Stay informed on the latest developments around the T+1 transition. This section features key industry events, Committee-hosted sessions, and media coverage that highlight progress, insights, and perspectives from across the market.

Search

Search

Europe’s T+1 transition moves from planning to execution

By Janet Du Chenne

On 3 July, the EU T+1 Industry Committee gathered at Banque de France in Paris — hosted by Banque de France and sponsored by Euroclear — to present the results of its second market-wide readiness survey, conducted with The ValueExchange.

The findings confirm that momentum has shifted decisively. 83% of firms are now actively preparing for the 11 October 2027 deadline, and 58% have a formal implementation plan in place — more than double the level reported six months ago. Awareness now stands at 86%, with firms taking no action at all down to just 2%.

Progress isn’t uniform. Large infrastructures, custodians and major intermediaries are well advanced; asset managers, pension funds and smaller firms are still finalising plans, in some cases into early 2027. One recurring theme from the fund side: shortening from T+3 to T+2 is increasingly a voluntary step taken to close cash misalignment as the underlying market moves faster than the fund — a reminder that readiness looks different depending on a firm’s profile, and that outreach and checklists need to reflect that.

Panellists were candid that the industry’s main challenge has shifted from interpreting the T+1 requirements to managing dependencies — 64% of respondents now cite counterparties, intermediaries and technology providers as their principal implementation consideration. Testing was the clear focus for the next phase, with CSDs describing new test windows opening from June and the ECSDA dashboard tracking central bank operational timelines across T2S and non-T2S markets alike.

“The question is no longer whether Europe will move to T+1 — that date is fixed. The question the industry is now asking is how we all get there together, on the same day, as one market,” said Giovanni Sabatini, Independent Chair of the Committee.

ESMA Chair Verena Ross reinforced that message, setting out three asks for firms: respond to ESMA’s consultation on allocations and confirmations, move from programme mobilisation into concrete delivery, and build coordinated 2027 testing into implementation plans now. As she put it, the transition is “not a solo sprint, but it is a relay.”

The full survey results are available here.

Missed the event? The replay — including Giovanni Sabatini’s opening remarks, The ValueExchange’s presentation of the survey findings, and the panel discussions — is available to watch on demand.

Case study: How Invesco is preparing for T+1

10 July 2026

By Janet Du Chenne

Fifteen months out from Europe’s October 2027 T+1 go-live, the EU T+1 Industry Committee’s second readiness survey, conducted by The Value Exchange, confirms what many asset managers are feeling on the ground: the industry has moved from planning into execution. Sixty-one per cent of asset managers now have a formal implementation plan in place, up sharply on six months ago, though asset managers still trail the most prepared segments (CCPs and exchanges, both at 100% plan-readiness).

That gap between the leaders and the rest is exactly why Invesco’s experience is useful. The firm ran the US T+1 migration in 2024 as a live test case, and is now applying those lessons to a European transition that its own trading, product and ETF capital markets leaders describe as structurally more complex. This case study article looks at what Invesco actually did, what it’s doing differently for Europe, and where the survey data suggests the rest of the industry still has ground to cover.

1. Start early, and target big wins first

The clearest lesson from the US transition, according to Invesco, is that lead time was the differentiator.

“We were proactive in leveraging the runway… that was key to delivering seamlessly in May 2024,” said Robert Walker, who leads trade and custody management. Invesco began preparations 18–24 months ahead of the US go-live, standing up a cross-functional project focused on automation, affirmation rates and data integrity.

The single biggest operational win was consolidating affirmation IDs. “We saw a significant enhancement of our affirmation rates… that really underpinned a seamless transition,” Walker noted. Reducing 38 affirmation IDs down to one pushed affirmation rates into the high 90s, making T+0 confirmation the norm rather than the exception.

The practical takeaway: legacy ID mesh and reconciliation debt become critical-path items under T+1. The wider survey backs this up — 77% of market participants now expect to automate trade-level matching ahead of T+1, and 79% expect to meet the tighter T+1 timing requirement of submitting settlement instructions to CSDs by 23:59 CET on trade date. Firms still treating affirmation clean-up as a “later” problem are running out of runway to do what Invesco did over 18 months.

For ETF market makers, the equivalent early-mover lesson was about coordination rather than infrastructure. “It’s all about speed — the volume of reaction increases when the settlement cycle is reduced,” said Andy Dwiar, who works on ETF capital markets. Spreads widened initially to price in settlement risk, but a coordinated industry response stabilised conditions. “We wanted a collective approach across issuers and market makers, and that proved very successful,” Dwiar added.

2. Expect Europe to be more complex than the US — and plan for it

Invesco is explicit that US lessons only travel so far. The EU is going to be more complex because of the different jurisdictions. Multiple CSDs, CCPs and regulatory interpretations create a patchwork of dependencies that a single-market US migration never had to contend with.

The survey quantifies why managers are right to be nervous about this: 64% of firms now cite counterparty and vendor dependencies as a core concern for T+1, up six percentage points on the previous survey, with Tier 1 firms — those with the most counterparties to track — up 23 points. Invesco’s response has been to treat FX and timezone effects as workstreams in their own right.

FX remains on T+2 even as the securities leg moves to T+1, creating forward-point and settlement mismatches, particularly for global fund baskets. “If you’ve got FX on T+2, you’ll see different forward points — certain currencies will behave differently,” Dwiar explained. Progress across the industry here is real but partial: 70% of custodians have now aligned their FX cut-offs to CLS or other PVP providers (against 81% of brokers), and 79% of custodians say they’ve engaged clients on minimising FX settlement risk — but only 54% of brokers can say the same, leaving a meaningful share of the market still unbriefed.

