Before sunrise, at a petrol pump outside Pune, an attendant changes the numbers on the price board. It is a familiar routine. Most people passing through barely notice anymore: a few paise more on one day, perhaps a rupee on another. But this morning, the rise is sharper. A man topping up his scooter looks at the display, mutters under his breath, and rides away late for work.
Like most people, he assumes the reason is volatility in the oil market. Perhaps there is fresh trouble in the Gulf because of the Israel-Iran war. Perhaps OPEC has changed its production plans. Or perhaps the rupee has fallen again. He is not wrong to think so. But follow the chain a little further, past the tankers carrying crude, past the rupee’s exchange rate, and it leads to a place he may never have heard of, the US government bond market in New York.
That is where the second part of this story begins. The first article looked at how trouble in Washington can travel into Indian mutual funds, the rupee, food prices, and jobs. This one goes further inside the system. It looks at how the US government raises money, who helps it borrow, and why people who follow this market are less worried about whether America can pay its bills than whether the system used to finance those bills will keep working when pressure rises.
A Treasury bond is basically a loan given to the US government. Washington needs money, so it borrows from investors and gives them a promise, the money will be returned on a fixed date, and interest will be paid in the meantime. Think of it like an FD or a government backed savings scheme in India, except the borrower is the US government and the loan is in dollars.
That is why Treasuries are found almost everywhere in the financial world. The RBI and other central banks keep them in their foreign currency reserves. Pension funds and insurance firms use them to hold money they may need many years from now. Banks keep them because they are seen as safe and are useful for meeting regulatory rules. Governments, mutual funds, and even individual investors buy them too. For a long time, a US Treasury bond has been treated as one of the safest places in the world to keep money.
But the amount Washington now has to borrow is huge. Total US debt is over $40 trillion. Every year, many older bonds reach the date when they have to be repaid. Instead of clearing those loans fully from its own income, the US government usually sells fresh bonds and uses that money to pay off the older ones. At the same time, it borrows more to meet the gap between its yearly spending and yearly income.
So it is not only new borrowing that markets need to absorb. They also have to keep funding old US debt as it comes due. About one-third of the entire US debt pile will need to be renewed in the next year. That means buyers have to keep turning up for a very large supply of US bonds, every week, no matter whether markets are calm or nervous.
The main issue is not whether the US can somehow pay this money back in the end. America borrows in dollars, and it is also the country that issues dollars. So, in the most basic sense, it can always create the money needed to meet its payments.
The harder question is whether investors can keep buying this huge amount of new US debt without trouble, when markets are calm as well as when fear takes over. Can the system handle such heavy borrowing week after week, or can one bad spell in the market quickly become something much messier? We have already seen what that kind of messy week can look like. It happened six years ago, and it should have received far more attention than it did.
In March 2020, the pandemic hit and markets went into panic mode almost overnight. Usually, when investors get scared, they move money into government bonds. That is why bonds like US Treasuries are called safe, when shares are falling, they are supposed to be the place where money finds shelter.
But this panic was different. Investors did not just want safer investments, they wanted cash in hand. So they started selling whatever could be sold quickly, including US treasury bonds. Mutual funds, hedge funds, and overseas investors all rushed to do the same thing. The volume of selling became too much for the banks and financial firms that buy and sell these bonds every day. They could not match sellers with buyers fast enough. Prices started moving sharply, trading became more expensive, and the market that is supposed to be the easiest place in the world to buy or sell government debt suddenly looked shaky.
The Federal Reserve, the US central bank, had to step in. It reopened an emergency lending programme from the earlier financial crisis period so that the big firms that deal directly in US government bonds could borrow when needed. It also began buying Treasury bonds at an extraordinary speed and scale to bring buyers back into the market and stop the disorder from getting worse. Before March 2020, the Fed had taken such direct action to keep the Treasury market working only three times, in 1939, 1958, and 1970. The pandemic panic became the fourth.
This does not mean the Treasury market collapsed, or that another crisis is certain. But it should be taken as a warning. If the market for the world’s safest and easiest-to-sell government bonds can come under such pressure during a rush for cash that the central bank has to rescue it, then it is not as naturally stable as people assume. There was a weakness below the surface. And instead of fading after 2020, that weakness has become larger.
To see why this matters, we need to look at a Wall Street trade that most people outside finance have never heard of: the Treasury cash futures basis trade. It sounds complicated, but the basic idea is not. There are two ways to deal in the same US government bond. You can buy the bond today, or you can make a contract to buy or sell a similar bond later at a price decided now. The first is called the cash market; the second is the futures market. Most of the time, the prices of these two versions stay very close. But sometimes a small gap opens up.
Hedge funds try to make money from that gap. If one side is cheaper, they buy it. If the other side is more expensive, they sell it. They expect the two prices to move back together before the contract ends. When that happens, they keep the small difference as profit.
