Author: IntaCapital Swiss

Stablecoins & New Regulatory Regimes: Tether’s USAT and the Future of Digital Money


Why Stablecoins Matter

Stablecoins have long been a bridge between the volatile world of crypto and the predictability of fiat money. By offering digital tokens that maintain a 1:1 peg to a stable asset like the U.S. dollar, they provide traders, investors, and even ordinary consumers with a tool to move in and out of crypto markets without exposure to wild price swings.

For Tether — the world’s largest stablecoin issuer, with its flagship USDT consistently ranking among the most traded digital assets — the stakes are high. Stablecoins now underpin billions of dollars of daily transactions across exchanges, DeFi protocols, and cross-border payments. They have become the plumbing of the crypto economy.

Yet that central role has also attracted scrutiny. Concerns about the quality of reserves backing stablecoins, the risks of bank runs, and the potential for systemic contagion have prompted regulators to act.


The Push for Regulation

Until recently, stablecoins lived in a regulatory gray zone. In the U.S., questions about whether they were money market funds, payment instruments, or securities left issuers juggling multiple overlapping frameworks. In Europe, the new Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) has taken a firmer step, requiring stablecoin issuers to be licensed, audited, and transparent about their reserves.

Other jurisdictions, from Singapore to Japan, are following suit. The common theme is clear: stablecoins will be allowed, but only within tightly defined guardrails. Regulators want to ensure that these digital dollars are as safe and reliable as the real thing — if not safer.

The U.S. is currently advancing draft legislation and regulatory guidance that would require stablecoin issuers to hold high-quality liquid assets (HQLA), submit to oversight, and ensure redemption at par. For an industry that grew up in the shadows, this represents a profound shift.


Enter Tether’s USAT

Against this backdrop, Tether’s move to create a new U.S.-based stablecoin, USAT, is strategic. Unlike USDT, which is issued by Tether Holdings and based offshore, USAT is being designed specifically to comply with forthcoming U.S. stablecoin rules.

This is significant for several reasons:

  1. Regulatory Alignment – By building a stablecoin under the U.S. framework, Tether signals its willingness to engage directly with regulators. This is not just about avoiding conflict — it’s about positioning USAT as a legitimate, regulated alternative that institutions can adopt without hesitation.
  2. Institutional Adoption – Large financial players, from banks to fintechs, have been hesitant to engage with unregulated stablecoins. A compliant U.S.-issued version could open the door to partnerships, integrations, and mainstream use cases.
  3. Market Competition – USAT is entering a field already eyed by competitors like Circle (issuer of USDC) and PayPal (with PYUSD). By leveraging Tether’s brand, liquidity, and distribution, USAT could capture significant market share, especially if it achieves rapid listings and integrations.

A Turning Point for Stablecoins

The introduction of USAT under a regulated regime is more than a branding exercise. It marks the beginning of a dual ecosystem:

  • Offshore stablecoins like USDT may continue to dominate in markets where regulation is looser, serving as global liquidity tools.
  • Onshore, regulated stablecoins like USAT will target compliance-minded institutions and consumers, particularly in the U.S. and allied jurisdictions.

This bifurcation mirrors developments in traditional finance, where offshore Eurodollar markets coexist alongside regulated domestic banking. The innovation here is digital: stablecoins move across borders at the speed of the internet, raising questions about how these two worlds will interact.


The Global Ripple Effect

Tether’s USAT is not happening in isolation. Other regions are watching closely:

  • Europe: Under MiCA, stablecoins must be backed by reserves held with EU-regulated institutions. This has already prompted issuers to adjust their business models. A U.S.-compliant Tether product could inspire a European equivalent.
  • Asia: Japan has approved legislation requiring stablecoins to be issued by licensed banks and trust companies. Singapore has leaned heavily on prudential regulation. USAT’s design may become a template for alignment across Asia-Pacific.
  • Emerging Markets: Stablecoins are increasingly used for remittances and as dollar substitutes in countries with volatile currencies. For these markets, regulatory approval in the U.S. could lend credibility and encourage adoption.

