing counterparty risk and guaranteeing settlement. This mechanism substitutes bilateral exposures with obligations to the CCP, which manages collateral, margin calls, and default waterfalls, reducing systemic vulnerabilities observed in prior crises. In the U.S. Treasury repo market, FICC has provided clearing services since the early 2000s, but adoption remained limited to interdealer trades until regulatory mandates accelerated broader participation. The 2019 Treasury repo market spike, where overnight rates surged above 10% on September 17 due to liquidity strains and collateral shortages, underscored bilateral clearing's fragility and prompted regulatory scrutiny on expanding CCP usage. Post-2019, the SEC and Federal Reserve advocated for mandatory central clearing to enhance market resiliency, citing empirical evidence from the March 2020 "dash for cash" episode where uncleared repos amplified volatility. On December 13, 2023, the SEC adopted rules under the Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies for Treasury Issues, requiring central clearing of eligible secondary market Treasury cash transactions by December 31, 2025 (with phased extensions to June 30, 2026 for certain repos), and Treasury repos by June 30, 2027. These reforms target cash purchases/sales and repos with maturities up to 180 days, excluding tri-party and GCF repos already cleared. Implementation has focused on access models and risk management upgrades. FICC introduced sponsored membership in 2018, enabling non-dealers (e.g., hedge funds, asset managers) to clear dealer-to-client repos via sponsors without direct membership, with volumes surging over 75% since the 2023 rule adoption as of Q1 2025. By March 31, 2026, CCPs must comply with enhanced margin segregation, customer protection, and recovery planning standards to mitigate concentration risks, given FICC's current monopoly as the sole Treasury repo CCP. Early adoption has cleared about 20-30% of eligible bilateral repos by mid-2025, with projections for 60-80% coverage post-mandate, though challenges include operational costs estimated at $100-500 million industry-wide and potential liquidity fragmentation if competition among CCPs lags. Critics, including some market participants, argue the rules may concentrate risks further at FICC without addressing underlying funding mismatches, but proponents cite reduced settlement fails and improved transparency via daily CCP reporting.

2023-2025 Updates and Market Shifts

The U.S. repurchase agreement (repo) market expanded significantly during this period, with gross volumes reaching $11.9 trillion by 2024, surpassing prior estimates derived from aggregated financial accounts data. This growth reflected heightened demand for short-term secured funding amid volatile interest rates and quantitative tightening (QT), with primary dealer repo financing transactions tracked by SIFMA showing sustained elevated activity into 2025. Equity repo volumes specifically increased by 28% year-over-year as of mid-2025, driven by portfolio rebalancing and liquidity needs in equity markets. Regulatory advancements emphasized risk mitigation through central clearing mandates. In December 2023, the SEC finalized rules requiring central clearing for certain Treasury securities trades and associated repo transactions, with compliance deadlines extending to the end of 2025 for cash purchases and sales, aiming to reduce counterparty risk and enhance market resilience post-2020 stresses. These reforms built on post-2019 initiatives, promoting broader adoption of sponsored repo clearing models to cover bilateral trades. Federal Reserve operations shifted as part of balance sheet normalization. Reverse repo facility (RRP) usage declined sharply, approaching zero by August 2025, signaling ample reserves and a transition from QT's peak pace, with the Fed's balance sheet contracting from $9 trillion to $6.7 trillion. The Standing Repo Facility (SRF) remained active for liquidity backstops, conducting daily small-value exercises (e.g., $1 million limits) in June 2025 to test operational readiness, while slowing Treasury runoff to $5 billion monthly. Quarter-end repo rates exhibited modest upward pressure from late 2023 through mid-2025, with SOFR spreads to the ON RRP widening by up to nine basis points, attributed to balance sheet window-dressing and collateral scarcity dynamics. Market distortions emerged in tri-party segments, where affiliate repo trading surged in mid-2024, echoing early 2023 levels and prompting the Office of Financial Research (OFR) to update its Short-Term Funding Monitor (STFM) methodology to filter such activity and prevent rate distortions. SOFR, anchored in tri-party and GCF repo transactions, reflected these shifts with increased volatility at period-ends, though overall averages stabilized amid Fed rate cuts starting in 2024. Collateral class spillovers amplified rate movements, with Treasury repo fluctuations influencing broader asset classes.

References

  1. [1]
    The Fed - Glossary - Federal Reserve Board
    Dec 13, 2012 · A repurchase transaction is a sale of securities coupled with an agreement to repurchase the securities at a specified price on a later date. In ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Introduction Section 4000.1 - Federal Reserve Board
    Repurchase Agreements. Section 4015.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. A repurchase agreement (repo) involves the sale of a security to a counterparty with an agree- ment ...
  3. [3]
    The Fed - Monetary Policy Tools - Federal Reserve Board
    A repo is the economic equivalent of a collateralized loan from the Federal Reserve to a primary dealer (the Federal Reserve counterparty in repo operations) ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  4. [4]
    The $12 Trillion US Repo Market: Evidence from a Novel Panel of ...
    Jul 11, 2025 · Our analysis reveals that the gross size of the US repo market reached $11.9 trillion in 2024, significantly above estimates in previous studies.
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Primer: Money Market Funds and the Repo Market - SEC.gov
    Feb 18, 2021 · Repurchase agreements. Repos allow one firm to sell a security to another firm with a simultaneous promise to buy the security.
  6. [6]
    Shadow Banking After the Financial Crisis - Federal Reserve Board
    Jun 12, 2012 · Only because of unprecedented official-sector action did the triparty repo market not suffer the same kind of disastrous run as did money market ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  7. [7]
    FEDS Notes: The Runnables - Federal Reserve Board
    Sep 3, 2015 · However, it remains controversial as to whether this decline in repos was caused by a run in the repo market or reflected a credit crunch ( ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] The Use of Collateral in Bilateral Repurchase and Securities ...
