On September 25, the markets received two signals from both sides of the Pacific at the same time. According to a single source, four anonymous insiders said that the Federal Reserve is formulating a plan to raise the asset size threshold that triggers stricter regulations on large banks, recalibrate the application range of macroprudential rules such as stress tests for balance sheets, liquidity, and capital. The official motivation is described as making the threshold better reflect inflation and economic growth while alleviating the costly compliance burden on some lending institutions, and by extension, making room for consolidation in the banking industry. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange announced that its subsidiary, Hong Kong Futures Clearing Limited, and the Stock Exchange Options Clearing House will accept Chinese government bonds and policy financial bonds held through the Bond Connect "Northbound Trading" as non-cash collateral for derivative product settlements starting November 2026, optimizing the collateral framework and improving the efficiency of Chinese bonds in offshore risk management scenarios. On one hand, the regulatory threshold is raised to try to free some banks from “heavy shackles,” and on the other hand, the composition of the collateral pool is relaxed to guide more sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds into the derivative settlement system; it all looks like “deregulation,” but behind it is a different portrayal of the baseline for financial stability and market vitality: the U.S. is fine-tuning the constraints on the banking system, while Hong Kong is reshaping the collateral hierarchy in the derivatives market. This path divergence is quietly rewriting the global risk appetite curve through changes in regulatory costs, collateral availability, and risk-bearing capacity, planting new macro variables for pricing environments of various risk assets, including crypto assets.
Raising the Threshold: Who is the Federal Reserve Relieving?
According to four anonymous insiders, the Federal Reserve is not contemplating a comprehensive "deregulation," but is instead working to rewrite a key line: the asset size threshold that triggers the stricter regulatory obligations for "large banks." Those within the line must undergo balance sheet stress tests, meet higher liquidity requirements, maintain thicker capital buffers, and comply with a full set of associated reviews; those outside the line can avoid this package of high-intensity but also high-cost regulations. Multiple insiders stated that the Federal Reserve plans to realign this threshold with the inflation and economic growth accumulated over the past few years, reasoning that the existing thresholds are "too low" in nominal terms, causing a number of growing banks to be prematurely drawn into complicated and "expensive" compliance processes. Three insiders added that the Federal Reserve is expected to formally propose this threshold adjustment plan later this year, but specific dates and threshold values have not been disclosed, and the plan still retains considerable flexibility before going public.
As the threshold rises, the immediate relief is for those medium and large banks whose asset sizes hover around the current red line; they may step back half a pace from the queue of "candidates for systemic risk," freeing up capital and management resources to pursue business expansion. Insiders pointed out that the redistribution of regulatory costs may also rewrite the competitive landscape among banks: large institutions remaining in the high regulatory zone, although continuing to bear higher compliance expenditures, will gain a relative advantage in "scarcity of licenses" and market trust; the exempted banks then face new choices — either leverage cost advantages to accelerate scale, proactively cross the new threshold, or accept a positioning of "always a step smaller," becoming acquisition targets in mergers and industry consolidation. Ultimately, this seemingly technical threshold adjustment points to how willing U.S. regulators are to redefine the line of systemic risk between alleviating the burden on individual banks and maintaining the safety of the entire system.
Behind Cost Relief: Accumulation of Financial Vulnerability
When the regulatory red line is raised overall, the banks that are “released” superficially relieve themselves of the additional burdens of stress tests, liquidity, and capital, but the macroprudential protection layer is simultaneously thinned. Raising the asset threshold means that some institutions will disappear from the list of those "required to undergo strict stress testing and information disclosure," leading to a decline in transparency from a systemic perspective, as both regulators and the market lose some high-frequency diagnostic data about these balance sheets. The more challenging part is that the current public information does not reveal the specific value of the existing threshold, nor do we know what level it will be raised to; all details rest solely on single-source statements, and the outside world cannot verify specific terms through official documentation, making the question of "how many banks will be exempt from the strict regulatory coverage" itself a difficult-to-quantify risk range.
From a macroprudential logic perspective, regulation and the financial cycle often misalign: at a time when the economic environment is described as experiencing "changes" in inflation and growth, necessitating recalibration of thresholds, presenting the rationale as "better reflecting the macro environment" effectively grants some banks relief during the prosperity and expansion phase. A decrease in stress testing requirements and loosening of capital buffer requirements will typically lead, in the medium to long term, to a reconstruction of balance sheets with a higher risk appetite — longer duration assets, more concentrated exposures, and more aggressive credit expansion are all results that accumulate under the banner of “cost advantage.” It is especially important to note that insiders also only expect the Federal Reserve to propose a plan later this year, with the plans still at the stage of being published, lacking both a definitive threshold and a timeline; this information gap and procedural uncertainty are variables that the market needs to incorporate into its considerations in advance, rather than something that can be ignored as background noise.
HKEX Opens up Chinese Bonds: The Collateral Pool is Expanding
As the Federal Reserve's regulatory proposals remain in an uncertain stage of "about to be proposed," Hong Kong has provided a more clearly time-locked institutional commitment. The Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Hong Kong Futures Clearing Limited and Hong Kong Stock Exchange Options Clearing House — announced that starting November 2026, both clearing houses will accept Chinese government bonds and policy financial bonds held through the Bond Connect "Northbound Trading" as non-cash collateral for derivative product settlements; the same arrangement will also include offshore bonds issued by the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China in the eligible collateral list. The timelines are already written into the rule drafts, but key technical parameters such as discount rates and limits have yet to be announced. This represents a preview and upgrade of the collateral system across years, rather than a hasty temporary tool assembled to cope with short-term pressures.