Challenges Ahead

Of course, the path forward is not without obstacles. Tether has faced criticism in the past over the transparency of reserves and regulatory compliance. Sceptics will demand proof that USAT truly embodies a new standard.

Questions remain:

  • Reserve Composition: Will USAT be backed exclusively by U.S. Treasuries and cash, as regulators may require, or will there be more flexibility?
  • Redemption Rights: How easily will holders be able to redeem USAT for dollars, and at what scale?
  • Oversight: Which U.S. regulatory body will oversee USAT, and how intrusive will the supervision be?

If Tether can answer these convincingly, USAT could reshape its reputation and position it as a partner to regulators rather than an adversary.


What This Means for Investors and Institutions

For businesses and investors, the rise of regulated stablecoins like USAT has several implications:

  1. Safer Infrastructure – Institutions can build on regulated stablecoins with more confidence, reducing counterparty risk.
  2. Mainstream Integration – Payment firms, banks, and asset managers may embrace stablecoins as part of their offerings.
  3. Competition and Innovation – With multiple regulated players, stablecoin markets could see lower fees, better transparency, and more diverse services.

At the same time, offshore stablecoins will remain vital for global liquidity and in regions where regulatory acceptance is still developing. The coexistence of both models may spur innovation in cross-border payments and financial inclusion.


The Future is Stable

Stablecoins began as a crypto-native experiment, a workaround to avoid volatility. They have now become the backbone of the digital asset economy and are poised to enter the regulated mainstream. Tether’s planned U.S.-based stablecoin, USAT, represents a watershed moment — one that could define the next chapter of digital money.

As governments move from ambiguity to clarity, stablecoins are transitioning from shadow players to recognised instruments of financial infrastructure. For consumers, investors, and institutions alike, this promises not only greater security but also greater opportunity.

The future of finance may not lie in the extremes of unregulated crypto or traditional banking — but in the stable middle ground that regulated digital dollars like USAT are now beginning to occupy.

The London IPO Market – Still in the Doldrums

In Q1 and Q2 of this year, data released showed the London IPO market was down to just £182.8 million from nine raisings, as opposed to the same period in 2024, where eight IPOs raised £526.7 million, raising concerns that London is fading as a centre for global capital. Further data also showed that Q3 and Q4 of 2024 had only nine IPOs raising £258 million. Indeed, in April of this year, the market saw the most significant IPO for MHA, a professional services company that raised £98 million on AIM (Alternative Investment Market).

The City (City of London – the financial centre) is struggling to maintain its reputation as a centre and destination for high-growth listings as evidenced by reports suggesting that the CEO of AstraZeneca (pharmaceuticals) might well relocate their primary listing to the United States along with Wise (money transfer service), who with a valuation of £11 billion might also consider moving their listing to the United States as well. A further disappointment is Shein (Online fast fashion company), who were denied a London listing by the Chinese regulators, so they have opted for a listing in Hong Kong.

The above companies are just a part of a growing number of companies that have shelved listings in the city due to pushbacks from investors and challenges related to Brexit, which have negatively impacted valuations. As such, these companies have opted for listings not only in the United States but also in other markets where there are perceived higher valuations plus stronger investor appetite.

However, not all is doom and gloom as analysts report that the Labour government are making headway in reforming listing requirements, which it is hoped will help revive the market that headed south once the United Kingdom had left the European Union. However, 2026 should provide the biggest impetus in the London IPO market as there is a planned IPO by the software giant Visma valued at Euros 19 billion, and HG Capital is leaning towards the City for a listing, attracted by listing reforms, especially allowing euro-denominated stocks into flagship FTSE indexes.

Experts argue that out of all the European exchanges, London has been the hardest hit. However, in Q1 and Q2, bourses in Zurich, Milan, and Paris saw lower volumes than London, and overall Europe suffered its worst opening six months in IPO volumes. However, a large part of the problem has been President Trump’s tariffs, which unleashed a round of volatility which resulted in the market being shut for a while, delaying plans by issuers to go public. Analysts are hopeful of a rebound in 2026 with the new regulations attracting companies to the IPO market in London.