    Securities dealers use securities financing transactions – repurchase agreements (repos) and securities lending contracts – to borrow funds on a collateralized ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Frequently Asked Questions on Repo
    3. What is the role of repo in the financial markets? The repo market is pivotal to the efficient working of almost all financial markets.
  10. [10]
    [PDF] A Theory of Repurchase Agreements, Collateral Re-use, and Repo ...
    Repurchase agreements (repos) are loan contracts used to borrow, providing insurance against asset price fluctuations and maximizing borrowing capacity.
  11. [11]
    The Repo Market is Changing (and What Is a Repo, Anyway?)
    The repo market plays an important role in the transmission of monetary policy. It is also a critical source of financing for nonbank financial firms.
  12. [12]
    Open Market Operations - Federal Reserve Board
    Under the SRF, the Federal Reserve conducts daily overnight repo operations against eligible securities. The SRF serves as a backstop in money markets to ...Missing: liquidity | Show results with:liquidity<|separator|>
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Fed Repo Operations and Dealer Intermediation
    Repo operations by the Federal Reserve that add reserves to the banking system promote overall liquidity in the financial system and have long been a part of ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Speech by Vice Chair Jefferson on liquidity facilities
    May 19, 2025 · Second, central bank provision of short-term liquidity can increase very rapidly ... liquidity providing repo operations will play a key role.
  15. [15]
    1. What is a repo? » ICMA
    Repo is a generic name for both repurchase transactions and buy/sell-backs. In a repo, one party sells an asset (usually fixed-income securities) to another ...Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Implications of repo markets for central banks - Mar 1999
    Mar 9, 1999 · (Repo, securities loan, securities pledged and collateralised loan) ... The legal treatment of the collateral is crucial. An essential ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Characterization of Repos as Separate Purchases and Sales of ...
    Part III of this. Note examines three possible legal characterizations of a repo transaction: as a loan, as a separate security, and as a purchase and sale of ...
  18. [18]
  19. [19]
    [PDF] The Repurchase Agreement Refined: GCF Repo
    The pay- ment from the initial sale is the principal amount of the loan; the excess of the repurchase price over the sale price is the interest paid on the loan ...Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
  20. [20]
    [PDF] A Guide to Best Practice in the European Repo Market - ICMA
    Mar 29, 2021 · Annex II - Glossary of repo terminology. Where terms are used in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA), they are indicated by Capital ...
  21. [21]
    11. What is the difference between a repurchase transaction and a ...
    A repurchase transaction is always evidenced by a written contract, whereas a buy/sell-back may or may not be documented.
  22. [22]
    24 Repurchase Agreements and Financial Analysis in - IMF eLibrary
    The hybrid nature of repos gives rise to ambiguities from the point of view of instrument classification. No ambiguity would arise, however, if repos were ...
  23. [23]
    The Fed - The Dynamics of the U.S. Overnight Triparty Repo Market
    Aug 2, 2021 · A repo transaction is the sale of assets combined with an agreement to repurchase them on a specified future date at a prearranged price. At a ...
  24. [24]
    Understanding Repurchase Agreements - BlackRock
    A repurchase agreement is a contractual arrangement between two parties, where one party agrees to sell securities to another party at a specified price.
  25. [25]
    Repurchase Agreements Explained: Benefits, Examples, and ...
    These agreements are about 80% of the repurchase agreement market, which stood at about $4.48 trillion in September 2025.19. Specialized Delivery Repo.<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    5.5 Repurchase agreements - PwC Viewpoint
    Repurchase agreements (often referred to as "repos") are transactions in which a transferor transfers a financial asset (typically a high-quality debt.
  27. [27]
    [PDF] features of the repo market in the euro area - European Central Bank
    What is a repo? A repo (a sale and repurchase agreement) involves a sale of securities with a simultaneous agreement to repurchase those securities ...Missing: diagram | Show results with:diagram
  28. [28]
    The Fed - The Ins and Outs of Collateral Re-use
    Dec 21, 2018 · A reverse repurchase transactions has two legs. In the first, collateral comes in, and cash is transferred to a counterparty.
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Reference Guide to U.S. Repo and Securities Lending Markets
    The amount by which the loan is over- collateralized is called a haircut (for a discussion on haircuts see Section 2.1.4). Repo contracts can also be used to ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  30. [30]
    Collateral and rate setting - Federal Reserve Board
    Nov 9, 2016 · For non-OMO-eligible collateral, haircuts are assigned based on the risk of the asset and are generally higher than for OMO-eligible collateral.
  31. [31]
    21. What is a haircut? » ICMA
    A haircut is the difference between the initial market value of an asset and the purchase price paid for that asset at the start of a repo.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Treasury Repurchase Agreement Risk Management
    Feb 26, 2025 · The haircut should reflect the counterparty credit risk, as well as the liquidity and market risks of the collateral. The haircut can be applied ...
  33. [33]
    Are Zero-Haircut Repos as Common as Advertised?
    Aug 12, 2025 · One of the main findings from this study was that 70% of all repo outstanding had a zero haircut, meaning that no excess collateral was required ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] How Does the Repo Market Behave Under Stress? Evidence From ...
    repo market data, provide evidence that repo haircuts on securitized bonds rose during the GFC in a segment of the US interbank bilateral repo market, which ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Repo market functioning - Bank for International Settlements
    Haircuts alleviate market risk, and the receipt of collateral reduces the credit risk borne by the cash lender. Reverse repos are a very flexible liquid ...
