22 December 2014

67447

Dan Barnes - Information Corporation

47Posts 63,883Views 8Comments

Future Finance News Analysis

Finextra and Oracle have gathered together some of the industry's top thought leaders to assess the key trends and issues within transaction banking, regulations and retail banking. This group will analyse the latest news on upcoming regulations, new service offerings and industry issues shaping the new financial services landscape with regular blog posts, video interviews, webcasts debates and surveys.

That's settled: T plus 2 settlement takes hold

07 May 2014  |  1290 views  |  0

The settlement lifecycle for equity trades is being shortened from T+3 to T+2 across developed markets. Cost benefit analyses have shown support from correspondent banks, custodian banks, buy-side firms and service bureaus on the basis of risk reduction and efficiency improvements, however the costs for implementation may be disproportionately felt by smaller players in the business.

 

Q: Why don’t trades settle straight away?

A: Trading in many markets works on credit. That creates flexibility in the trading process and allows for some slightly fanciful arrangements of buying and selling to take place. For example, short selling (borrowing a stock you don’t own, selling it and buying it back later when you hope the price has fallen) is predicated on having the time to get hold of a security after a sale has already been agreed. The flexibility also removes the need for a real-time transfer of stock and cash. As stock ownership is recorded at a central securities depositary (CSD), administrated by a custodian bank, but exchanged at a market by brokers who act on behalf of asset managers often employed by funds, it is not surprising that they all need some time to figure out who’s got what.

Q: If they are moving from T+3 to T+2, why don’t they need that extra day anymore?

A: Efficiency. They have managed to reduce the amount of time taken to efficiently process trades down to T+2. As Michael Bodson, president and CEO at the US securities depositary DTCC says, “It’s clear that time equals risk.”

It will also save intermediaries money as they will not have their assets in ‘transit’ for such a long time. India, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan already operate on a T+2 basis, while China runs at T+1.

The costs and savings could be significant; a Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study suggested that it would cost the US approximately US$550 million to set up T+2 but would save US$170 million a year in operational costs, US$25 million in clearing fund contributions and reduce the risk exposure on unguaranteed trades by about US$200 million a year.

Q: Why just shorten by one day? Why not move to T+0?

A: T+0 requires brokers to hold stocks and cash in order to trade as they have to deposit both with the exchange at the point of trade execution, rather than moving them from a custodian after a trade has been confirmed. Brokers are not the safe pair of hands that a custodian bank is and that creates risk. The operational costs would increase significantly to make the leap to T+1; in the US, BCG estimated that the outlay would be US$1.7 billion but the operational saving would only be increased by US$5 million a year. That said, the reduction in risk exposure would more than double.

Q: So who’s in?

A: Everyone in the US seems ready, Europe will make the leap in October 2014 and other markets such as Australia are migrating. However smaller firms will have to overhaul their systems without anything like the same payback for bigger firms. And Asia is wondering what the fuss is about...

 

TagsRisk & regulationPost-trade & ops

Comments: (0)

Comment on this story (membership required)
Log in to receive notifications when someone posts a comment

Latest posts from Dan

Google search: What’s my credit score?

01 July 2014  |  1958 views  |  0  |  Recommends 0 TagsRisk & regulationInnovationGroupFuture Finance

Trade finance creates a 10 billion dollar risk

11 June 2014  |  1736 views  |  0  |  Recommends 0 TagsRisk & regulationWholesale bankingGroupFuture Finance News Analysis

Bad as gold

29 May 2014  |  1752 views  |  0  |  Recommends 1 TagsRisk & regulationWholesale bankingGroupFuture Finance News Analysis

Is Bitcoin mo' money or no money?

29 May 2014  |  1457 views  |  0  |  Recommends 1 TagsVirtual currencyRisk & regulationGroupFuture Finance

Dan's profile

job title Writer
location London
member since 2013
Summary profile See full profile »
Award-winning, freelance financial journalist. Specialist in many areas, including; sell-side execution services, buy-side trading, market infrastructure, emerging markets, regulation, wholesale banki...

Dan's expertise

What Dan reads
Dan writes about

Who is commenting on Dan's posts

Ketharaman Swaminathan
Dave Kershaw
Jorge Yui
Ponnusamy Selvaganapathy