Time-zone compression is the other Europe-specific complication Invesco flags. Sitting between Asia’s close and the US open leaves less overnight optionality for decision-making. “We’re stuck in the middle… the time-zone difference means we have to be more reactive,” said Dwiar. For ETF issuers concretely, that has meant exploring the need to  move primary market cut-offs, contract notes and affirmations earlier in the day.

3. Use custodian and TPA dependency as the forcing function

Perhaps the most transferable part of Invesco’s approach is treating third-party dependency not as a risk to manage passively, but as the thing that forces internal discipline.

“Our oversight doesn’t fundamentally change… but the dependency on service providers is integral,” Walker said. Invesco leans heavily on TPAs across fund accounting, transfer agency and middle office, which makes early, structured engagement with those providers a precondition for everything else. That’s a live gap across the market: only 37% of firms currently feel they have sufficient information from intermediaries to implement T+1, and 53% report only partial guidance so far.

Concretely, Invesco’s engagement with its custodian network covers three things: earlier settlement cut-offs, faster SSI enrichment, and clear guidance on PSET matching. The aim is to avoid mismatches between markets, custodians and internal workflows before they surface as breaks. The scale of the shift required is visible industry-wide: buy-side firms already engaged with all or most of their relevant IT and outsourced service vendors jumped from 24% to 43% in six months — a sign that Invesco’s early-mover approach is becoming the norm among better-prepared managers.

“There’s accountability on every party to the trade now,” as Walker put it.

Invesco is also using the transition to interrogate operating models that have remained static for some time — specifically, whether long-standing valuation points and dealing cut-offs are still fit for purpose. “Our process has been in place for 25 years… but it may not be as optimal as it could be,” said Patrick O’Shea, who leads product management. Any change is being carefully modelled first, especially for global funds where valuation points can fall after Asian markets have closed. “We need to understand how big the actual problem is — not make a knee-jerk reaction,” he added while also balancing client needs around consistency.

That caution matters because TPA capacity is a shared, finite resource. With every asset manager approaching the same vendors at the same time, securing implementation slots early is itself a competitive readiness issue. The survey shows how unevenly distributed that readiness already is: 77% of Tier 1 firms describe themselves as ready to test operational changes today, but that splits sharply by business model — 83% of Tier 1 sell-side firms versus only 55% of Tier 1 buy-side firms. Invesco expects its own cut-off decisions to be finalised by mid-2026, with execution running through the first eight to nine months of 2027 — a timeline other managers can use as a rough benchmark for their own planning.

4. Decide on dealing cycles now, not later

One of the more consequential — and still unresolved — decisions facing asset managers is whether and how to compress fund dealing cycles. Invesco’s team frames this as fundamentally a client-communication exercise as much as an operational one.

“It’s an educational thing — taking them through the what’s and why’s,” said Dwiar, on preparing investors for how settlement mismatches, FX timing and cut-off changes will affect execution quality. The complicating factor is that not all clients want the same outcome: “Certain clients expect everything to be uniform because that’s how their systems are set up,” O’Shea noted, meaning managers have to balance operational efficiency against platform-specific expectations rather than solve for a single standard.

The survey suggests this decision is running later than it should for a large share of the market: 56% of firms expect to accelerate their fund dealing cycles by 11 October 2027, and 91% of those are planning a one-day reduction — but 32% of firms overall, and 36% of the largest firms specifically, have yet to commit to a date at all. For ETFs, the pressure to decide is more immediate, since the wrapper structurally demands earlier NAVs and earlier contract notes. “The ETF wrapper requires everything to be done well before — contract notes need to be expedited under T+1,” Dwiar said.

5. Why the operational cost is worth it

None of this is being undertaken for compliance’s sake alone. Invesco’s leadership is candid that the payoff for global managers is real: alignment brings coherence to liquidity management that a fragmented settlement landscape doesn’t allow.

“If Europe goes aligned, you’ve captured 80% of global exposures — it makes life a lot more streamlined,” said Dwiar. With the US already live and Japan likely to follow, the direction of travel is toward a genuinely globally harmonised settlement environment. “We’re 85% there… Japan probably adds another 5–6%,” O’Shea estimated. The survey’s own numbers support the sense of momentum: 83% of firms are now actively engaged on T+1 in Europe, with formal planning having doubled across the market in the past six months alone.

Key considerations for asset managers

• Fix affirmation and ID hygiene first — it was Invesco’s single highest-leverage change, and the survey shows automated matching is fast becoming the market baseline.
• Treat FX and time-zone effects as their own workstream, not a side-effect of the settlement change — cut-off alignment and client engagement on FX risk both still have real gaps industry-wide.
• Use custodian and TPA engagement as a forcing function for internal readiness, and get in the queue for implementation slots early — the sell side is already meaningfully ahead of the buy side on testing readiness.
• Decide on dealing cycle changes now. Over a third of the largest firms still haven’t committed to a date, and that indecision compounds down the chain to custodians and TPAs who are trying to plan capacity.
• Model cut-off and valuation-point changes carefully rather than reactively — a 25-year-old process may not be optimal, but changing it under time pressure carries its own risks.

Janet Du Chenne is a freelance financial journalist and the Founder & CEO of ThoughtTree Lab

Europe’s transition to T+1 moves from planning to execution, new industry survey finds

83% of firms now actively preparing for the 11 October 2027 deadline, but the EU T+1 Industry Committee highlights that synchronising readiness across the value chain is now the sector’s central benchmark

Paris, 3 July 2026 — The EU T+1 Industry Committee today published the results of its second market-wide readiness survey, conducted by The ValueExchange. The findings show that European firms have significantly accelerated their preparations for the move to a one-day settlement cycle, which becomes mandatory on 11 October 2027 under the amended Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR).