  36. [36]
    Repurchase Agreement (Repo) - Overview, How It Works, Participants
    First, we calculate the required interest payment. This is calculated as Principal x Repo Rate x (No. of Days Outstanding / 360) = $9,579,551.63 x 0.09% x (7 / ...What is a Repurchase... · Understanding a Repurchase...
  37. [37]
    Repo agreements – the implied rate of interest - Treasury Today
    A 'repo' agreement – strictly a sale and repurchase agreement – involves two transactions. ... The repo rate was 3.5%, quoted on an actual/360 basis. Step Three ...
  38. [38]
    Secured Overnight Financing Rate Data
    The Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) is a broad measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight collateralized by Treasury securities.
  39. [39]
    Table 2. Accessible - Federal Reserve Board
    Dec 27, 2018 · The Federal Reserve may enter into repurchase agreements for up to 65 business days, but the typical maturity is between one and 14 days.
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Repurchase and Reverse Repurchase Agreements
    In addition to overnight contracts, longer-term repos are arranged for standard maturities of one, two, and three weeks, and one, two, three, and six months.
  41. [41]
    7. What are the typical maturities of repos? » ICMA
    Most repos are short-term, with the US market mainly overnight. European repos are mostly one month or less, with 1-3 month and forward repos also growing.
  42. [42]
    The Fed - FIMA Repo Facility FAQs - Federal Reserve Board
    The FIMA repo facility allows foreign central banks and other foreign monetary authorities to temporarily raise dollars by selling US Treasuries to the Federal ...
  43. [43]
    Repurchase Agreement (Repo) | Definition + Examples
    Repo Rate Formula · Repurchase Price → Original Selling Price + Interest · Original Selling Price → Sales Price of Security · n → Number of Days to Maturity.What is the Definition of... · Repo Rate Formula · Repo Transaction Example
  44. [44]
    The Cleared Bilateral Repo Market and Proposed Repo Benchmark ...
    Feb 27, 2017 · ... repurchase agreement (repo) transactions in order to enhance market transparency and efficiency by improving the quality and breadth of repo ...
  45. [45]
    The Fed - Money Market Fund Repo and the ON RRP Facility
    Dec 15, 2023 · Repo transactions can be settled either bilaterally, where cash and securities are transferred directly between a cash borrower and cash lender, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Key Mechanics of the U.S. Tri-Party Repo Market
    Jun 11, 2012 · Such repos are called “hold in custody,” but they are no longer popular for two reasons. First, the cash investor may find it difficult to ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] A primer on tri-party repo - | European Securities and Markets Authority
    A tri-party repo is a repo where collateral management is delegated to a third-party agent, defined by who manages the collateral, not the legal character.
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Frequently Asked Questions on Repo
    The principal difference between these two types of repo stems from the fact that a repurchase agreement is always evidenced by a written contract, whereas a ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Developments in repo markets during the financial turmoil
    the repo rate and the haircut: bilateral repo, triparty repo and hold-in-custody repo. In a bilateral repo, the collateral is held on the balance sheet of the ...
  50. [50]
    Financial Innovation: The Origins of the Tri-Party Repo Market
    May 12, 2015 · ... hold-in-custody” (HIC) repo arrangements. ... These incentives led repo lenders to deliver the securities they had received in a bilateral repo ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] Bond Market Intermediation and the Role of Repo
    Jan 31, 2020 · In terms of notation, a repo using Q assets as collateral implies that the cash borrower receives pQ in funds and distributes Q in risky assets ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Why is so much repo not centrally cleared?
    Jun 27, 2023 · NCCBR allows greater flexibility in haircuts and margining. Use pilot data and data from centrally cleared and tri-party repo to investigate ...
  53. [53]
    Treasury Tri-Party Repo Pricing
    Sep 30, 2025 · The U.S. tri-party repurchase agreement (repo) market segment is a large over-the-counter venue critical for more than $2 trillion in daily ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] FIXED INCOME CLEARING CORPORATION - DTCC
    Jun 30, 2024 · GSD becomes the CCP for settlement purposes to each dealer party to a. GCF Repo transaction and guarantees settlement of GCF Repo transactions ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Transparency and collateral: the design of CCPs' loss allocation rules
    Jul 23, 2019 · Central clearing of these financial contracts through a central counterparty (CCP) allows lenders to mutualize their counterparty risks, but ...
  56. [56]
    U.S. Treasury Clearing - DTCC
    $$11.1 Trillion. Average Daily GSD Activity Transactions Cleared by FICC. 56%. Year-Over-Year Increase in. Sponsored Service Clearing Volume Growth. 2,750+.About FICC · FICC GSD Risk Management · Resources · Direct Participants
  57. [57]
    FICC Successfully Processes USD$11.8 Trillion | DTCC
    Jul 2, 2025 · FICC subsidiary processed through its Government Securities Division (GSD) a new peak volume of USD$11.8 Trillion in cleared transactions on June 30.
  58. [58]
    [PDF] OFR Brief: Who Participates in Cleared Repo?
    Jul 8, 2021 · Tri-party transactions include a tri-party custodian who manages collateral. This brief presents the first analysis of the classes of.Missing: hold- custody
  59. [59]
    [PDF] BIS Working Papers - No 301 - The failure mechanics of dealer banks
    In order to mitigate counterparty risk, some repurchase agreements are “tri-party.” The third party is usually a clearing bank that holds the collateral and is ...<|separator|>
  60. [60]
    [PDF] 2021-US-Repo-Fact-Sheet.pdf - SIFMA
    Tri-party repo is used to finance general collateral, with investors accepting any security within a broad class of securities. According to the Federal Reserve ...
