What Happens When a Securities Transaction Fails?

A Settlement Fail occurs when a securities transaction is not fully completed on the agreed settlement date. Typically, transactions are settled via Central Securities Depositories (CSDs), where delivery of securities is exchanged against payment (Delivery versus Payment – DvP). If either the securities or the cash are not available on the due date, it results in a settlement fail.

Settlement fails can arise from a variety of causes: operational errors such as missing bookings, faulty reference data, liquidity shortages, communication issues between market participants, or system outages. In every case, they represent a disruption of market infrastructure that not only affects individual participants but can also undermine trust and stability across the entire capital market.

Settlement fails usually occur when one party to a transaction does not meet its obligations on time. This can happen at any point in the post-trade process.

Common scenarios include:

• Non-availability of securities: The seller cannot deliver securities, for example, because they have not yet been credited to the account.
• Insufficient liquidity: The buyer has not provided enough cash.
• Incorrect or incomplete data: Transactions are not processed correctly due to errors in reference data or incorrect instructions.
• Manual intervention: In fragmented or non-automated processes, human error can cause delays.

It is important to note that settlement fails are often unintentional, caused more by a lack of process integration or short-term bottlenecks than by deliberate action.

Switching from T+2 to T+1 shortens the settlement window, the time between trade date and settlement date. This regulatory change, introduced in the US in May 2024 and expected in the EU, Switzerland and the UK for October 2027, has significant implications:

There is less time to correct lack of inventories and errors. Under T+1, market participants have only one business day to prepare and reconcile transactions. Settlement fails caused by operational deficiencies therefore leave much less room for resolution. The challenge is further heightened by different time zones. For international participants, time differences can create additional friction, for example, when trades are executed after market close in one region but must already be settled the following morning in another.

T+1 also increases the need for automation. Manual processes, particularly in cross-border transactions, become difficult to manage under these shortened timelines. Straight-through Processing (STP) is therefore a key success factor.

STP refers to the seamless and fully automated handling of financial transactions from order entry through execution to settlement and booking without the need for manual intervention. The goal of STP is to increase efficiency, minimize errors, and process transactions quickly and cost-effectively.

In the settlement process, the use of STP reduces errors because automated workflows prevent human input mistakes and misinterpretations. Faster processing also enables information to be exchanged in real time, which is especially critical under shorter settlement cycles such as T+1. In addition, end-to-end process chains allow for consistent monitoring, reporting, and escalation.

STP makes it possible to process higher transaction volumes without requiring a proportional increase in costs.

Reducing settlement fails requires a combination of measures:

• Automation: STP and real-time communication between trading partners, CSDs, and settlement platforms.
• Early matching (pre-matching): Counterparties should reconcile trade details in advance to prevent mismatches.
• Better data quality: Accurate and complete reference data is the foundation of smooth settlement.
• Effective exception management: Discrepancies must be identified, categorized, and resolved quickly.

Since the introduction of CSDR in the EU, the regulatory framework for settlement fails has become far stricter. The directive imposes reporting obligations and financial sanctions (cash penalties) for late settlements.

This affects not only banks but also brokers, asset managers, and other institutional participants. Inadequate fail management can therefore lead to regulatory consequences, higher audit costs, and reputational risks.

In today’s environment, where regulators demand transparency and efficiency, settlement fails have become a governance priority for modern financial institutions.