T+1: The case for one-day settlement in Europe

Not so long ago, Europe was at the forefront of changes to the post-trade process. In October 2014, ahead of new rules for financial markets, the European Union slashed the time for securities and cash to change hands from T+3 to T+2. Counterparties accustomed to having to wait three days for trades to settle were now able to complete them in two. The US, following Europe’s lead, made the move to T+2 in 2017.

This time it’s the US taking the lead. Under newly 

We argue that Europe should also make the move to T+1, particularly as it could put the region at a competitive disadvantage if it doesn’t do so. But we caution that the fragmented nature of European markets poses unique challenges to such a move. Authorities should carefully consider these challenges to avoid unintended consequences.

Background

While post-trade is rarely top of mind for market participants, calls for one-day settlement reached the mainstream during the January 2021 “meme-stock” craze in the US. After clearinghouses hiked margin requirements in response to sudden and extreme price moves in US shares, retail brokers like Robinhood halted trading in some of these names. This in turn triggered a backlash from retail investors claiming they were unable to cash out and lock in profits.

Following the incident, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev 

Although Europe’s retail boom was less pronounced, many market participants in the region also began to wonder aloud whether such a change was overdue.

Benefits and risks

Put simply, a shorter settlement window reduces risks to the financial system. The less time it takes for cash and securities to change hands after a trade is agreed, the slimmer the chance of a counterparty defaulting or failing to meet its obligations. Halving the settlement period would also decrease the time market participants need to hold capital and post margin at clearinghouses to cover open exposures. The reduced capital burden would free up cash and help market participants during volatile periods.

The move to T+1 would also help streamline settlement, limiting delays and fails. For example, trade affirmations would need to be communicated and verified on the trade date, reducing the chance of errors in the long term. As the US plan will likely spur a global trend toward T+1, Europe following suit would help its financial markets remain competitive on the world stage.

While moving to T+1 would reduce risks overall, it wouldn’t eliminate them entirely. A shorter settlement window gives market participants fewer opportunities to resolve issues that may arise. One way to minimize these risks is for European authorities to adopt a clear and comprehensive plan for moving to T+1. That means coordinating across the dozens of national clearing houses and central securities depositories that operate across the region.

Here are some of the major issues European authorities need to consider:

• T+1 could lead to more complicated cash-management for trades with an FX component, given that currency markets work on two-day settlement.
• There would be less time to resolve processing errors. This includes a shorter window for sourcing liquidity from the securities-lending market to cover short positions, which could be particularly impactful when hunting for less-liquid stocks. For example, firms doing short sales late in the trading day will have little time to locate the securities needed to cover their positions. This could be particularly acute for illiquid stocks or where borrowed securities and short-sale transactions are located in different depositories.
• As the market adapts to a new settlement regime, there could be an initial spike in delayed or failed trades, which could raise costs and impact liquidity.

Another issue particularly relevant for Europe is depot switches – the practice of moving securities traded in multiple jurisdictions to different CSDs. Depot switches are commonly used in Europe to manage inventory as part of liquidity-provision strategies, given the multitude of dual-listed stocks and depository receipts.

For example, a market maker may need to move inventory in Royal Dutch Shell, which is listed on both Euronext Amsterdam and the London Stock Exchange, from the Dutch securities depository (Euroclear Nederland) to the UK (CREST) in order to cover a short position. A shorter settlement window means these switches could lead to trade failures if they’re not processed efficiently.

Our recommendations

Without a coordinated approach by authorities, the issues outlined above could easily spark a wave of late or failed trades. That could in turn lead to regulatory fines under the EU’s Central Securities Depository Regulation or punitive buy-in costs imposed by clearing houses. These costs would be particularly onerous for market makers and could result in these firms compensating for potential penalties by quoting wider prices or in smaller size.

To mitigate the impact on liquidity, EU regulators should consider harmonised buy-in exemptions for market makers, at least on a temporary basis. To solve the issue of depot switches, authorities could set a maximum processing time, for example 30 minutes from the time an instruction is received, for CSDs to handle a depot switch.

Finally, cooperation between the EU, UK and Switzerland is critical to ensure Europe’s capital markets remain competitive. We recently 

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the challenges that authorities need to consider. We’re convinced however that with proper planning and industry support, one-day settlement would be a boon for European markets.

Further reading

• The SEC 
  release
   announcing the US’s move to T+1.
• A news story about 
  India
   moving its biggest listed companies to T+1.
• An 
  announcement
   from the AFME establishing a T+1 industry task force.
• A T+1 implementation 
  playbook
   from SIFMA.
• Our paper with recommendations for 
  improving
  Europe’s capital markets.

To discuss this paper – or any other market structure topic – reach out to the Optiver Corporate Strategy team at 

Optiver V.O.F. (‘Optiver’) is a market maker licensed by the Dutch Authority for Financial Markets to engage in the investment activity of dealing on own account. This communication and all information contained herein, including any attachments, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual addressee(s) or, on a need to know basis, their employees and directly appointed agents. This document is for informational purposes only. It is not a recommendation to engage in investment activities and must not be relied upon when making any investment decisions. This document has been provided to you without charge for your convenience only. All information contained in this material is factual information and does not reflect any opinion or judgement of Optiver. This document does not take into account the investment objectives or financial situation of any particular third-party. All investments involve risk and no portion of this document should be interpreted as legal, financial, tax, or accounting advice, and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation to buy or sell any future, option, swap, or other derivative or financial instrument. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information provided herein. Optiver does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of any information or opinions in this document. Any trading activity conducted with Optiver shall at all times be subject to the current Optiver Terms of Business. Please contact your Optiver representative for a copy of the latest version of these terms of business.