  61. [61]
    Key Findings on Non-centrally Cleared Repo
    May 12, 2023 · Non-centrally cleared tri-party repo, or tri-party for short, does allow the use of non-Fedwire collateral; however, tri-party only allows for ...
  62. [62]
    What is a repo agreement - FOREX.com
    Jun 17, 2021 · Equity repo: the collateral for the repo is a company's stock. These repos are riskier as the value of stocks can fall; Securities lending ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Understanding repos and the repo markets - EliScholar
    Mar 17, 2009 · This is a mechanism to maintain the initial relative value of the cash and collateral throughout the term of a repurchase agreement. If the ...
  64. [64]
    Bloomberg: J.P. Morgan says surge in equity-backed repo to persist
    Nov 16, 2024 · A rise in funding costs is spilling into the market for repurchase agreements ... Wematch adds $/€ equity repo data to D&C service. November 1, ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) – Equities Annex
    Participants who are contemplating using the equity repo annex for transactions in UK equities will, as with any transaction, need to check the position ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Mortgage Loan Repurchase Facilities - Dechert LLP
    The “repurchase agreement” safe harbor under section 559 of the Bankruptcy Code generally requires that the repurchase transaction provide for the transfer by ...
  67. [67]
    Whole Loan Repo - Fincyclopedia
    Nov 6, 2020 · Whole Loan Repo ... A term repo transaction that is collateralized by a loan or other form of obligation (e.g. mortgage receivables) rather than a ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] alternative repo structures: repurchase agreement v sell/buy-back
    repurchase agreement also known as classic repo, US-style or all-in repo pension livrée in France. • sell/buy-back also known as buy/sell-back or just sell/ ...
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Understanding repos and the repo markets - NET
    Mar 17, 2009 · The principal differences between a repurchase agreement and a buy/sell-back stem from the fact that repurchase agreements are always ...
  70. [70]
    Repo and Reverse Repo Agreements
    Conversely, in a reverse repo transaction, the Desk sells securities to a counterparty subject to an agreement to repurchase the securities at a later date.
  71. [71]
    FAQs: Reverse Repurchase Agreement Operations
    A reverse repurchase agreement conducted by the Desk, also called a “reverse repo” or “RRP,” is a transaction in which the Desk sells a security to an eligible ...
  72. [72]
    Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreements: Treasury Securities ...
    A reverse repurchase agreement (known as reverse repo or RRP) is a transaction in which the New York Fed under the authorization and direction of the ...Missing: explanation | Show results with:explanation
  73. [73]
    [PDF] Monetary Policy Implementation and Private Repo Displacement
    Oct 31, 2016 · enter into reverse repurchase agreements with the Fed at a prespecified fixed rate. In these transactions, counterparties lend cash to the ...<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    Dealer Balance Sheet Constraints Evidence from Dealer-Level Data ...
    Sep 23, 2024 · In the U.S., the repo market contains two submarkets, tri-party and bilateral, each with different types of market participants. In this note, ...
  75. [75]
    The Fed - Hedge Fund Treasury Exposures, Repo, and Margining
    Sep 8, 2023 · Hedge funds typically use repo transactions to finance long positions and source short positions in UST markets, non-U.S. sovereign bond markets ...Missing: repurchase | Show results with:repurchase
  76. [76]
    Reverse Repo Counterparties: List & Eligibility Requirements
    In order to be eligible to become a reverse repo counterparty, a firm must be either: An SEC-registered 2a-7 fund that has, measured at each month-end for the ...
  77. [77]
    5. Who are the main users of the repo market? » ICMA
    The principal traditional users have been cash investors seeking secure short-term investments, many of whom are highly risk-averse.
  78. [78]
    The European repo market – ICMA survey shows record outstanding ...
    Nov 12, 2024 · The European repo market – ICMA survey shows record outstanding value of EUR 11.1 trillion at June 2024 » ICMA.
  79. [79]
    Best Practices in U.S. Treasury Repo Markets
    Jun 24, 2025 · Given the size of the Treasury repo market—with over $8 trillion in daily average transaction volume—and its interconnectedness with other ...
  80. [80]
    US Repo Statistics - SIFMA
    Oct 2, 2025 · SIFMA Research tracks the US repurchase agreements market including the volume of primary dealer financing transactions, US GCF Repo index rates and par amount.
  81. [81]
    3. What is the role of repo in the financial markets? » ICMA
    The liquidity provided by market-makers reduces risk for investors by allowing them to buy on demand, which in turn reduces the cost of borrowing for issuers.
  82. [82]
    The Fed - What Happens on Quarter-Ends in the Repo Market
    Jun 6, 2025 · Over the course of the past two years, repo rates have begun to rise modestly around quarter-ends and, to a lesser extent, on some month-ends.
  83. [83]
    Monitoring Reserve Conditions and Understanding Repo Market ...
    Sep 26, 2024 · I like to think of the repo market as a mechanism to redistribute liquidity from those who have it in excess (for example, money market ...
  84. [84]
    The Fed - Repo Rate Sensitivity to Treasury Issuance and ...
    Feb 12, 2025 · In this note, we study the sensitivity of repo rates to changes in Treasury securities outstanding—a proxy for net Treasury issuance—over time ...
  85. [85]
    [PDF] Reference Guide to U.S. Repo and Securities Lending Markets
    Sep 9, 2015 · Repo financing has been used by Federal Reserve banks to provide credit to member banks since 1917 (Beckhart, Smith and Brown 1932). During the ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] The Repurchase Agreement (Repo) Market
    The day the repo is initiated is called the sale date, and the day the repo is terminated is called the purchase date. Since repos are essentially secured loans ...