Bank of England Leaves Benchmark Interest Rates on Hold

Today the BOE’s (Bank of England) nine-member MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) voted 7-2 to keep interest rates on hold at 4.00%, with the two dissenting votes of Swati Dhingra and Alan Taylor both voting for a 25-basis point cut. Experts were not surprised at the MPC holding interest rates as data released shows that prices are increasing at twice the rate predicted by the BOE. However, officials said that they still expected inflation to return to the Central Bank’s target of 2%, but remained somewhat on the fence as regards further cuts this year.

However, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, was slightly more forthcoming, saying that they are not done with the cycle of cutting interest rates referring to the possibility of upcoming risks with regards to cooling in the jobs market. Whilst highlighting rising inflation and an easing labour market Governor Bailey said, “there are risks on both sides” and added “I continue to think that there will be further reductions, but I think the time and scale of those is more uncertain now than before August”.

Analysts advise that financial markets see less than a 30% chance of another rate cut this year despite any implied optimism by Governor Bailey. The MPC meets two more times this year to discuss interest rates and experts advise that a rate cut at the November meeting of the MPC is all but ruled out as they expect inflation to hit 4%, double the BOE’s target figure which is backed up by Governor Bailey also saying “The pricing at the moment which basically says ‘look, there’s going to be a period where we’re watching very carefully to see how the economy unfolds before whatever we do next in terms of movement’ is, I think is the right thing”.

The BOE has also warned that the economy is being negatively impacted due to further tax raids by the current labour government with analysts saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will probably have to find somewhere between £20 Billion to £50 Billion in either spending cuts or tax increases to maintain her fiscal plans, but according to some financial commentators, either way her credibility is diminishing at a rapid rate.

Indeed, Governor Bailey noted that higher inflation was partly to blame on government policy, and in an open letter confirming that thought, he advised inflation was almost double (3.8%) of the bank’s target and said this was due to “the increase in employer NICS (National Insurance Contributions) and pay growth in sectors with a large share of employees at or close to the NLW (National Living Wage). Officials noted that they had previously warned that the introduction of net zero packaging taxes are also pushing up prices with inflation on supermarket shelves expected to continue up to close of business 31st December 2025. All in all, analysts advise that the general feeling in the financial markets is that the benchmark interest rate will remain the same at 4.00% come the end of the year.

Federal Reserve Cuts Interest Rates

Today, and for the first time since December 2024, the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) cut their benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 4.00% – 4.25%. This comes after literally months of sustained abuse from the President of the United States, directed at the chair Jerome Powell to slash interest rates. The FOMC voted by 11 – 1 to cut interest rates, with Governor Stephen Miran voting for a 50-basis point cut with the new benchmark interest rate now at its lowest since November 2022. The two governors, Waller and Bowman, who dissented at the last vote both voted with the majority this time round in what is seen as a victory for Chairman Powell as experts had predicted as many as four dissenters.

Chairman Powell commented “Job gains have slowed and the downside risks to unemployment have risen” and he suggested that it will be reasonable to expect Trump’s tariffs will lead to a one-time shift in prices. He went on to say “But it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent and it is a risk to be assessed and managed. Our obligation is to ensure that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem”. Analysts confirmed the interest rate cut was due to the rise in unemployment and officials from the Federal Reserve hinted that there may be two more cuts before the end of the year.

Experts suggest that the Federal Reserve is facing a dichotomy in that lowering borrowing costs will indeed make money cheaper but there is a risk of potentially causing prices to rise and with prices already on the up and due to tariffs the price rises could be even more severe. Recently released data showed that inflation had risen to 2.9% in August having hit a low of 2.3% in April of this year. The director of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office – known to be non-partisan) announced on Tuesday of this week that tariffs have already negatively impacted prices and they were increasing at a faster rate than anticipated.

Federal Reserve officials have said that the labour market is now their biggest concern, with Chairman Powell having stated at the end of August that the “Labour market is experiencing a curious kind of balance where demand and supply for workers had slowed” whilst warning that downside risks to the job market could see an increase in layoffs and unemployment. Chairman Powell also added, “Labour demand had softened and the recent pace of job creation appears to be running below the break-even rate needed to hold the unemployment rate constant. I can no longer say the labour market is very solid”.

