4 ms·

T+2 is an artifact of fund transfer settlement times isn’t it? Or to rephrase, why do we still have T+2 for equities?

• Armisael16 6y ago
  Financial markets appreciate having a little time to call back mistakes. Also, transactions are a lot easier and cheaper if you can do them at the end of the day instead of immediately. We could probably switch to T+1 without significant problems. Real-time settlement would be a whole other kettle of fish.
• totalZero 6y ago
  It used to be T+3. We switched to T+2 about 4 years ago. That amount of time gives firms the opportunity to borrow in the overnight market to get cash for purchases, and also allows short sellers a bit of time to secure borrow so that they can deliver shares. Even on T+2, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of GME stock failed to deliver. Thus, I thumb my nose at the suggestion that T+1 (which is what we use in the options market) would have resolved the issue. In actuality, Vlad is correct that faster settlement would have liberated some of his firm's cash, but it's not a real solution considering that other parts of the settlement process would break. It's easier for him to point fingers than to admit "We were writing checks that our firm couldn't cash."