  87. [87]
    [PDF] Don't Fear the Repo
    Dec 8, 2008 · • Whole loan repo: collateral is loan. e.g mortgage receivables. • Equity repo: collateral is equity. • Sell/buy backs: benefiting lower cost ...
  88. [88]
    Arbitrage, liquidity and exit: The repo and federal funds markets ...
    In a direct repo transaction, the holder of the securities initiates the transaction and the cash payment moves automatically as a result of the securities ...
  89. [89]
    The Evolution of Repo Contracting Conventions in the 1980s
    Oct 24, 2005 · Garbade writes that in the 1950s and 1960s, repos, or repurchase agreements, were used by dealers to borrow money; in the 1970s, dealers began ...
  90. [90]
    The Role of "Repo" in the Financial Crisis
    Mar 8, 2012 · They found that, before the market contracted, money market funds held $2.3 trillion in assets, and about $400 billion in repos.
  91. [91]
    Fed scholars: A run on the repurchase market caused ... - RepoWatch
    May 23, 2011 · ... freeze repo market · Something about the financial crisis doesn't add up → · Gallery ... During the 2008 crisis, deposit insurance was a source ...<|separator|>
  92. [92]
    Lehman's Demise and Repo 105: No Accounting for Deception
    Mar 31, 2010 · The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 is widely seen as the trigger for the financial crisis, spreading panic that brought ...
  93. [93]
    [PDF] How Lehman Brothers Used Repo 105 to Manipulate Their ...
    However, Lehman failed to disclose any information regarding the sales of their receivables and other assets in these transactions. Lehman's failure to disclose ...
  94. [94]
    Open market operations - Federal Reserve Board
    May 10, 2021 · From March 2008 to December 2008, the Federal Reserve conducted a series of term (28-day) repurchase transactions to increase the availability ...Missing: evolution | Show results with:evolution
  95. [95]
    4. Funding risk - Financial Stability Report - Federal Reserve Board
    These short-term secured loans are known as repurchase agreements (repos). The repo market allows securities dealers to finance their own inventories of ...
  96. [96]
    Tri-Party Repo Infrastructure Reform
    Bank of New York Mellon completed the final piece of its new settlement process for triparty repo, achieving a number of reform goals. Clearing banks, dealers ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] William C Dudley: Key developments in the tri-party repo market
    Oct 4, 2013 · Current reforms do not address the risk that a dealer's loss of access to tri-party repo funding could precipitate destabilizing asset fire.
  98. [98]
    Repurchase Agreements (Repos): A Primer - Congress.gov
    Dec 9, 2019 · Repos are legally arranged as a contract between two parties to sell a security, such as a Treasury bond, and then repurchase it at a later date ...Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Repo over the Financial Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    Dec 10, 2021 · This paper uses new data to provide a comprehensive view of repo activity during the 2007-09 financial crisis for the first time.
  100. [100]
    Statement Introducing the Treasury Repo Reference Rates
    Apr 3, 2018 · These rates are the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), the Broad General Collateral Rate (BGCR), and the Tri-Party General Collateral Rate (TGCR).
  101. [101]
    The Fed - What Happened in Money Markets in September 2019?
    Feb 27, 2020 · The increase in the repo rates on September 16 seemed to stem from a demand-supply mismatch in the market. Going into mid-September, although ...
  102. [102]
    [PDF] The Market Events of Mid-September 2019
    Sep 16, 2019 · This increase was due to a temporary reduction in lending from money market mutual funds, including through the Fixed Income Clearing ...
  103. [103]
    What did the Fed do in response to the COVID-19 crisis? | Brookings
    Before coronavirus turmoil hit the market, the Fed was offering $100 billion in overnight repo and $20 billion in two-week repo. Throughout the pandemic, the ...
  104. [104]
    Standing Overnight Repurchase Agreement Facility
    Jul 28, 2021 · The SRF serves as a backstop in money markets to support the effective implementation of monetary policy and smooth market functioning.
  105. [105]
    [PDF] Developments in Central Clearing in the U.S. Treasury Market
    FICC Sponsored Repo volumes have grown over 75% since the final Rule was approved in December 2023. • Currently, FICC is the only Treasury market CCP. Other ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  106. [106]
    [PDF] Expanding central clearing in US Treasury Markets - IMF Connect
    Nov 11, 2022 · SEC PROPOSAL – EXPANDING CENTRALIZED CLEARING. The SEC unanimously proposed a rule to expand central clearing in Treasury cash and repo markets.
  107. [107]
    Repo Operations - FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
    The New York Fed conducts repo and reverse repo operations each day as a means to help keep the federal funds rate in the target range set by the Federal Open ...
  108. [108]
    Open market operations - European Central Bank
    We use open market operations to steer interest rates, to manage the amount of liquidity in the financial system and to signal our monetary policy stance.
  109. [109]
    FAQs: Standing Repo Facility - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    FAQs: Standing Repo Facility ; Minimum bid rate: 4.25 percent ; Settlement: Same-day settled. Bank of New York (BNY) tri-party repo conventions apply.
  110. [110]
    Bank of England Market Operations Guide: Our tools
    Short-Term Repo (STR). The STR is our regular, market-wide sterling operation aimed at maintaining control of short-term market interest ...
  111. [111]
    [PDF] The Fed's Central Bank Swap Lines and FIMA Repo Facility
    Standing swap line central banks are the Bank of Japan (BoJ), the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England (BoE), and the Swiss National Bank (SNB).<|separator|>
  112. [112]
    [PDF] OFR Brief: Repo Market Intermediation - Office of Financial Research
    Nov 14, 2024 · Dealers' intermediation is complicated. U.S. repo activity is divided into four major market segments that differ in two dimensions: (1) ...