The survey shows the industry is mobilising at pace. 83% of firms are now actively preparing for T+1, and 58% have a formal implementation plan in place — more than double the level reported six months ago. Awareness of the transition has climbed to 86%, with firms that have taken no action at all now down to just 2%.

Readiness is progressing, albeit at different paces. Large infrastructures, custodians and major intermediaries are generally well advanced in their preparations, while asset managers, pension funds and smaller firms continue to lag, with some implementation plans not expected to be finalised until the first quarter of 2027.

The survey also points to a shift in the nature of the challenge. Firms are now less concerned with interpreting the requirements of T+1 and more focused on the practical business of getting there: 64% cite dependencies on counterparties, intermediaries and technology providers as their principal implementation consideration, and more than half are still waiting on additional guidance from intermediaries before they can finalise their own plans.

Automation remains one of the most persistent obstacles. While adoption is increasing, many firms are still behind schedule in automating allocations, confirmations, standing settlement instructions and other middle-office processes that are essential to operating in a compressed settlement cycle. The Committee notes that testing is now becoming the critical phase of the programme: the largest firms are generally ready to begin, but awareness and readiness among smaller participants remain uneven, making coordinated, market-wide testing essential over the coming months.

Encouragingly, more than 90% of respondents expect to be operationally ready by go-live, though the Committee flags continued implementation risk in specific workstreams, notably middle office, settlement processing and certain fund-related activities.

“The question is no longer whether Europe will move to T+1 — that date is fixed. The question the industry is now asking is how we all get there together, on the same day, as one market. No institution settles a trade alone, and our collective readiness will ultimately be judged by all firms reaching the summit.”

— Giovanni Sabatini, Independent Chair, EU T+1 Industry Committee

The Committee said the overall message from the survey is clear: the transition has moved decisively from planning into execution. The remaining challenge is no longer defining what needs to be done, but ensuring implementation now progresses consistently across the entire European post-trade ecosystem, given its interconnectedness in securities trades.

At 1.30 pm Central European Time on 3 July 2026, the EU T+1 Industry Committee and The Value Exchange will present a deep dive into the survey results at an event titled “EU T+1 Readiness: The New Realities Behind Survey Two”, hosted by Bank de France and sponsored by Euroclear.

EU T+1 Industry Committee publishes clarification on SSI templates

30 June 2026

New guidance clarifies approach to storage and exchange of SSIs and signals alignment with the UK

The EU T+1 Industry Committee has published a clarification regarding the EU approach to the storage and exchange of Standing Settlement Instructions (SSIs) templates.

A core element of the clarification is that there is a common European standard: The Financial Markets Standards Board (FMSB) taxonomies and templates for sharing SSIs are compatible with the European Economic Area’s (EEA) requirements for pre-settlement storage and exchange requirements of SSI data (as previously advised in the EU T+1 SSI Taskforce’s December 2025 guidance). 

This signifies alignment with the UK Accelerated Settlement Taskforce (AST),  which recommended the same approach.

Additional European Economic Area (EEA) field-level guidance (when implementing the FMSB templates) is also provided given transactions occur across multiple jurisdictions: 

• BIC: Mandatory without exception as the instructing-party identifier.
• PSET: A mandatory field in the EEA, in line with Securities Markets Practice Group (SMPG) standards.
• SAFE / PSAF: An optional field.
• MIC and ISIN: Optional at the pre-settlement exchange/storage level and to be agreed bilaterally — distinct from downstream at the CSD, where ISIN is mandatory for matching (MIC is not).
• Classification identifier: Needed only if a party wants to split by instrument type, using the highest-level CFI (Classification of Financial Instrument) code, for example “EXXXXX” for all equities (where E represents the instrument type), and “XXXXXX” where no split is required (i.e., not instrument relevant)
• Registration: An optional field, applicable only where required by local rules/regulation or specific business needs.

Giovanni Sabatini, Independent Chair of the EU T+1 Committee confirmed ‘This clarification provides further clarity on standards for the storage and exchange of Standing Settlement Instructions (SSIs) between trading parties and their intermediaries and dispels any concerns of misalignment between the UK and EU on “pre-settlement” SSI standards.’

Andrew Douglas, Chair of the UK AST, welcomed this clarification commenting that ‘this is further evidence of the excellent co-operation between the UK and EU taskforces confirming additional standardisation between both jurisdictions and further enhancing the efficiency of cross-border European securities processing.’

To read the additional guidance, click here.

Racing the clock: How firms are confronting the T+1 settlement challenge

13 April 2026

Insights from AMF Italia and Société Générale Securities Services

Europe’s shift to T+1 settlement is not a distant deadline – it is an operational reckoning already reshaping the post-trade landscape. For intermediaries, the challenge is amplified by structural fragmentation: a diverse community of brokers, custodians, and trading venues, each at a different stage of readiness, each dependent on infrastructure decisions. To understand what the transition looks like from the inside, we spoke with Miriam Felici of AMF Italia – the association representing around 60 banks, investment firms, and trading venues – and Paola Deantoni of Société Générale Securities Services (SGSS). Their conversation reveals a sector grappling with compressed timelines, fragmented tools, and the weight of simultaneous post-trade reform.

An uneven starting line

AMF Italia’s membership reflects the breadth of Italy’s capital markets ecosystem. From global custodians to domestic brokers, from investment firms to multilateral trading facilities, the association encompasses institutions of vastly different scale, sophistication, and exposure to T+1 risk. That diversity, Felici explains, makes a single readiness narrative impossible.