Once the boundaries of collateral are opened to Chinese bonds, the story is no longer just about “being able to pledge more bonds,” but about rewriting the offshore pricing power and risk management infrastructure. The HKEX itself has also pointed out that this move aims to enhance the usage efficiency of Chinese bonds in offshore markets, particularly in derivative settlements and risk management scenarios: when Chinese government bonds, policy financial bonds, and offshore bonds from the Ministry of Finance enter the collateral pool of mainstream clearing houses, they are no longer just passive-held assets but become core “currencies” participating in margin management, OTC risk hedging, and derivative pricing. The implementation time locks in November 2026, providing global institutions with a sufficient adjustment window and allowing Hong Kong, in the process of restructuring the global regulatory landscape, to advance the role of “offshore Chinese bonds + derivative settlement center” into their respective balance sheets and trading systems.
Two Paths Emerging in the Same Global Cycle between the U.S. and Hong Kong
In the same global cycle of "changes in inflation and economic growth environments," the directional steering wheels of the Federal Reserve and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange appear to be turning in different angles. According to a single source, the Federal Reserve is considering raising the asset size threshold that triggers stricter regulation for large banks, moving the package of macroprudential requirements on stress testing, liquidity, and capital off some banks, with the official motivation being to make the thresholds better fit the current inflation and growth rates. In the triangle of "growth-open-safety," this seems more like a slight lean towards "growth": allowing medium-sized banks to avoid costly compliance burdens, releasing credit supply and merger consolidation space, while betting that systemic safety can still be underwritten by a few truly "giant" institutions.
The choice of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, however, is entirely different. It does not seek to change who should be more strictly regulated, but instead rewrites the form of “money”: starting November 2026, the two clearing houses will accept Chinese government bonds, policy financial bonds, and offshore bonds issued by the Ministry of Finance as non-cash collateral for derivative settlements, with the same goal of enhancing the usage efficiency of Chinese bonds under the current macro environment. In a high-interest rate and high-uncertainty phase, quality sovereign and quasi-sovereign bonds are naturally core assets for the collateral system; what the HKEX is doing is embedding these assets more deeply into the offshore risk management infrastructure, supporting a more open derivatives market with higher-margin collateral, and placing the center of gravity of the triangle on the combination of “safety + openness.”
This divergence in regulatory orientation will inevitably reflect on capital flows and risk pricing: if the Federal Reserve ultimately raises the thresholds as planned, the banks that have been “released” will benefit from the reduction in regulatory costs, leading to a possible compression of risk premiums in bank stocks and related credit bonds in the market expectations, while high-beta assets — including crypto assets — will also benefit from a looser credit and risk appetite; meanwhile, the HKEX’s elevation of the quality of “collateral currencies” for Chinese government bonds and policy financial bonds may mean that some global funds will weigh more the settlement and hedging conveniences of these bonds in the offshore market when allocating safe assets, thereby reshaping the risk premium curves for Asian bond markets, bank stocks, and even regional high-risk assets, with funds making their pricing choices between the two regulatory temperatures in the U.S. and Hong Kong according to their own preferences for “growth, openness, and safety.”
Alternating Tightening and Loosening of Regulatory Reins: How Will Risk Assets Self-Position?
From the Federal Reserve considering raising the strict regulatory threshold for large banks to the HKEX accepting Chinese government bonds, policy financial bonds, and offshore bonds from the Ministry of Finance as non-cash collateral for derivative settlements starting November 2026, on the surface, these reflect two independent paths of regulatory intensity and collateral scope, but they send the same signal: in the period of reshuffling the trade-offs between inflation and growth, the global financial system is renaming the price of “financial stability.” The former adjusts the stress tests, capital, and liquidity requirements that banks must face through the loosening of macroprudential rules, thereby redrawing the boundaries on credit supply and risk premiums; the latter expands the collateral usage of high-credit bonds through leveraging and margin channels, enhancing the efficiency of capital deployment in offshore markets, and reorganizing the liquidity and leveragability of “safe assets.” Both initiatives currently hang under a key question mark: the adjustments by the Federal Reserve are still at the planning stage, with insiders indicating that a proposal might be put forth "later this year," but specific thresholds and details remain unknown; while the HKEX’s new collateral arrangements, although the effective date has been locked, have yet to disclose technical parameters such as discount rates and limits, which will directly determine how much margin and positions these bonds can leverage in practice. Therefore, whether for traditional financial institutions or participants in the crypto market, a more realistic response is not to preset for “comprehensive easing” or “regulatory pivot,” but to systematically link the adjustments in the intensity of bank regulations and collateral frameworks with the global liquidity environment, leverage costs, and risk appetite: as which assets more easily enter bank balance sheets and which bonds more easily become collateral and financing tools change, the keys to medium to long-term asset allocation and risk management lie not in betting on a single event outcome but in continuously updating the weights of this set of regulatory and collateral variables on their own balance sheets.
Join our community, let's discuss, and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