  113. [113]
    Facing Quarter-End Pressures: Understanding the Repo Market and ...
    Nov 12, 2024 · As I noted in a recent speech, the market for repurchase agreements (or repos) is of particular interest. The repo market is large, of course, ...
  114. [114]
    The Importance of Effective Liquidity Risk Management
    Dec 1, 2023 · It is crucial that banks have a diversified range of liquidity options that they are able to access in a variety of conditions. And in the case ...
  115. [115]
    U.S. MMFs' Investments in the Repo Market
    These funds invest most of their assets in cash, government securities, and repurchase agreements (repos) backed by these securities. Money market fund reforms ...
  116. [116]
    The $12 Trillion US Repo Market: Evidence from a Novel Panel of ...
    Jul 11, 2025 · Bank and dealer reverse repo runs from zero in 2015, increases gradually to roughly $1 trillion between 2016 and 2017, then remains essentially ...Missing: size | Show results with:size
  117. [117]
    Money Market Fund Repo and the ON RRP Facility, Accessible Data
    Dec 15, 2023 · The y-axis measures transaction share, and it ranges from 0 to 125 percent. The data are daily. This figure shows the share of money market ...
  118. [118]
    What Is a Liquidity Adjustment Facility in Monetary Policy?
    A liquidity adjustment facility is a monetary policy tool used by the Reserve Bank of India that allows banks to borrow money through repurchase agreements or ...
  119. [119]
    2. The liquidity management framework was ... - Reserve Bank of India
    Apr 6, 2017 · The liquidity management framework was modified in April 2016, providing assurance on both durable and frictional liquidity, while aiming to ...<|separator|>
  120. [120]
    [PDF] Liquidity Management measures by RBI – January 2025 - IIBF
    Repurchase Agreement (REPO) is short-term and subject to repurchase. VRR auctions enable the RBI to inject liquidity into the system. The auction amounts ...
  121. [121]
    Monetary Policy Announcement and Stock Returns: Evidence From ...
    May 2, 2021 · This paper investigates the impact of unconventional monetary policy on stock returns using the Reserve Bank of India's long-term repo operations (LTROs).Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
  122. [122]
    Estimating the impact of targeted repo operations on asset prices
    May 8, 2023 · We find that the repo operations lead to a significant reduction of around 30 basis points in the borrowing costs of targeted sectors' issuers.
  123. [123]
  124. [124]
    Central bank liquidity lines
    Repurchase agreements. Repo agreements are arrangements where the borrowing central bank obtains foreign currency for a specified period in exchange for ...
  125. [125]
    Enhancing the resilience of the gilt repo market | Bank of England
    Sep 4, 2025 · In the euro-area government bond repo market, over 60% of outstanding repo transactions are centrally cleared, with large variations across ...
  126. [126]
    15. Is repo riskless? - ICMA
    This means that the primary exposure in a repo remains counterparty credit risk. Repo does not therefore avoid the need for conventional credit risk management ...
  127. [127]
    The Fed - Primary Dealers' Behavior during the 2007-08 Crisis
    Jun 22, 2017 · In this note we document that repos, even those collateralized by the safest assets, are still subject to counterparty risk during market stress ...
  128. [128]
    The Fed - Proportionate margining for repo transactions
    Feb 14, 2025 · As a result, for many repo transactions a minimum haircut may not provide proportionate margins. Minimum haircuts ensure a lender is provided ...Missing: eligibility | Show results with:eligibility
  129. [129]
    [PDF] Understanding repo: A cash building block - BlackRock
    While repo is commonly held within MMFs as short-term, overnight investments, a cash investor might look to utilize term repo to invest cash for a more ...
  130. [130]
    6. What types of asset are used as collateral in the repo market?
    The most commonly-used type of collateral in the repo market, are bonds issued domestically by central governments.Missing: specialized | Show results with:specialized
  131. [131]
    Collateral re-use: unveiling the risk of delivery failures and higher ...
    May 29, 2025 · These findings provide supporting evidence that elevated collateral re-use may be associated with increased volatility in the gilt repo market ...
  132. [132]
    Avoiding the next financial crisis: How does collateral quality affect ...
    Sep 15, 2022 · Repo loans against low-quality collateral are riskier, but lenders take more risk for higher compensation, and borrowers get cheaper loans. ...
  133. [133]
    Monitoring the Value of Securities in Repurchase Agreements
    A repurchase agreement (repo) is a transaction between a buyer/investor (e.g. government entity) and a seller/counterparty (e.g. bank or securities dealer) ...
  134. [134]
    [PDF] Anatomy of the Repo Rate Spikes in September 2019
    Sep 17, 2019 · This paper uses a unique combination of intraday timing data from the repo market to examine the potential causes of the dramatic spike in repo ...
  135. [135]
    How does the repo market behave under stress? Evidence from the ...
    Sharp spikes in repo rates in March 2020 were evidence of a severe liquidity stress at the time. Although the repo market is key to the provision of short-term ...
  136. [136]
    Guide to FR2004 Settlement Fails Data
    This can lead to a “daisy chain” of fails; where A's failure to deliver bonds to B causes B to fail on a sale of the same bonds to C, causing C to fail on a ...
  137. [137]
    Implications of repo markets for central banks
    Mar 9, 1999 · Like other financial markets, repo markets are subject to some credit risk, operational risk and liquidity risk. However, what distinguishes the ...
  138. [138]
    [PDF] Strengthening repo clearing and settlement arrangements ...