“Our members are highly diversified – the degree of complexity, as regards both awareness and implementation, varies significantly depending on the business model, on the operational structures and market roles of these intermediaries.” 

— Miriam Felici, AMF Italia

The divide is most visible between custodians and brokers. Custodian banks, accustomed to managing settlement risk at scale, have largely moved through the early stages: assessment, gap analysis, budget allocation. Brokers, by contrast, are frequently still in exploratory mode. Awareness has been achieved – AMF Italia has invested heavily in webinars and industry engagement – but translating knowledge into action is where the real challenge lies.

“We are confident on awareness – now we see difficulties in moving to the implementation stage.”

— Miriam Felici, AMF Italia

The SSI challenge: Automation, active behaviours, and data quality

Standing Settlement Instructions sit at the heart of T+1 readiness. Under a compressed timeline, the margin for error in SSI exchange shrinks dramatically. For Felici, this exposes two related vulnerabilities: the persistence of manual or semi-manual processes among smaller intermediaries, and the quality of the data those instructions must carry.

Critically, T+1 is not simply a faster version of T+2. Many of the data elements required in settlement instructions demand active behaviour from intermediaries – deliberate choices that systems must be configured to make, not defaults that kick in automatically. Partial settlement exemptions, for instance, require an intermediary to explicitly provide a no-partial settlement (NPAR) indicator; the exemption does not apply passively. The same logic applies to repo transaction types and penalty exemption flags: both counterparties must provide the correct information, and they must be aligned.

“If there is an exemption from partial settlement, the intermediary has to provide a NPAR – it is not an automatic exclusion. There is an active behaviour required from the intermediary.”

– Miriam Felici, AMF Italia

This is not merely a technical challenge. It is a coordination challenge. Each intermediary must align its systems and procedures with its counterparties, and that alignment requires sustained bilateral engagement. No firm can solve this in isolation.

A rainbow of platforms

If SSI data quality is one pressure point, the landscape of tools used to exchange that data is another. Deantoni of SGSS describes what she calls a “rainbow” of SSI platforms — a proliferation of utilities that, in isolation, have individual merit, but collectively fail to deliver the seamless, automated flow that T+1 demands.

“There are many platforms, and many are not interconnected. The key word here is really interoperability.”

— Paola Deantoni,  SGSS

The pre-settlement space, she notes, remains a patchwork: Excel uploads sit alongside PDFs, and in some corners, faxes. The aspiration of straight-through processing is undercut not by a lack of tools, but by a lack of connectivity between them. Each new counterparty relationship forces an intermediary to rediscover how to communicate. That friction is incompatible with a one-day settlement cycle.

“One of the musts in the regulatory technical standards is automation, automation, automation – no manual intervention. But STP can be straight-through processing, or it can be straight-to-printer — like faxes.”

— Paola Deantoni,  SGSS

The solution, Deantoni argues, lies not in mandating a single platform, but in establishing shared data standards that any tool can consume. The EU T+1 Industry Committee’s market practice guidance on SSIs was designed precisely with this in mind: to move the conversation from tool requirements to data element requirements, so that interoperability becomes possible regardless of which vendor an intermediary uses.

“What is needed is the same data elements that can be digested by different tools. That, to me, is the real value that can be provided to the community.”

— Paola Deantoni, SGSS

Infrastructure gaps and competing demands

Intermediaries cannot complete their T+1 readiness programmes in a vacuum. Their timelines depend on the readiness of the market infrastructure around them – and on that front, clarity is still lacking. CSD timelines, system link availability, and cross-CSD connectivity all feed into an intermediary’s settlement risk exposure, and gaps in any one of them can cascade.

“They need a clear picture. There are lots of dependencies — and some of them deal with CSDs.”

— Miriam Felici, AMF Italia

The challenge is compounded by the sheer number of post-trade reform projects running in parallel. Corporate actions reform, clearing migration for bonds and repos, and T+1 implementation all compete for the same resources – internal staff, IT budgets, and external vendor capacity. Many Italian intermediaries have not yet engaged their IT providers on T+1-specific adaptations, and given that multiple firms frequently rely on the same vendors, a queue is already forming.

“Resources are limited – and many intermediaries have not started work with their IT providers. Many rely on the same ones, so there could be a bottleneck if this relationship is not managed on time.”

— Miriam Felici, AMF Italia

On cross-CSD and investor-CSD connectivity, Deantoni points to a distinction that is often overlooked: intra-CSD flows are, paradoxically, less standardised than cross-border ones. Cross-border settlement benefits from PSET codes and established linkages between CSDs. Within a single CSD’s ecosystem, proprietary coding and inconsistent data formats persist — creating complexity that is harder to resolve precisely because it has, until now, been tolerated.

What best practice looks like – and what it demands

For firms ahead of the curve, best practice in early 2026 follows a clear sequence: assess, identify gaps, plan, budget. Custodian banks, which tend to have the most direct exposure to settlement risk, have largely completed these early stages. For others, the path is less clear.

“Best practice is assessment, gap analysis, planning and budgeting. But not all our members have performed all of these steps.”

— Miriam Felici, AMF Italia

Deantoni adds a dimension that is frequently overlooked in the technical conversation: staff training. Vendors, IT providers, and consultancy firms will all face capacity constraints as the deadline approaches and late movers seek help simultaneously. But internal staff – the operations professionals who will have to execute at speed every day once T+1 is live – also need time to prepare.

