The problem with this position is that it's false. I welcome corrections, but there is a wealth of literature on this topic. For the past two to three decades t

The problem with this position is that it's false. I welcome corrections, but there is a wealth of literature on this topic. For the past two to three decades there has been a small cottage industry of research in Liquidity Savings Mechanisms that are designed to prevent this scenario through clever system design. These mechanisms have been evaluated, simulated, and tested by central banks at greater volumes than DTCC's system. The difference here is in orders of magnitude. The Feds handle $2+Tn./day. They handle $500Bn/day at most. If the Feds can introduce these systems and maintain liquidity, then what reasoning does DTCC have? https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/08v14n2/0809mcan.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/0... I am loathe to cast aspersions, but the aspersion I'm casting here is that they're dragging their feet, as it would effectively end an entire sub-sector of the industry. Or, at the very least, substantially re-order it. This inefficiency is someone's margin and profit.