    ... repo introduces the potential for ambiguities that do not exist with ... contract – allows collateral to be replaced during the lifetime of a term repo.<|separator|>
  139. [139]
    T+1 settlement for repo: new challenges and solutions in post-trade ...
    Sep 8, 2022 · Downstream, tracking settlement fails using legacy technologies and Excel macros will be unsustainable. Other manual actions slowing down the ...
  140. [140]
    Repo Regret? - Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable
    Aug 1, 2017 · In April 2005 Congress expanded the range of bankruptcy safe-harbored repurchase agreements (repos) to include mortgage-related securities ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  141. [141]
    [PDF] The HomeBanc Case – Implications for Repurchase Agreements
    Mar 23, 2020 · The Bankruptcy Court determined that the SAI (i) were repurchase transactions subject to. Section 559 of the Bankruptcy Code and thus could ...
  142. [142]
    [PDF] Terminating Repurchase Agreements: In re HomeBanc Mortgage ...
    Jan 30, 2020 · The HomeBanc proceedings involved, for example, (i) objections in bankruptcy court, (ii) an appeal to the district court, (iii) a trial in ...
  143. [143]
    Repo 105: What it is, How it Works, Special Considerations
    Repo 105 made headlines following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It was reported that Lehman grasped for this accounting maneuver to pay down $50 billion in ...Missing: failure | Show results with:failure
  144. [144]
    Repo 105 - Definition, How it's Used, Report Findings
    Repo 105 is an accounting gimmick that was used within Lehman Brothers to classify short-term loans as a sale. · The sales proceeds are used to pay down debts, ...
  145. [145]
    Repo 105: Lehman's 'Accounting Gimmick' Explained - NPR
    Mar 12, 2010 · (The "105" in Repo 105 refers to the fact that the assets were worth at least 105% of what Lehman was getting for them.) This gap allowed ...
  146. [146]
    How Lehman Brothers and MF Global's Misuse of Repurchase ...
    Aug 1, 2016 · This article describes how Lehman Brothers and MF Global manipulated and exploited the sale accounting method for repo agreements and the subsequent revisions ...
  147. [147]
    "How Lehman Brothers Used Repo 105 to Manipulate Their ...
    The questionable accounting technique, known as Repo 105, allowed Lehman Brothers to temporarily appear healthier in the eyes of its investors, creditors ...
  148. [148]
    [PDF] Managing the Balance Sheet Through the Use of Repo 105
    Jul 10, 2015 · ... collapse of Bear Stearns in March 2008 (in ... failure to meet professional standards in connection with Lehman's failure to disclose Repo.
  149. [149]
    [PDF] Lehman-and-Repo-105-Final-_2_.pdf - Finance Scholars Group
    Lehman's Repo 105 transactions were structured such that under the requirements they were treated as sales (and subsequent repurchases) of securities. Repo 105 ...
  150. [150]
    [PDF] Regulatory Arbitrage in Repo Markets - Office of Financial Research
    Oct 29, 2015 · Regulatory arbitrage in repo markets involves non-US banks temporarily removing $170 billion from the US market before quarter-end to appear ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  151. [151]
    [PDF] Window dressing of regulatory metrics: evidence from repo markets
    This section explains how regulatory constraints may affect banks' incentives to window dress via reductions in repo market activities at quarter- or year-ends ...
  152. [152]
    Dealers' Treasury Market Intermediation and the Supplementary ...
    Aug 3, 2023 · As a non-risk weighted capital requirement, the SLR is particularly affected by high-volume, low-risk activities such as Treasury market ...
  153. [153]
    [PDF] Leverage Regulations and Treasury Market Participation
    Dec 14, 2022 · We examine the effects of the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) on large banks' participation in U.S. Treasury markets.
  154. [154]
    [PDF] Repo Market Functioning: The Role of Capital Regulation
    Tighter leverage ratios reduce repo market liquidity, especially for smaller clients, and make repo activities more costly, affecting transaction frequency and ...<|separator|>
  155. [155]
    Bank Regulations and Turmoil in Repo Markets
    Sep 26, 2019 · Last week's turmoil in repo markets provided a relatively benign demonstration of how banking regulations have reduced financial market resilience.
  156. [156]
    OFR Identifies Factors That May Have Contributed to the 2019 Spike ...
    Apr 25, 2023 · A convergence of events caused a 2019 spike in repo rates, according to a new OFR Working Paper. On Sept. 17, 2019, intraday repo rates rose ...
  157. [157]
    The repo market under Basel III: Effects of capital and liquidity ...
    Sep 19, 2024 · Our findings consistently show that changes in the distance to regulatory requirements impact both prices and volumes in the repo market. Hence, ...
  158. [158]
    The Repo Market Under Basel III by Eddie Gerba, Petros Katsoulis
    Mar 11, 2022 · Basel III impacts the repo market with non-uniform effects on leverage, capital, and liquidity, a shift in borrowing, and increased central ...
  159. [159]
    [PDF] Treasury Market Dysfunction and the Role of the Central Bank
    Mar 27, 2025 · Moral hazard is a natural concern for a policy which removes the main risk that hedge funds face when taking leveraged positions in cash-futures ...
  160. [160]
    Repo Crisis Sheds Light on Short-Term Funding Markets
    Nov 8, 2019 · Through its recent repo mediation, the Federal Reserve may actually have created a moral hazard in the in the leveraged loan market.
  161. [161]
    Karen Petrou: The Fed Has Given Itself Nothing But Bad Choices
    Apr 14, 2025 · Still, the Fed reinforced moral hazard, making the 2020 bailouts still more inevitable. That massive intervention leads markets now to think the ...
  162. [162]
    [PDF] Rewiring repo - Federal Reserve Board
    Feb 13, 2025 · Note: The graph plots the volume of repo trades at newly established, dissolved, and short- term dealer-lender trading relationships. Short- ...