The problem is that the profit on one such deal is very small. To make serious money, hedge funds have to place this bet again and again, in very large amounts. And for that, they borrow heavily. Usually, they use something called repo, short for a short term loan backed by the bond itself. It works a bit like taking a quick loan against gold where you hand over the gold as security, receive cash, pay interest, and get the gold back when you repay the loan. In this case, the Treasury bond is the security. This system works only while lenders keep renewing the loan and the value of the bond stays stable. When markets get nervous, lenders may ask for more security or stop renewing the loan.
That is when a fund suddenly needs cash. If it has borrowed a lot, it may have no option but to sell the bonds it owns. If several funds are forced to sell at the same time, the result is exactly the opposite of what this trade is meant to do. Instead of quietly helping the Treasury market work smoothly, it can add to the pressure and make the market more unstable.
How big has this trade become? The Federal Reserve estimates that by September 2025, the Treasury cash futures basis trade had reached about $830 billion, roughly twice its size at the peak in early 2020 and making up around 35 percent of all long Treasury positions held by hedge funds. The IMF, using a different method, puts the figure in a similar range, close to $1 trillion. The exact number depends on how it is measured, and the two institutions do not use the same approach.
But they agree on the main point, this is now a larger and more leveraged position than it was before the last crisis.
To be fair, this trade has already faced a test and mostly held up. In April 2025, when Washington suddenly announced a new set of tariffs, a related trade built on a similar idea saw about $60 billion unwind quickly before recovering within a few months. It was a real shock. But the short term funding market, or repo, handled it better than it did in 2020. That episode is worth remembering for two reasons. First, it shows that the weakness is real, not just a theory. Second, it shows that the safeguards put in place after 2020 have worked so far. Whether they would hold in a bigger and longer crisis is something no one can say with certainty until it happens.
None of this means $830 billion is about to disappear overnight. What it does mean is that a very large part of the daily functioning of the world’s most important bond market now depends on a strategy that uses heavy borrowing. It works well when markets are calm, but can quickly become a source of stress when conditions change.
It would be easy, and tempting, to tell this story as a conspiracy, Wall Street pulling Washington’s strings behind closed doors. But that’s not really what’s going on, and thinking of it that way doesn’t help us see the real risk. What’s actually happening is more about structure than secrecy. The US government is borrowing money on a scale no country has ever tried before, and it can’t just sell all that debt directly to ordinary people the way a shopkeeper sells goods to customers. It needs a whole distribution system, dealers to keep markets running, banks to hold inventory temporarily, hedge funds to take on whatever nobody else wants at the moment, and clearing houses to make sure trades settle safely.
In short, Washington is borrowing at a historic level, but it isn’t selling that debt into empty space. It relies on a financial machine, and how smoothly that machine runs has quietly become crucial for America.
The problem is that this machine has limits. The primary dealers, the small group of big banks authorized to deal directly with the US government in Treasury auctions, are supposed to act as shock absorbers for the market. But since 2007, the total amount of Treasury debt outstanding has grown nearly four times faster than the combined balance sheets of these dealers. The dealers haven’t expanded to match the job they’re expected to do.
Part of the reason lies in a regulation with a boring name but a sharp bite. The Supplementary Leverage Ratio, or SLR. Put simply, it sets a blunt cap on how big banks can get by requiring a minimum amount of capital relative to their total exposure. The catch is that it treats a ultra safe Treasury bond the same as a far riskier loan, no matter how different their actual risk levels are. In practice, this makes holding and trading large amounts of Treasuries costly for a bank’s balance sheet, even though the asset itself is low risk.
That quietly discourages banks from doing more of the very market making the system needs from them when things get tense. Regulators are aware of the issue, a final rule tweaking this leverage standard, set to take effect on April 1, 2026, is designed to ease this specific constraint.
Because the traditional shock absorbers, banks, have less room to grow, more of the market’s real ability to handle stress has quietly shifted to hedge funds and other leveraged, less regulated players, the same funds running the basis trade mentioned earlier. That’s the deeper point worth sitting with, the system’s capacity to smoothly finance the US government during a rough week increasingly depends on institutions that are themselves running on borrowed money.
Hovering over all of this is the Federal Reserve, which effectively has three jobs at once. First, it has to keep inflation in check. Second, it has to support jobs and economic growth. And then there’s an almost unspoken fourth duty nobody officially voted for. Making sure the market for the government’s own debt doesn’t seize up during a crisis.
Most of the time, these goals point in roughly the same direction. But not always. When the Treasury market comes under pressure, the Fed’s natural move is to calm things down, by cutting interest rates, buying bonds, or lending freely to dealers. That helps. But it also makes government borrowing cheaper and easier at precisely the moment many would argue the government needs discipline, not comfort. On the other hand, if the Fed keeps rates high to stay focused on fighting inflation, borrowing costs rise for everyone, including the leveraged funds that are quietly propping up the financial plumbing described earlier, raising the chance that something in that plumbing snaps.