Both Felici and Deantoni converge on a single, uncomfortable truth: the window to act is narrowing faster than many firms appreciate. The Italian experience is instructive not because its diversity makes it a microcosm of Europe’s broader challenge. When readiness is uneven, the whole chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and in settlement, a single break is enough to generate a fail.

The road ahead

T+1 settlement will not arrive as a single event for Italian intermediaries – it will arrive as the culmination of dozens of bilateral negotiations, system upgrades, contractual renegotiations, and data quality improvements, all of which must converge on time. The institutions best placed to succeed are those that have already started: that have mapped their exposure, engaged their counterparties, and begun the difficult work of replacing manual processes with automated ones.

For the rest, the message from AMF Italia and SGSS is clear: the cost of delay is not measured in preparation time alone. It is measured in vendor queues, failed settlements, and seizing opportunities.  

T+1 readiness in Europe: 3 things you should know about the joint testing plan

23 March 2026

The move to T+1 settlement across the EU, UK, and Switzerland has reached a critical milestone with the release of the joint Industry Testing & Readiness Plan. Firms now have a unified roadmap to prepare for the 11 October 2027 transition. In a preview interview, Andrew Douglas, Chair of the UK Accelerated Settlement Taskforce, highlights what firms need to focus on now.

Here are the three essentials:

1. Start testing now

Industry leaders are clear: early testing is the single biggest success factor. Firms should use existing test environments immediately rather than waiting for the 2027 market‑wide windows.

2. Expect behavioural change

Compressed timelines mean new expectations around allocation, confirmation, and instruction submission. Readiness will depend not only on internal processes but on the entire settlement chain.

3. Treat T+1 as a digital transformation moment

Beyond compliance, T+1 is an opportunity to modernise post‑trade operations — improving automation, data quality, and operational resilience.

Watch the video for detailed insights.

Europe accelerates toward T+1: Giovanni Sabatini previews the joint testing plan

20 March 2026

Europe’s move to T+1 is accelerating — and few people have a clearer view of the road ahead than Giovanni Sabatini, Chair of the EU T+1 Industry Committee.

In this Insight Track interview, Giovanni explains why the EU remains firmly on track six months after publishing the High‑Level Road Map, what the latest readiness data reveals, and where firms still underestimate the urgency as 2026 becomes the year of delivery.

He also offers an early look at the joint EU–UK testing programme ahead of the 25 March launch of the unified testing plan, outlining why a single cross‑ecosystem approach is essential for market stability and operational confidence.

A must‑watch for firms operating in or interacting with EU markets as they prepare for accelerated settlement.

T+1 and Europe’s competitiveness

13 November 2025

The decision to move to a T+1 settlement cycle in Europe is more than a regulatory imperative. Sara Ben Rhouma of PwC Milan asks Giovanni Sabatini, chair of the EU T+1 Industry Committee, how it aims to make Europe more competitive.

Click here to watch the video: http://bit.ly/3KeJZq8

What do ESMA’s standards on settlement discipline mean for firms preparing for T+1?

11 November 2025

ESMA has just published new regulatory technical standards for settlement discipline, which will reshape how markets prepare. Sara Ben Rhouma of PwC Milan asks Giovanni Sabatini, chair of the EU T+1 Industry Committee, what it means for firms preparing for the shift.

Click here to watch the video: https://bit.ly/49rQQqt

Industry Response to EU T+1 High-Level Roadmap: A Call for Individual Action

19 October 2025

The EU T+1 Industry Committee’s consultation on the high-level roadmap recommendations has concluded, providing valuable insights into industry sentiment and preparedness for the transition to T+1 settlement. The feedback received reflects a diverse cross-section of market participants, including banks, asset managers, custodians, market infrastructures, and industry associations across Europe and beyond.

Engagement and Industry Participation

The consultation attracted responses from a broad spectrum of organisations representing different segments of the European securities markets ecosystem. The responses reflect the inclusive approach taken throughout the technical workstream process, where stakeholders have had ongoing opportunities to contribute and shape the recommendations as they developed.

For those not yet engaged in the technical workstreams, this represents an open invitation to join these wholly inclusive forums where the detailed work of T+1 preparation continues.

Key Themes from Industry Feedback

Timeline and Implementation Concerns

A significant portion of feedback focused on timeline-related questions, particularly around cut-off times and settlement processes. Several respondents sought clarification on the “adhere or explain” approach, demonstrating the need for clearer guidance on how organisations can adapt the recommendations to their specific operational contexts.

Questions emerged about alignment with other regional timelines, particularly regarding APAC market participants and their ability to meet European cut-offs.

Settlement Process Clarifications

Some responses revealed misconceptions about settlement alternatives. Organisations must understand that missing overnight settlement cycles doesn’t prevent T+1 settlement – trades can still settle through real-time gross settlement during daytime cycles. This flexibility is built into the system design, but requires proper planning and understanding of each organisation’s specific settlement flows.

Geographic and Structural Considerations

Feedback highlighted the need for education about European market structures, particularly among non-European participants. Questions about why EU cut-offs don’t align exactly with UK timelines, for instance, reflect the need to explain the different settlement infrastructures (T2S versus Crest) and their respective operational requirements.

The Mountain Climber’s Equipment Check: Why Individual Assessment Matters

Think of T+1 readiness like preparing for a mountain climb. When climbers prepare for an ascent, each must carefully check their own equipment – their boots, ropes, and safety gear. A climber cannot simply look at their colleague’s shiny new equipment and assume it will work for their climb. Each person’s fitness level, climbing style, and route may be different.

The same principle applies to T+1 transformation. Each organisation operates with different business models, client bases, technology infrastructures, and operational processes. What works for one institution may not be suitable for another.

