Now that we’re into the T+1 settlement transition, the industry has gained enough experience to share meaningful observations about what this change has meant for market participants.
Rich Robinson, chairman of ISITC, a securities industry standards group, has been closely engaged with member firms throughout this transition period and has shared his perspective on how the industry is adapting.
Through ISITC’s position in the industry, he has provided key insights into how firms are approaching their post-T+1 operations and what questions are emerging about the future of settlement processes.
We recently caught up with Rich Robinson to talk about how this transition is influencing technology adoption, risk management, and strategic shifts across sectors.
Rich Robinson is Chair of ISITC and Chief Strategist for Open Data and Standards at Bloomberg LP, where he works with global regulators and industry leaders on improving market transparency through open data standards like FIGI and LEI.
With over 30 years in financial services, Rich has led major initiatives across data, operations, and messaging at custodian banks, brokerages, and industry utilities.
He is also the author of Understanding Financial Services Through Linguistics and serves in leadership roles with ISO 20022 and the Asia-Pacific Financial Forum.
So as U.S. markets approach the one-year mark of the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle, the dust is settling—but the dialogue around its impact is just heating up.
While many headlines focused on reduced settlement risk and freed-up liquidity, the full picture is more complex as we learned during our conversation.
Behind the scenes, operations teams, custodians, and investment managers have been adapting to compressed timelines, cross-border challenges, and unexpected downstream consequences.
To better understand what’s happening post-implementation, CI connected with Rich Robinson.
Our chat with Robinson is shared below.
Crowdfund Insider: Nearly a year in, what’s the broad consensus among your member firms about how the T+1 transition went?
Rich Robinson: The transition itself, from a technical and industry coordination standpoint, was successful, especially when viewed through the lens of broker-to-broker, on-exchange transactions. These flows are highly automated, and much of the early modeling around T+1 assumed that level of simplicity.
But what’s become more apparent over the past year is the extent to which the investment manager-to-broker workflows introduce a very different set of challenges.
These workflows involve more participants — investment managers, custodians, third-party administrators, FX providers, securities lenders — and more variability in processes. As a result, firms on that side of the market are still adjusting, particularly when it comes to cross-border trading, funding, and exception resolution.
Crowdfund Insider: You mentioned cross-border issues. Can you unpack what firms are struggling with there?
Rich Robinson: Cross-border funding has been one of the biggest pain points. Imagine an Australian asset manager executing a trade in U.S. equities. Because of the time zone difference, the U.S. settlement date is effectively tomorrow for them. That compresses the window to complete FX conversion, secure funding, and get instructions in place. In some cases, it has led to calls for pre-funding, which is a significant shift from how firms have traditionally operated.
Additionally, not all firms are members of CLS (Continuous Linked Settlement), and those that aren’t, may face even more manual processes to complete FX settlement in time. Smaller firms, in particular, don’t have the infrastructure to absorb that change easily. We’ve heard of some institutions negotiating bilateral agreements or opting to trade in T+2 markets when feasible, simply to avoid these hurdles.
Crowdfund Insider: Has the move to T+1 created more trade failures or operational issues than expected?
Rich Robinson: That’s something we’re still quantifying through industry surveys and feedback, but anecdotal evidence suggests that while widespread trade failures haven’t materialized, firms are relying on more workarounds than initially anticipated. One concern is that compressed timelines are magnifying small inefficiencies. A delay in one part of the chain—like securities lending recalls or allocation mismatches—has less time to be corrected, especially when people are involved in resolving the issue.
It’s also worth noting that many smaller and mid-sized firms still rely on semi-manual processes, pressing a button to send a fax or secure PDF doesn’t quite meet the straight-through processing ideal. For those firms, adapting to T+1 hasn’t just been about timing. It’s been a capacity and infrastructure issue.
Crowdfund Insider: What about liquidity? Has T+1 delivered the kind of capital efficiency that advocates promised?
Rich Robinson: On the broker-to-broker side, absolutely. The DTCC and others estimated reductions in clearing fund requirements of up to 40 percent, and that’s a meaningful shift. But when we zoom out to the full trade lifecycle, the capital story is more nuanced. Yes, some capital is freed up, but other firms—especially those in cross-border roles—may now need to pre-fund trades or maintain larger liquidity buffers to avoid settlement failures. So for some, the net effect is neutral or even negative.
Crowdfund Insider: What role has industry collaboration played in smoothing the transition?
Rich Robinson: It’s been essential. One of the things we’re proud of at ISITC is how actively we collaborated with firms, regulators, and infrastructure providers leading up to the transition. We organized education sessions, issued guidance, and worked closely with a number of other industry bodies.
That spirit of cooperation continues. Ahead of the UK and EU T+1 moves, we’re participating in joint discussions and supporting industry surveys—like the one from ValueExchange—that aim to inform what worked and what needs refinement. The cross-pollination of insights from the U.S. experience is already helping shape a more measured approach abroad.
Crowdfund Insider: Some industry leaders have started talking about T+0. What’s your view on whether that’s realistic?
Rich Robinson: From a clearing and automation standpoint, T+0 might seem achievable, but in practice it’s a huge leap. Even today, when a trade breaks—whether due to incorrect allocation, inventory shortfall, or a missing FX leg—it takes time to fix. And while technologies like DLT and AI can assist, they don’t eliminate the need for people to step in and resolve issues.
So unless every component of the trade lifecycle, including FX, securities lending, and corporate actions, becomes fully automated and universally integrated, T+0 is not realistic for the broader market. Broker-to-broker flows might get there, but anything involving investment managers, custodians, or global coordination will remain on a longer timeline.
Crowdfund Insider: What are the biggest lessons that regulators and firms in the UK and EU should take from the U.S. experience?
Rich Robinson: First, separate the analysis between broker transactions and investment manager workflows. They operate in very different ways and face different challenges under compressed timelines. Second, don’t underestimate the lift for smaller firms. What looks like a minor operational tweak for one firm might require a complete process overhaul for another. Third, build in time for education and cross-industry collaboration. The U.S. benefited from having a long runway and extensive outreach from groups like ISITC and DTCC. That helped limit surprises.
The good news is, European regulators appear to be engaging early and listening. If they maintain that level of openness and factor in the real-world experience of the U.S. shift, the transition will be far smoother.