Commentators have already suggested that the ¼ of 1% cut in interest rates will not even begin to appease President Trump who has hurled abuse at the Federal Reserve and very personal abuse at Chairman Powell for not drastically slashing interest rates. President Trump wants to return to the era of very cheap money but has so far lucked-out on his ambition to control the Federal Reserve. Indeed, his efforts to fire Governor Lisa Cook (a Biden appointee) for alleged mortgage fraud will now go to the supreme court. Trump has long coveted controlling the Federal Reserve and he has already got influence in the Supreme Court. If, as one expert commented, Trump did gain control over the Federal Reserve and cut interest rates to 1% there would indeed be an initial big boom but it would be followed by a massive bust.

Bitcoin versus Altcoin – A Corporate Dilemma?

For a while now, and just in the background, there has been a long-simmering feud between the advocates of Altcoin and the purists of Bitcoin as they compete to win the corporate treasury boom*. Indeed, many companies have been loading up their balance sheets with unheard of amounts of digital assets, and the debate has come to the fore as to which tokens belong on the balance sheet and just as important is why they should appear there. Basically, the argument between the two sides rests on the premise as to how value should be stored and also how it should be grown.

*Corporate Treasury Boom – In this year alone, in excess of one hundred companies have been formed and are known as digital-asset treasury companies (or DATS) and have been buying cryptocurrencies, some of whom are struggling with this high-risk strategy. The philosophy underpinning these companies is just to buy cryptocurrencies and thereby offer investors a way into the digital-asset boom while at the same time offering lucrative returns.

Those who side with Bitcoin feel companies should be built on the premise that ideological purity and a hard supply cap should be the only digital-asset to legitimately appear as a treasury asset on the balance sheet. However, Altcoin supporters are promoting an investment scenario premised on dynamic returns offering yield generating tokens such as Solana and Ether which can be built into portfolios. Altcoin are challenging the ethos that Bitcoin is the only digital-asset that belongs on a balance sheet, and data released suggest that today they are edging ahead in the battle.

Indeed, data shows that altcoin prices are rallying whilst other data shows the purchases of Bitcoin by the corporate treasury companies are on the decline. Figures recently released show that in June of this year purchases were circa 66,000, however in August just 14,800 Bitcoin were purchased. Elsewhere, total Bitcoin holdings have declined with the accumulation rate by treasury companies sliding to 8% in August down from a March high of 163% which can account for the average purchase size declining 86% from its peak earlier in the year to just 343 Bitcoin in August. 

Experts suggest that Altcoin, with their capacity and ability to be distributed throughout the decentralised finance markets**, are better placed to generate yield. This premise appears to be supported in the marketplace, as ,just recently, a USD 500 Million investment by Pantera Capital was secured by Helius to build a Solana based treasury. Indeed, while some senior players (notably pro-Bitcoin) have suggested that Ether or Ethereum is not the best asset by any means for a treasury company, data shows that some USD 16 Billion in Ether have been added to the balance sheets of treasury companies. 

**Decentralised Finance Market – This market, also referred to as DeFi, is a blockchain-based financial system that provides traditional financial services such as lending, borrowing, and trading without intermediaries such as banks or brokerages. It operates on public, permissionless blockchains utilising smart contracts to speed up and automate the process, enabling peer-to-peer transactions for participants in the network. The DeFi market focuses on replicating traditional financial services within the crypto-asset ecosystem, but through automated protocols rather than centralised institutions.

However, the total holdings of Altcoins are, according to data released, not really comparable to the holdings of Bitcoin treasuries which currently total circa USD 116 Billion. But the shift towards Altcoins has not gone unnoticed. The battle for which coin to support will continue with the ultimate prize being corporate investment in either Bitcoin or Altcoin treasury companies, however one CEO has ventured that the ultimate strategy is to have a digital asset company with a blend of both Bitcoin and Altcoin.