Your Individual Impact Assessment: The Essential First Step

The consultation feedback reinforced a critical message: every organisation must conduct its own comprehensive impact assessment. This isn’t a compliance exercise where you can copy your neighbour’s homework – it’s a fundamental business transformation that requires a deep understanding of your own operations.

Your impact assessment should examine:

• Your current settlement flows and processes
• Technology infrastructure and automation levels
• Client communication and instruction timelines
• Dependencies on service providers and market infrastructures
• Specific challenges within your business model

Beyond Individual Assessment: Understanding Your Ecosystem

While individual preparation is essential, T+1 success depends on ecosystem-wide coordination. Organisations must identify their dependencies and communicate with their service providers, custodians, and market infrastructure providers about their adaptation plans.

For Financial Market Infrastructures (FMIs), there’s a particular urgency to provide clear information about service adaptations and explain how non-adherence to specific recommendations might be managed without detriment to market participants.

The Path Forward: Collaboration Through Individual Responsibility

T+1 is not simply a compliance exercise – it’s an industry collaboration where each participant’s readiness contributes to collective success. However, this collaboration begins with individual responsibility.

Organisations cannot wait for their neighbours to act first. The urgency lies in understanding your own readiness requirements and beginning your transformation journey. Only by understanding your own “climbing capabilities” can you then work effectively with your ecosystem partners.

Existing and Upcoming Resources and Support

Industry participants already have the necessary information and framework required to assess impact and commence planning for the T+1 transition. The Commission and ESMA have published the legal framework through amendments to the CSDR and regulatory technical standards on settlement discipline. The EU T+1 Industry Committee’s high-level roadmap identifies the scope and provides clear recommendations.  These publications provide the framework to enable your budgeting, planning and implementation.

The Industry Committee continues to develop resources to support your readiness journey:

• Detailed Implementation Manual – providing technical guidance for specific operational challenges, addressing some of the issues raised in the consultation feedback
• Comprehensive FAQ Document – addressing common questions and misconceptions
• Myth-busting Content – clarifying widespread misunderstandings about T+1 requirements

These resources supplement the existing framework rather than address gaps. Additionally, they complement, but cannot replace, your individual impact assessment and transformation planning.

Take Action Now

The consultation feedback demonstrates that while the industry recognises the importance of T+1 preparation, many organisations are still in the early stages of their readiness journey. The time for waiting is over.

Start your impact assessment today. Understand your own equipment before looking at others’. Join the technical workstreams if you haven’t already. Engage with your service providers and market infrastructures about their adaptation plans.

T+1 success requires every climber to be properly equipped for their own journey up the mountain. The summit is achievable, but only if we each take responsibility for our individual preparation while supporting our fellow climbers along the way.

The EU T+1 Industry Committee’s technical workstreams remain open to all market participants. For more information on how to participate or access resources, visit our website or contact the Secretariat.

Why T+1 Is More Than Post-Trade Reform: Insights from Sibos and AFME Optic

8 October 2025

EU T+1 Industry Committee Chair Giovanni Sabatini reflects on pivotal discussions about the mandatory move to a shorter settlement cycle.

It’s been a busy two weeks on the road and away from the Alps. Thank you to the Sibos and AFME Optic teams for inviting me to share insights on Europe’s capital markets future and the critical role T+1 settlement plays in that transformation.

At Sibos, I discussed capital market reforms in attracting global investors on a panel with James Fok, Margaret Harewood-Jones, and Roberto Gonzalez Barrera, using the European Commission’s decision to move to T+1 as a case study of how ambitious reform can be executed. At Optic, I joined my friend Andrew Douglas, Chair of the UK Accelerated Settlement Taskforce, to discuss EU-UK market alignment, updates on the EU T+1 Industry Committee’s work, and what’s needed in Q4 2025.

Key Takeaways

Attracting Investors: T+1 as Strategic Infrastructure

T+1’s impacts extend far beyond post-trade operations. It’s a strategic play aimed at removing market misalignment (and related costs for issuers, investors, and brokers), reducing counterparty credit risk, unleashing liquidity, promoting automation and standardisation, and paving the way for truly integrated capital markets.

Setting the Pace for the Savings and Investments Union (SIU)

The European Commission and ESMA gave the EU T+1 Industry Committee a clear goal, enabling us as guides to set the pace and provide the tools. This governance structure meant that in less than six months, we published a high-level roadmap for the transition—created by the industry, for the industry. This collaborative model could be replicated to accelerate the broader SIU agenda.

Rethinking EU Financial Market Architecture

This governance framework could serve as a blueprint for reconsidering the EU’s financial markets institutional architecture to meet the goals of banking regulations that support stability, competitiveness, simplification, and mobilising savings into productive investment.

The Lennon and McCartney Effect: UK-EU Collaboration

Like the debate over who was the better songwriter, there’s no rivalry between the UK and EU in the race to T+1—we’re working together to avoid misalignment. We share the same mission, values, and approach. This collaboration has also helped build a strong personal relationship between myself and Andrew Douglas.

Start Your Climb: The Urgency is Real

T+1 is mandated in regulation and will not be delayed. EU and national supervisors will consider our recommendations in their supervisory activities, and ESMA will soon publish its Regulatory Technical Standards on settlement discipline.

If you are not prepared to move to T+1 in the agreed timeframe, the risk is real: loss of competitiveness, reduced liquidity, and potentially being forced out of the market. Automation, standardisation, and adoption of straight-through processing (STP) are essential—not just for compliance, but to remain competitive. T+1 represents a major business opportunity for first movers.