This isn’t just a theoretical problem. It’s close to what’s been unfolding through 2026. Core inflation rose from 3.0% in December 2025 to 3.4% by May 2026, driven mainly by an oil-price shock as crude jumped from around $57 a barrel to a peak near $113. Through July 2026, the Fed held its key interest rate steady at 3.50-3.75% for a fifth straight meeting, with three officials on the committee actually pushing for further rate hikes, not cuts. At the same time, the Fed stopped shrinking its balance sheet in December 2025 and has since resumed buying short-term Treasury bills to keep ‘ample’ reserves in the banking system.
The Fed calls this a technical, plumbing related move, not a response to inflation, and that may well be true. But it’s also exactly the kind of overlap that makes economists nervous, a central bank easing its grip on the bond market’s plumbing at the same time inflation is running hotter than its target.
That concern has a name, fiscal dominance. It’s not a claim that the Fed has lost its independence, it hasn’t, and nothing here proves otherwise. It’s the worry that, as government debt and interest costs keep rising, a central bank may eventually find its interest rate decisions shaped less by what’s needed to beat inflation and more by what the government’s borrowing bill can handle. Think of it like a household whose monthly choices start being driven by which loan payment is due next, rather than by its long-term goals.
Nobody can say for sure that America has crossed that line. But it’s fair to say that every trillion dollars added to the debt makes the line a little easier to drift across without anyone formally deciding to cross it.
Now go back to that fuel station outside Pune. Here’s the full chain, from a bond desk in New York to a price board at dawn in Maharashtra.
Trouble shows up in the US Treasury market, a weak auction, a basis-trade unwind, or a fiscal standoff in Washington. When investors aren’t sure what still counts as ‘safe,’ they do what they always do, they rush toward cash and the dollar and away from anything that looks risky. Emerging markets land on that risky list almost by default, and India, no matter how strong its own story, isn’t exempt. Money flows out of Indian stocks and bonds. The rupee weakens against a suddenly stronger dollar. Oil, fertiliser, and every other import priced in dollars become costlier overnight, even though nothing has changed in India’s own economy. That pushes up inflation and puts pressure on the current account. The RBI is left with two blunt tools, spend down reserves to defend the rupee, or keep interest rates higher for longer than the domestic economy might otherwise need.
Either way, the impact eventually reaches an ordinary household, a costlier EMI, a delayed job offer, another red number on a savings app.
This isn’t a made up chain of events. It closely matches the mechanism the IMF itself highlighted this April, warning that high leverage among hedge funds and other non bank investors could trigger forced deleveraging and amplify capital-outflow pressure on emerging markets.
India today isn’t the India of a decade ago, and that matters. Reserves were rebuilt and tested this very year, buffers held firm, and domestic SIP investors absorbed most of the foreign selling that hit Indian markets, as we detailed in the first article. The RBI’s credibility, built over a decade, is a real asset in itself.
But a buffer isn’t a shield. Buffers reduce the damage a shock causes; they don’t make the shock optional. Every dollar spent defending the currency is a dollar that can’t be used for something else. Every basis point that rates stay elevated to protect the currency is growth quietly given up at home. Resilience is real and worth genuine pride, but it isn’t the same as immunity, and treating it as immunity is how a country gets caught out the one time it actually matters.
None of this is a reason to panic, and it certainly isn’t an argument for cutting India loose from the dollar-based financial system or quietly rooting for American trouble. A stable United States and a stable dollar are still firmly in India’s interest, a serious accident in the Treasury market would hurt India more, not less, than a calm and steady one. But there’s a difference between hoping for American stability and planning as if it’s guaranteed. A few sensible, unglamorous steps follow from everything above.
Keep building foreign exchange reserves, and treat them clearly as a strategic buffer, not just a number to be spent down casually. Deepen India’s own government and corporate bond markets so Indian borrowers rely less on foreign capital that can vanish in a hurry. Discourage Indian companies from taking on dollar debt they don’t truly need, since that debt becomes far more expensive exactly when the rupee is weakest. Expand rupee trade settlement where it genuinely makes sense for both sides of a transaction, not as a slogan, but as ordinary commercial logic. Keep bank supervision strong, and start watching leverage inside India’s own financial system as closely as America’s. Build real resilience in oil and fertiliser through diversified suppliers, strategic reserves, and a slow, steady reduction in import dependence, because that channel does the most damage the fastest.
And perhaps most importantly, stop treating a Wall Street plumbing problem as somebody else’s technical issue. It belongs on the same desk as national security planning, not filed away as an RBI or Finance Ministry matter to be handled quietly elsewhere.
“Risks related to the Bosporus and the Strait of Hormuz might require alternative routes,” stated deputy PM Khusnullin.
A monsoon that sustains more than a billion people is being rewritten, one melting season at a time, in a sea most Indians will never see. That isn’t a metaphor. It’s a data point. It means India’s Arctic stake isn’t mainly about trade or minerals. At its core, it’s also existential, in a way no ally’s is.
Selected issues, clear explanations and thoughtful perspectives—delivered when we publish.