Bond Vigilantes Continue to Circle

What is a bond vigilante? They are investors who sell off government bonds to protest against official monetary or fiscal policies that they deem irresponsible or inflationary. To this end, they use the sell-off to punish governments by increasing bond yields and thus increasing the cost of government borrowing. The term Bond Vigilante was coined by an American economist Ed Yardeni in the 1980s  to describe how bond markets can act as a restraint on government spending and borrowing by creating financial pressure that forces policy changes. 

In the first week of this month, global bond markets were hit with a sharp sell-off before pairing losses by the week’s end, and experts advise that lessons learned from the bond markets were that investors were becoming jumpy regarding government borrowing. In the United States, triggers for the jump in yields were attached to  a US court ruling which said that many of the tariffs placed on countries by President Trump were illegal, putting hundreds of billions of dollar revenue at risk. This led to lenders holding long-term treasuries to demand higher yields.

Across OECD* (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) nations gross debt as a share of GDP was 70% in 2007 and rose to 110% in 2023, the rise being responses to the global financial crisis 2007 – 2009, the Covid-19 pandemic 2020 – 2023 and the surge in the price of energy that engulfed Europe after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia on 24th February 2022. Therefore, as government debt piled up, so did the cost of borrowings making debt markets vulnerable to episodes of quick-fire sell-offs as was seen in the first week of September.

*OECD Nations – This is an international organisation committed to democracy and market economies that serves as a forum for its 38 member countries to collaborate, compare policy experiences and find solutions to common economic and social problems, to promote sustainable economic growth and well-being worldwide. Some expert commentators suggest that they are failing on all fronts.

In the United Kingdom the recent sell-offs in the thirty-year long-dated gilt market was an indication of how global investor sentiment had shifted to nervousness about the government showing a lack of fiscal responsibility. It was pointed out by the relevant commentators that the United Kingdom still had sticky inflation issues which is currently the highest of G7 countries. These were just a number of trigger issues that jolted the bond vigilantes into action and no doubt their eyes will be firmly fixed on the autumn budget.

France is equally at the mercy of the bond vigilantes, with commentators wondering just how far politicians can push the bond market. The current deficit sits at 5.4% of GDP with recent efforts continuing to fail. Any new effort will undoubtedly bring the resignation of the next Prime Minister, the latest one, Francois Bayrou, resigned having lost a no-confidence vote. It seems impossible that this current parliament will pass a budget that will lower borrowing costs, meanwhile the current debt sits at 114% of GDP and the 10-year yield on French government bonds has risen to 3.6% which is higher than that of Greece and on a par with Italy (considered the benchmark for fiscal floundering). Sooner or later the far right and the left in the French parliament will have to come to an agreement on lowering borrowing costs, but all the while the bond vigilantes are circling.

The pressure is mounting on leaders to find reliable and credible fiscal answers to the current growing debt pile and the cost of borrowing. In the United Kingdom, pension funds are helping by buying less government bonds, however in the United States the President’s repeated assaults on the US Federal Reserve and his mercurial style of policymaking will keep the benchmark treasury market volatile. Leaders such as Trump, Starmer, Macron and others will have to summon up the willpower to rein in spending otherwise experts expect the markets will impose it for them, something no government would like to see.

ECB Holds Interest Rates Steady

There were no surprises for financial markets as today and for the second meeting in a row the ECB, (European Central Bank) kept their key deposit rate unchanged at 2%. Officials at the ECB advised that inflation was under control and any economic pressures were abating but remained tight-lipped on future policy decisions. Experts suggest that investors have concluded that rate cuts have now come to an end with the President of the ECB Christine Lagarde announcing that “inflation is where we want it to be.”

Between June 2024 and June 2025, the ECB has halved its key deposit rate and has been held at 2% with President Lagarde going  on to say, “We continue to be in a good place”. Policymakers advise that the central bank see inflation falling below their benchmark target of 2% in 2026 with President Lagarde saying, “risks were more balanced” and adding “ Two things have clearly moved out of our radar screen when it comes to downside risk, the first one is risk of European retaliation the second thing… is that trade uncertainty has clearly diminished.