Public authorities have a critical role in monitoring implementation, with specific focus on smaller market participants in the periphery of EU financial systems.

We’ll monitor preparation with the launch of a survey in January 2026.

Don’t Wait. Use This Quarter.

If you’re a small asset manager, don’t wait for your brokers or custodian banks to solve their problems for T+1 readiness. Each market and participant faces different challenges, so the first step for all is to thoroughly assess the impact of T+1 on your organisation, procedures, and IT systems—then engage your brokers and custodians with specific requirements.

The time to act is now.

EU T+1: Climbers, Start Your Climb Now

11 September 2025

Like mountain climbing, the move to a shorter settlement cycle in Europe will stretch all capital markets participants, whether they’ve done it before or not. The EU T+1 Industry Committee’s recommended actions are out – it’s now market participants’ duty to start the climb.

Europe faces a steep mountain: it will transition to a shorter settlement cycle for securities, with peaks that demand a strategic approach, careful planning, and the right equipment.

It’s a summit worth the ascent. EU T+1 will reduce risk and operational friction, enhancing the efficiency and attractiveness of EU capital markets to investors. But with multiple markets across the region, it’s a complex climb. The EU T+1 Industry Committee (IC) – your expedition guides – published a high-level roadmap with 71 recommendations to help market participants achieve a successful transition. That roadmap establishes a basecamp for the ascent and will evolve with your feedback but will not fundamentally change (i.e., no roadmap v2), so don’t delay.

The route is mapped. Time to gear up.

The responsibilities are clear: the committee has done its job as “guides,” now everyone else must do theirs.

In our Basecamp Readiness Series, we provide readiness considerations and checklists, address common misconceptions such as solely relying on US experience, and share case studies and lessons learned from markets that have transitioned.

We Are the Guide, You Are the Climber

The EU T+1 IC has prepared the roadmap and identified necessary actions, but stakeholders must now take responsibility and act. Don’t wait for others – fund managers shouldn’t wait for custodian banks, custodian banks shouldn’t wait for fund managers. Instead, assess your own impact on liquidity management, inventory management, and trading strategies, then approach service providers with your specific plan for transitioning to T+1.

Engage with T+1 now – both internally and with counterparts, service providers, and technical providers. Don’t wait for perfect allocation of responsibilities; everyone has significant work to do.

Basecamp Checklist: 3 Things You Must Know

1. This Is a Mandatory Climb – No Opt-Outs

The decision to move to T+1 is irrevocable and will occur in coordination across the region, which means market participants face a mandatory climb. On October 11, 2027, markets will move together.

Using the roadmap as your guide, impact analysis, budget planning, and resource allocation are required NOW for 2026 implementation and testing in 2027.

Start impact assessments and client communication immediately. Use the high-level roadmap, which covers the entire post-trade lifecycle. Begin evaluating the impact on your systems, procedures, and business models today.

2. It’s Much Bigger Than Settlement

T+1 impact extends far beyond settlements. Less than 20% of recommendations in the roadmap are settlement-focused, and successful transition requires strategic and technical expertise across firms, financial market infrastructures, and public authorities.

That’s right: T+1 affects ALL market participants and operational processes.

In basic terms, the current market change processes we know today (in T+2) won’t exist in T+1. The timing of every operational process between trade and settlement will potentially change. Liquidity management, procedures, and contracts all require adjustment, affecting everyone in the post-trade lifecycle.

Specific impacts include: • Treasury departments: Liquidity management transformation • Custody operations: Comprehensive workflow enhancements • Asset managers: Accelerated confirmation processes • Trading desks: Modified settlement risk management

3. Europe ≠ US Experience

Don’t rely solely on US transition experience.

Europe has different technical and material complexities. Learn from the Americas but conduct region-specific impact assessments.

Previous transition experience should not provide comfort or complacency due to the many specificities and complexities of the EU transition. Just because it went smoothly in the US does not mean the European transition should be considered straightforward.

We’re With You at Every Step

As your guides, the EU T+1 IC will continue supporting the transition through: • Completing sector recommendations on SSI standardization, matching, settlement instructions, and partials • Ongoing discussions with the ECB on settlement efficiency for repos • Developing a practical “Playbook” with implementation examples • Establishing monitoring through public surveys and coordinated testing methodology

The exact impact on post-trade processes such as SSI standardization, partial settlements, and settlement efficiency for repos continues to evolve. We’re continuing work on these open issues to deliver clarifications and addenda to the roadmap by end of 2025.

Market participants should share technical challenges and operational hurdles with us. This input directly informs the upcoming Playbook of best practices (due end of 2025), which will contain practical examples on how to implement our recommendations. The guide will help climbers adapt to altitude by testing readiness with practice runs ahead of the final ascent.

EU Public Authorities and NCAs: Supporting the Transition

Public and private cooperation is essential in this transition. These are the Industry Committee’s recommendations – it is up to public authorities and NCAs to determine if they wish to make any of these recommendations enforceable. The IC has no enforcement power, but we encourage national authorities to support local industry efforts, as the T+1 transition is mandatory under EU legislation by October 11, 2027.

The EU T+1 IC will monitor implementation by promoting public surveys and coordinating with EU public authorities through the coordination committee while developing common testing methodologies.

Stay tuned for our upcoming deep dives into each of the critical impact areas: Treasury and liquidity management, custody operations, asset manager workflows, and trading desk adaptations. Each analysis will provide detailed considerations and practical implementation guidance for your T+1 transition journey.