  163. [163]
    The Fed's Evolving Involvement in the Repo Markets | Richmond Fed
    Then, the COVID-19 crisis led to significant stress in Treasury and short-term funding markets, and the Fed's daily repo operations helped mitigate this stress ...
  164. [164]
    The Fed's Latest Tool: A Standing Repo Facility
    Jan 13, 2022 · The SRF serves as a backstop in money markets to support the effective implementation of monetary policy and smooth market functioning.
  165. [165]
    [PDF] Emergency Lending and Moral Hazard - FDIC
    Aug 27, 2025 · In this paper, we investigate the presence of adverse moral hazard effects of emergency central bank facilities. Specifically, we examine the ...
  166. [166]
    Central Bank Liquidity Backstops, Bank Regulation, and Risk-Taking ...
    Mar 25, 2025 · ... moral hazard arising from ex post efficient interventions that could lead to time inconsistency. 20 This is because the unconstrained ...
  167. [167]
    [PDF] Quasi-Fiscal Implications of Central Bank Crisis Interventions
    One of the longer-term risks from central bank crisis interventions is moral hazard: if markets expect liquidity support will be provided more easily in ...
  168. [168]
    Moral hazard, the fear of the markets, and how central banks ... - CEPR
    Jan 28, 2021 · However, some of the strongest impacts the Fed interventions had were a reduction in long-term market risk, years even decades into the future.
  169. [169]
    Market dysfunction and central bank tools
    May 11, 2022 · For asset purchases, the potential to generate system-wide externalities and moral hazard, and risks to taxpayers' funds via the central bank ...
  170. [170]
    [PDF] A Proposal for the Resolution of Systemically Important Assets and ...
    The Fed participates in the repo market mainly to implement its monetary policy; primary securities dealers participate mostly to finance their market-making ...<|separator|>
  171. [171]
    Treatment of Repo Transactions Under the Bankruptcy Code
    Oct 31, 2017 · This article navigates the various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that allow the termination and liquidation of typical repo contracts.
  172. [172]
    Safe Harbor or Adrift in Bankruptcy: Treatment of Mortgage ...
    Feb 22, 2008 · ... Bankruptcy Code for the benefit of parties to a "repurchase agreement" when their counterparty has filed for bankruptcy. Under those safe ...
  173. [173]
    Seeing Red Flags in Tricolor: A Colorful Lesson on Collateral Interests
    § 546(e). The Bankruptcy Code also prevents the avoidance of any transfer made “in connection with a repurchase agreement” prior to the filing of a bankruptcy.<|control11|><|separator|>
  174. [174]
    OFR Adopts Final Rule for Data Collection of Non-centrally Cleared ...
    May 6, 2024 · The OFR adopted a rule to collect daily data from large U.S. reporters on non-centrally cleared bilateral repo transactions to improve ...
  175. [175]
    [PDF] Final rule; extension of compliance date. - SEC.gov
    Feb 26, 2025 · Therefore, the Commission extends the compliance date for Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(A) and (B) by one year to December 31, 2026, for eligible cash ...
  176. [176]
    Central Clearing in the U.S. Treasury Market: The Why and the How
    Oct 15, 2024 · Practically speaking, these changes are expected to result in a significant migration of Treasury repo and reverse repo into central clearing.
  177. [177]
    SEC Adopts Rules to Improve Risk Management in Clearance and ...
    Dec 13, 2023 · The Securities and Exchange Commission today adopted rule changes to enhance risk management practices for central counterparties in the US Treasury market.
  178. [178]
    SEC Adopts Treasury Clearing Rules - Regulatory & Compliance
    Jan 3, 2024 · On December 13, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules that will have the effect of requiring central clearing
  179. [179]
    The Rise of Sponsored Service for Clearing Repo
    Note: The table shows average daily Treasury repo volumes in billions of dollars from January 2020 to June 2024, by trade type. The two main ...
  180. [180]
    [PDF] FIXED INCOME CLEARING CORPORATION - DTCC
    Mar 31, 2025 · These rule changes included enhancements to GSD's access models and adopting a margin separation and segregation framework for margin ...
  181. [181]
    [PDF] Central Clearing Will Re-shape the US Treasury Market | BNY
    The rule calls for additional clearing to be completed in the cash market by the end of 2026, and in the repo market by mid-2027. Implementing the changes will ...
  182. [182]
    SEC Announces US Treasury Clearing Final Rule - Deloitte
    New SEC regulatory updates include a Final Rule, requiring firms to centrally clear eligible Treasury trades by the end of 2025, and clear repo transactions ...
  183. [183]
    Fed's balance sheet drawdown enters new stage as reverse repos ...
    Aug 29, 2025 · Fed's reverse repo usage nears zero, signaling liquidity shift · QT continues, reducing Fed's balance sheet from $9 trillion to $6.7 trillion ...
  184. [184]
    Federal Reserve Overnight Repurchase Agreements in June 2025
    Jul 8, 2025 · Daily Operations: The Federal Reserve conducted small-value repo exercises in June 2025, with transactions limited to $1 million per eligible ...
  185. [185]
    Affiliate Repo and the 2024 STFM Update
    Aug 7, 2025 · In 2024, affiliate repo trades began to distort some tri-party repo rates. To address this, the OFR is updating the OFR Short-term Funding ...
  186. [186]
    How Repo Rate Changes move across Collateral Classes
    Aug 28, 2025 · A repurchase agreement is a form of secured lending. The borrower sells a security to the lender and simultaneously enters into an agreement ...Missing: distinction loans<|separator|>