Interestingly the ECB also sees headline inflation hitting 1.9% in 2027 which is below their projected figure as advised in June of this year with core inflation hitting the 1.8% mark which is also below the ECB’s predicted target of 2%. When questioned on the discrepancies President Lagarde said, “We have indicated very clearly in our strategy that minimal deviations, if they remain minimal and not long-lasting, will not justify any particular movement”. Experts say that financial markets are pricing in only a 40% chance of a further rate cut by Q2 2026, this despite their predictions that the United States Federal Reserve will cut interest rates six times by the close of business 2026.

With regards to tariffs and after weeks of heated negotiations the EU (European Union) and Washington finally arrived at a trade agreement in late July of this year with an agreement of a blanket tariff on most exports including cars to the USA of 15%, half of the original 30% imposed by President Trump. In return the EU agreed to purchase USD 750 Billion’s worth of U.S. energy and invest an additional USD 600 Billion worth of investment  into the USA above current levels. President Lagarde noted that uncertainty about global trade has eased after a number of tariff deals including that of the EU.

One problem that looms large for the ECB is the parlous state of French politics and their economy which has pushed French bond yields increasingly higher. Experts say that whilst the ECB has the financial muscle to intervene it is only when unwarranted and disorderly rise in borrowing costs. When questioned on the point President Lagarde said that the Euro Zone sovereign bond markets were orderly and functioning with smooth liquidity. The word coming out of the ECB as described by some experts is that they feel rates are appropriate to cope with the fallout from President Trump’s tariffs, the current geopolitical tensions and any upcoming political and economic tensions in France.

The World Gold Council Looking to Launch a Digital Form of Gold

The WGC (World Gold Council)* is, according to experts within this arena, planning to launch gold in a digital form, which may well create major changes as to the collateralisation, trading and settlement of gold, whilst at the same time transforming the USD 900 Billion gold market centred in London. David Tait, the current CEO of the WGC, when interviewed, said this new form “will allow for the digital circulation of gold within the gold ecosystem, using it as a collateral for the first time”.

*The World Gold Council – The WGC is an international trade association for the gold industry, it is headquartered in London and whose members are gold mining companies. The WGC is a market development organisation for the gold industry and works to champion the use of gold as a strategic asset.

The WGC has said that the digitisation of gold will broaden its market reach and they are trying, according to their CEO, David Tait, to standardise that digital layer of gold such that the various financial products used in other markets can be used going forward in the gold market. Gold has recently proved that it is still extremely popular especially as a safe haven as only last week it reached a record price of USD 3,550 per ounce having also doubled in price over the last two years.

Each digital unit of gold will be known as PGI’s (“Pooled Gold Interests”) and this will allow investors to buy a form of fractional interest in gold bullion. Over many years the OTC* (over-the-counter) gold has been settled through two key structures i). allocated gold and ii). unallocated gold

i). Allocated Gold is a form of gold ownership where physical gold is purchased (bars) and are stored in a secure vault and is legally owned by the purchaser and ownership is insulated from credit risks of the custodian bank. However, in order to attain this status, there is a limitation on holding only whole-bar multiples and increased operational complexity.

ii). Unallocated Gold is where specific gold bars are not set aside for the holder, rather the holder has a contractual right against the institution where their unallocated gold is held in respect of their entitlement. Unallocated gold has traditionally provided holders with greater liquidity through deeper markets and quick and simple settlement mechanics. However, the status for unallocated gold is that it requires holders to take the credit risk against the institution where their unallocated gold is held.

*OTC or over-the-counter gold refers to gold being directly traded between two parties (the buyer and the seller) rather than through a formalised or centralised exchange. This allows for flexible, customised transactions with such terms as quantity, quality and delivery being negotiated privately. Major clients within this market include central banks, refiners and investors with the London market being a central hub for these 24-hour transactions.

