Main
BTU researchers calculate that growth in the portfolios of other resident and nonresident clients accounted for 91.3% of the GEL 130.3 million increase in Georgia’s outstanding Treasury securities at nominal value during October 2026. These clients held a combined 33.1% of the total at month-end, although commercial banks remained the largest holder category.
Key Takeaways
- Between end-September and end-October 2026, other resident and nonresident clients’ Georgian Treasury holdings increased by approximately GEL 119 million, or 91.3% of the increase in total outstanding nominal value; this is not their share of purchases or budget financing.
- BTU researchers calculate that these two client categories’ combined share rose from 15.9% in October 2025 to 33.1% in October 2026; the annual comparison also reflects a reduction in the National Bank of Georgia’s Treasury portfolio.
- Commercial banks held 66.9% of Georgia’s Treasury securities at end-October 2026. The higher client share changes the distribution of ownership, but does not by itself establish more individual investors, cheaper credit or more active trading.
The most interesting feature of Georgia’s October Treasury data is not simply the increase in outstanding securities. It is where that increase appeared. Calculations from the National Bank of Georgia’s table show that most of the month’s growth was recorded in two client categories rather than the separately reported commercial-bank category. This matters for the financial market, but the meaning of the change needs to be defined precisely. [1]
At 31 October, outstanding Treasury securities had a nominal value of almost GEL 12.961 billion. The commercial-bank category held GEL 8.670 billion, other resident clients GEL 2.708 billion and nonresident clients GEL 1.583 billion. The figures were checked on 3 November; their reference date is the end of October. [1]
Where October’s increase appeared
Total outstanding nominal value rose from GEL 12,830.432 million at end-September to GEL 12,960.742 million at end-October, a difference of GEL 130.3 million. Over the same period, commercial-bank holdings increased by GEL 11.327 million, other resident holdings by GEL 46.280 million and nonresident holdings by GEL 72.703 million. The NBG’s holdings were zero at both month-ends. [1]
BTU researchers calculate that the increases in the two client categories add up to approximately GEL 119 million. Using the unrounded source values, this represents 91.3% of the total increase. This comparison of two month-end positions shows where the additional nominal stock was held. It does not mean that these clients bought 91.3% of the securities issued during October.
Table 1. Change in nominal holdings, 30 September–31 October 2026
| Holder category | Change, GEL million | Share of total increase |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial banks | +11.327 | 8.7% |
| Other resident clients | +46.280 | 35.5% |
| Nonresident clients | +72.703 | 55.8% |
| National Bank of Georgia | 0.000 | 0.0% |
| Total | +130.310 | 100.0% |
Source: NBG; BTU calculations. Changes in month-end positions, not purchases or allocation of new issuance.
The distinction has practical consequences. Some securities may mature during a month, new ones may be issued, and existing securities may change hands. The change in holdings records the combined outcome of these movements. Reconstructing the price, buyer and seller of each purchase would require transaction data.
Nominal value is also different from the amount paid. It is the principal specified by the security, while the market purchase price can differ. The roughly GEL 119 million is therefore neither a direct measure of new money entering Georgia nor the amount paid into the budget in October. The analysis concerns the volume of securities held. [2][3]
One third with clients, two thirds with banks
Other resident and nonresident clients together held GEL 4,290.547 million at end-October. BTU researchers calculate that this represented 33.1% of the total Treasury portfolio, compared with 32.5% one month earlier. The increase was approximately 0.6 percentage points. October therefore continued an existing shift rather than transforming the market within a single month.
The commercial-bank share declined from 67.5% to 66.9%. Yet the category’s holdings did not fall in absolute terms: they increased by GEL 11.327 million. The share declined because the client portfolios grew faster. Market share and the absolute size of a portfolio answer different questions.
Table 2. Treasury ownership at end-October
| Holder category | Share 2025 | Share 2026 | 2026, GEL billion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial banks | 72.6% | 66.9% | 8.670 |
| Other resident clients | 14.2% | 20.9% | 2.708 |
| Nonresident clients | 1.6% | 12.2% | 1.583 |
| National Bank of Georgia | 11.5% | 0.0% | 0.000 |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 12.961 |
Source: NBG; shares calculated by BTU. Nominal amounts. Rounded component shares may not sum exactly to 100%.
The annual comparison shows a larger change. Other resident and nonresident clients together held GEL 1.743 billion at end-October 2025, rising to GEL 4.291 billion a year later. Their combined share increased from 15.9% to 33.1%, approximately 17.2 percentage points. Both observations come from the same current edition of the NBG table. [1]
The change was not confined to foreign holders. Other resident clients’ holdings rose from GEL 1.563 billion to GEL 2.708 billion. Nonresident holdings increased from GEL 180.574 million to GEL 1,582.542 million. The first movement demonstrates a larger role for resident clients; the second shows a much larger nonresident position. The aggregated table does not identify the investors within either category.