PostTrade 360° T+1 panel: The clock is ticking

2-4 September 2025

Starting now, complexity challenge and automation, and industry readiness polls were key themes discussed at the PostTrade 360°2025 meeting in Stockholm

The city of Stockholm, which was built upon 14 interconnected islands and is a gateway to a vast archipelago of 30,000 more islands, is the perfect location to discuss post-trade connectivity as Europe prepares for T+1.

With upgrades to the Swedish central securities depository in March 2025 and ongoing work to integrate into a new system providing a single access point to all European markets by 2026, it seemed fitting that PostTrade 360°’s two-day annual meeting this year convened in the Swedish capital to cover topics such as industry collaboration needed to accelerate settlement cycles.

500 Days and Counting: A Wake-Up Call for the Industry

EU T+1 Industry Committee Chair Giovanni Sabatini’s stark warning reverberated through the conference: “If you convert the two years into numbers of working days, this result is even more scary, because you have 500 days to act on a lot of post-trade impacts.” The October 11, 2027, deadline for European markets to transition from T+2 to T+1 settlement is approaching faster than many realise, yet the industry readiness polling results raised concerns.

The panel, featuring senior representatives from major investment banks, custodians, and market infrastructure providers, delivered a reality check. When asked about their organisation’s T+1 readiness, a worrying 33% of attendees admitted they “haven’t done anything yet” – a statistic that left the panellists visibly concerned.

The Complexity Challenge: EU is Not the US

One of the most dangerous misconceptions addressed was the assumption that European firms could simply replicate the US approach. As Sabatini emphasised, “Someone says, ‘Well, we have been able to manage the transition in US, so we will do the same in the EU.’ Well, of course, lessons learned in the US will help, but consider the additional complexity of the European landscape. We have 27 different jurisdictions with national specificities, cross-border trades, FX transactions, and different time zones.”

The panel highlighted three critical lessons from the US transition that Europe must adapt rather than copy wholesale:

• Infrastructure integration: The US benefited from fully integrated front-to-back solutions from matching through settlement, which Europe lacks
• Clearing efficiency: The US achieved a 98% compression ratio through extensive clearing house usage, significantly reducing settlement volumes
• Scope clarity: Ironically, the US only clarified the scope for foreign securities three months before go-live, while Europe is addressing this three years in advance

The Automation Imperative

A senior representative from a market participant shared compelling statistics: their firm achieved a 99.9% same-day affirmation rate through implementing enhanced matching services. This wasn’t merely an operational improvement – it represented a commercial transformation that enabled greater client efficiency.

The message was clear: manual processes won’t survive T+1. A market infrastructure executive noted that simply accelerating existing manual processes would be insufficient, explaining that some manual workflows simply cannot function in a T+1 environment.

The Long Tail Problem

A senior custodian executive identified a critical challenge: reaching the industry’s long tail, particularly smaller asset managers still operating on manual processes with fax-based trade confirmations. The solution lies with the intermediaries in the room – custodians and brokers who must cascade information to their clients. As one panel member emphasised, every asset manager requires a broker or custodian to conduct business, making these intermediaries the primary mechanism for reaching smaller firms.

Financial Reality Check

The panel delivered a stark warning about delayed action. A survey revealed that 30% of the US asset management industry had done nothing three months before go-live, resulting in a 16-18% increase in back-office staff costs post-transition as firms threw bodies at problems instead of investing in automation.

The message was unambiguous: the market will move with or without laggards, and those unprepared face financial penalties at minimum, or potentially being shut out of business entirely if they become too costly or risky to deal with.

Beyond Settlement: The Ripple Effects

The discussion revealed T+1’s far-reaching impact beyond simple settlement acceleration. Asset managers face cascading changes from custody settlement affecting fund redemptions, subscriptions, and NAV calculations. Europe’s 35,000 UCITS funds with redemption periods ranging from T+0 to T+5 will need comprehensive restructuring.

A market infrastructure representative highlighted often-overlooked areas like asset servicing, noting surprises during the US transition, and the complex dynamics around derivative exercises and assignments where different market participants are pushing for opposing approaches.

The Road Ahead

The EU T+1 industry committee continues work on three critical areas: SSI (Standing Settlement Instructions), partials, and repo segment optimisation, with additional recommendations expected by November 2025 and a comprehensive playbook by early 2026.

However, success requires unprecedented coordination between industry committees, technical working groups, and public authorities across 27 member states and 30 CSDs. The regulatory framework through amended CSDR will mandate compliance, but enforcement relies on national competent authorities.

The Verdict: Start Now or Risk Being Left Behind

The panel’s unanimous verdict was clear: this represents a critical priority requiring immediate action. Giovanni’s analogy resonated – he chose T+1 work over retirement rock climbing because, as he quipped, “T+1 summit is a greater goal.”  

With digital assets already operating on instant settlement and traditional markets moving toward T+0 discussions, T+1 represents not just operational change but preparation for an entirely different financial infrastructure future.

The clock is ticking. 500 working days may sound like a lot, but for organisations needing to overhaul systems, processes, and behaviours across complex European markets, it’s barely enough time – if they start now.

Brussels launch event

July, 03 2025

On 3 July 2025, the EU T+1 Industry Committee held its Launch Event in Brussels, marking the official presentation of the High-Level Roadmap for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle in the European Union. The event brought together regulators, market infrastructures, and industry participants to outline the shared vision, governance framework, and next steps toward the transition, targeted for 11 October 2027.

It also opened the public consultation period (4 July – 31 August 2025), inviting stakeholders across the financial ecosystem to contribute feedback on the roadmap. The launch highlighted the importance of automation, standardisation, and cross-border coordination, ensuring that Europe’s capital markets remain efficient, resilient, and globally competitive.