This proposal from the WGC would create a third type of transaction for the OTC gold in London and the pilot scheme due to be launched at the beginning of Q1 in 2026, will include major banks and trading houses as joint or co-owners of the underlying gold. This third pillar in the OTC market is known as the Wholesale Digital Gold Ecosystem (the “ECOSYSTEM) and will underpin as mentioned above, the new form of digital gold bars the pooled gold interests or PGI. This third transaction, or as the WGC refer to it, as the “Third Foundational Pillar” has been designed to sit alongside existing settlement through allocated and unallocated gold, with the belief that gold when paired with the new structure could unlock significant opportunities across financial markets with regard to trading, investment and collateralisation.

Borrowing Costs for the United Kingdom Highest Since 1998 As Sterling Falls 1.5%

Yesterday, 2nd September, the pound slipped a full 150 basis points against the US Dollar (came back to a 1% drop at $1.34) on the back of increasing borrowing costs on the 30-year gilt (UK Government Bond) which attained its highest level since May 1998. Thirty-year gilts rose to 5.72% and some commentators who are sympathetic towards the Labour government suggested that the coincidental global sell-off in government bonds was the main reason for the increase in yields. Indeed, the Treasury Minister, Spencer Livermore, when questioned on this subject in the House of Lords advised that gilt yields have risen in line with global peers and moves have been orderly.

In reality, experts in this arena suggest that the sell-off in long-dated UK government bonds is due more to global investors in the United Kingdom who are worried that the government is showing a lack of fiscal responsibility. Elsewhere other experts chimed in saying that as inflation has been sticky and remains the highest of the G7 countries is yet another reason for the sell-off in the 30-year issues. Equally damning, a number of economists and analysts suggest that the central issue is welfare expenditure which should it remain on what is generally agreed an unsustainable path, confidence will be further eroded resulting in more long-gilt selloffs. Other concerns for financial markets and investors alike has been the sudden rush in the number of potential new government policies reminding investors how weak the United Kingdom’s fiscal position is, which has, according to a number of financial commentators, also helped facilitate the rush to sell long-dated gilts.

However, there has been one reassuring sign in the UK government bond market, as on the day long-dated gilts borrowing cost hit the highest since 1998, the United Kingdom sold a record GBP 14 Billion of new benchmark 10-year government bonds with orders being oversubscribed to the tune of GBP 141.2 Billion. The notes which are due in October 2035 were priced according to those close to the sale at 8.25. basis points over the equivalent/applicable benchmark* and carry a coupon of 4.75%. Experts noted that the sale was ten times oversubscribed and with rates on the 10-year bond the highest since January would increase the case for buying this bond despite the fiscal uncertainty of the UK’s economy.

*Equivalent/Applicable Benchmark – This benchmark is known as SONIA (Sterling Overnight Index Average) which replaced sterling LIBOR (London Interbank Offer Rate) which uses real overnight transaction data to provide a more robust benchmark and is now the standard for new sterling denominated contracts.

The problem for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Labour Party is the cost of borrowing keeps increasing as can be seen by the latest GBP 14 Billion sale of 10-year bonds (the yield being the highest among the Group of 7 nations). Add to that the rise across the board in UK government bond yields, financial experts predict that the government will soon have to raise taxes to keep them within their own set of self-imposed fiscal rules. Borrowing costs are a key pillar that holds up the government’s fiscal arithmetic, and with the autumn budget looming high on the horizon the Prime Minister and the Chancellor could find themselves at the mercy of bond yields.

Financing a Super-Yacht with a Swiss Lombard Loan: A Simple, Step-by-Step Guide

A Lombard loan is a line of credit secured against your liquid investments—typically cash, bonds, equities, and sometimes funds—held at a Swiss private bank. Instead of selling investments to pay for the yacht (and potentially triggering taxes or missing future market gains), you borrow against the portfolio at a relatively low “Swiss bank rate” (a floating base rate plus a small margin). You then use that cash to buy the yacht outright (or to fund the deposit alongside a marine mortgage). Your portfolio stays invested; the bank just takes a pledge over it as collateral.

Think of it like a high-end “asset-backed overdraft”: flexible, discreet, and fast—provided your assets and documentation are in order.