There is another essential part of the annual comparison. The NBG held GEL 1,266.821 million of Treasury securities in October 2025, compared with zero in October 2026. The shift in ownership shares therefore cannot be treated entirely as organic market expansion. The table captures both growth in the total stock and a decline in the central bank’s portfolio. Holdings alone cannot reconstruct the individual transfers involved.
Commercial banks nevertheless remain the leading category. Their holdings grew by GEL 688.817 million, or 8.6%, over the year. The fall in their share from 72.6% to 66.9% does not mean that banks left the market. The more precise conclusion is that recorded client portfolios expanded much faster alongside the banks.
What “other clients” means
The NBG table distinguishes four main categories: the NBG itself, commercial banks, other resident clients and nonresident clients. The last two cannot simply be renamed individuals or households with savings. Different types of institutions and people can own securities, and nonresident status does not itself mean nonbank status. [1][3]
For the same reason, a 33.1% client share does not reveal how many new investors entered the market. Large holdings could be concentrated among a few owners, while smaller amounts could be dispersed across many participants. The published table reports neither the number of holders nor concentration within these categories. What it measures is the distribution of holdings between categories.
A bank’s intermediary role must also be distinguished from ownership. The NBG explains that resident and nonresident investors can participate and that banks can execute client orders. A security bought through a bank should therefore not automatically be assigned to the commercial-bank category in the statistics. Intermediary and ultimate holder are different roles. [2][3]
Why the change matters to businesses and savers
A Treasury security is a government obligation and a financial asset denominated in lari. Short-term Treasury bills and longer-term bonds differ in maturity and how income is paid. The distribution of their holders matters not only for public finance but also for understanding where lari-denominated financial resources are held. [2]
In BTU researchers’ analytical assessment, larger client portfolios point to the possibility of a more varied structure of participation in the government’s local securities market. If different groups have different investment horizons and liquidity needs, the market may become less dependent on the decisions of a single group. Assessing whether that is happening requires information about investor types, concentration and the maturities they hold.
The connection for businesses extends beyond government funding. Treasury yields provide a pricing reference in the lari financial market. The NBG’s explanation of its corporate yield curves also uses a spread added to the Treasury curve. This link shows why the development of the government securities market can matter to companies’ financing conditions. [4]
Cheaper business loans do not follow automatically. A company’s borrowing rate also depends on its risk, collateral, funding maturity and other market conditions. The October ownership table measures neither these factors nor banks’ lending decisions. Growth in Treasury holdings among other categories cannot be declared money already released for private businesses.
For a person with savings, the relevance is the existence of financial choices rather than a ready-made recommendation. A Treasury security is a different instrument from a bank account. Holding to maturity and selling earlier can produce different outcomes because the sale price depends on market conditions. A particular choice needs to fit the required horizon, costs and access to money. [3]
Larger holdings do not establish a liquid market
Owning a security and being able to sell it quickly are different questions. The first is measured by holdings; the second depends on actual transactions, available buyers and prices. A rising client share may point towards a deeper market, but cannot substitute for a measure of trading activity.
The NBG’s own explanation supports this distinction. Its GEL yield-curve page identifies limited secondary-market liquidity as one reason for its methodological approach. The October ownership figures therefore cannot establish that the liquidity problem has been resolved. That assessment would also require current evidence about transaction volumes and market depth. [4]
The higher nonresident share has two sides as well. It shows a larger nonresident portfolio of lari securities. At the same time, an investor measuring returns in another currency may respond to exchange-rate movements and international interest rates. October’s holdings cannot forecast future inflows or establish that all owners will behave in the same way.
What October establishes
In BTU researchers’ assessment, the central change is that most of October’s increase in outstanding Treasury securities appeared in the portfolios of other resident and nonresident clients, while commercial banks retained approximately two thirds of the total. This is a shift in the distribution of holdings across categories, not the disappearance of banks’ role.
For Georgia, the next important question goes beyond whether the stock of lari Treasury securities is growing. It is how durable this ownership distribution will be, how different the participants’ objectives are and how easily the securities can be traded. October’s figures provide a clearer picture of ownership; the remaining questions require further observation and additional data.
Questions and answers
Does 91.3% mean that clients financed that share of the budget?
No. It is the two client categories’ share of the increase in outstanding Treasury securities at nominal value between end-September and end-October. It is not a breakdown of budget financing or new issuance.
Did banks’ Treasury portfolios shrink?
The commercial-bank category’s holdings increased by GEL 11.327 million in October. Its share fell because client holdings grew faster.
Is 33.1% the share held by household savers?
No. It combines other resident and nonresident clients’ holdings. The table does not separately identify households, funds, companies or the number of owners.
Does the comparison cover all Georgian public debt?
No. It covers the government-issued Treasury securities recorded in the specific NBG table, valued at their nominal amount at month-end.