It feels like post-trade is finally getting more attention these days. Why now?
Honestly, I’ve never seen the pace of change we’re seeing now. For a long time, post-trade was fairly static – the same systems, the same processes, not much evolution. But right now, there are multiple forces converging: digital transformation, cost pressure on the buy-side, and regulatory shifts that are freeing up investment budgets.
All of that is driving a real sense of urgency. After 20 or 30 years of relative calm, post-trade has suddenly become one of the most dynamic parts of the value chain. And when it comes to what’s behind that shift in investment priorities, there’s really two big things.
First, firms are finally recognising that post-trade isn’t just a cost centre, it’s an enabler of growth. If your operations can’t support higher volumes, new asset classes, or faster settlement cycles, you’re stuck. Secondly, the regulatory environment has evolved. We’ve moved away from prescriptive, rules-based regulation toward more outcome-based frameworks. That means firms can decide how they meet the requirements, rather than being told exactly what to do.
That shift is freeing up budget and headspace. Instead of spending every penny maintaining legacy systems or responding to rule changes, firms can now invest in modernisation.
When it comes to those legacy systems, how are firms approaching the challenge they pose – especially given T+1?
A lot of the industry still runs on mainframes that are 40 years old. They’ve been incredibly reliable, but they weren’t designed for the pace and complexity of today’s markets. Modernisation is now non-negotiable. You can’t compete on speed, cost, or resilience if you’re relying on technology from the 1980s. What’s interesting is that this isn’t just about replacing old systems – it’s about rethinking how the post-trade process fits into a real-time, digital-first market structure.
Indeed, the US move to T+1 has been a real catalyst. Most firms there managed to hit the deadline, but many did it through quick fixes, things like micro-batching during the day or adding headcount, rather than fully modernising their systems. That means Europe and the UK now have a second-mover advantage. With the 2027 deadline, there’s time to do it properly. Rather than patching old infrastructure, firms can actually invest in real-time processing.
As Andrew Douglas and others have said, the goal should really be to prepare for T+0 – because once you have real-time capabilities, T+1 becomes the easy part.
Within the post-trade sphere, what’s the mood like across regions?
Optimistic, actually. We’re seeing higher trading volumes, less regulatory drag, and a real appetite to invest in technology. Combine that with budget flexibility and you’ve got a near-perfect environment for change. In Asia-Pacific, things are even more diverse – each market has its own path, its own culture, and its own approach to automation. Some are already at T+0, others are watching the US and Europe closely before making their move.
Read more: Keeping the APAC door open as Europe moves to T+1
Essentially, post-trade is the busiest and most exciting it’s ever been. Ten years ago, we were running proof-of-concepts and talking about distributed ledgers in theory. Now those ideas are being implemented at scale.
The combination of modern tech, regulatory breathing room, and industry momentum means post-trade is finally having its moment – and it’s reshaping the industry from the inside out.
When it comes to the buy-side, how are pressures from their side influencing sell-side behaviour?
The buy-side has been under margin pressure for years: fee compression, passive investment, etc. Therefore, when your clients are under pressure, it flows upstream. The sell-side has to transform to stay competitive – lower prices, more efficiency, better client experience.
That’s why post-trade is now seen as a strategic differentiator. It’s no longer an afterthought. If your clients are struggling, your ability to deliver operational efficiency becomes part of your value proposition. This all feeds into the automation discussion, in particular when it comes to fixed income, which is on its own automation journey.
You’ve got the very liquid government bond space on one end and illiquid corporates on the other – and they’re moving at different speeds. Tokenisation and digitisation are going to be huge for that market, especially for the less liquid assets. In a way, fixed income could leapfrog ahead, because the need for automation there is even greater.