Why people choose this route
– Preserve your investments: You don’t have to liquidate long-term holdings you like (or ones with embedded gains).
– Potentially low cost of funds: Swiss private banks often offer competitive pricing for well-diversified, high-quality portfolios.
– Speed and discretion: Credit lines can be arranged quickly for qualified clients with established relationships.
– Flexibility: Interest-only, bullet, or revolving structures are common. You repay when it suits your liquidity plan (bonus, asset sale, refinancing, charter income, etc.).

What the bank looks at
Swiss banks determine how much they’ll lend by assigning advance rates to each asset class:
– Cash and short-dated top-quality bonds: high advance rates.
– Investment-grade bonds and diversified bond funds: relatively high.
– Blue-chip equities and equity funds: moderate.
– Concentrated single-stock positions, small caps, illiquid or complex funds: lower or sometimes ineligible.

The bank blends these into a credit limit. For illustration only: a diversified, high-quality portfolio might support a 50–70% credit line; lower for riskier or concentrated holdings. The exact figures depend on the bank, the assets, and market conditions.

The moving pieces, kept simple
1. Open or use your Swiss custody account. Your investments are held at the lending bank or a custodian they accept.
2. Sign a pledge agreement. The bank takes security over the portfolio. You keep ownership and remain invested.
3. Get the credit line. The bank sets a limit in your chosen currency (EUR, CHF, or multi-currency) with clear margin rules.
4. Draw down for the yacht. Funds go to the sale escrow or directly to the yard/broker at closing.
5. Optional: Combine with a marine mortgage on the yacht to reduce the draw on your Lombard line.
6. Service the loan. You pay interest (often quarterly). Principal is repaid on your timetable, subject to the facility terms.
7. Stay within margin. If markets fall and collateral coverage shrinks, you may need to top up or partially repay (a margin call).

Taxes, title and practicalities
– VAT and import: Depending on where the yacht will operate and be flagged, you may owe VAT or use structured solutions for commercial operation. Get specialist advice early.
– Flag, class and mortgage: If a marine mortgage is used, the bank (or marine lender) will register a mortgage over the vessel with the flag state. This can sit alongside the Lombard pledge on your portfolio.
– Insurance: Full hull, machinery, P&I (liability), crew and charter cover (if applicable) are standard lender requirements.
– KYC/AML: Expect thorough source-of-funds checks—routine at Swiss banks.

Examples for a €55 million purchase
Example A: All-cash via Lombard (portfolio large enough)
– Portfolio: €120 million, diversified, conservative.
– Bank advance rate (illustrative): 60%.
– Credit line: €72 million.
– Draw: €55 million for the yacht; €17 million headroom retained.
– Interest cost: Suppose an all-in floating rate of, say, 2.2% per year.
– Annual interest: ~€1.21 million.
– Why this works: You keep the entire portfolio invested; the loan’s cost may be lower than the portfolio’s expected long-term return.

Example B: Split financing (Lombard + marine mortgage)
– Portfolio: €60 million, balanced; bank advance rate 55% → €33 million credit line.
– Structure: €25 million on the Lombard line, €30 million marine mortgage.
– Annual debt cost: ~€2.125 million.

Example C: Bridge-to-liquidity
– Scenario: Committed to buy, awaiting business sale in 12 months.
– Portfolio: €40 million, high-grade; bank advances €24 million.
– Repay after liquidity event.

Does it pay to borrow?
If expected after-tax portfolio returns exceed after-tax borrowing costs, leveraging can be sensible.

Additional costs
– Arrangement fees, legal fees, appraisal, insurance, VAT/import, operating costs (8–12% of yacht price per year).

Risk management
– Diversify collateral
– Keep liquidity buffer
– Match currencies
– Hedge rate exposure
– Plan exits

Checklist
1. Define budget and usage
2. Assemble team early
3. Prepare portfolio
4. Obtain term sheet
5. Coordinate escrow and closing
6. Lock in insurance and flag
7. Post-closing housekeeping

Bottom line
Using a Swiss Lombard loan for a €55 million super-yacht lets you keep your investments working while unlocking liquidity to close the deal. For those with large, diversified portfolios and good risk management, it can be a discreet, efficient solution.