Sell Side Firms Increasingly Focused on Post-Trade: Survey
Posted by Colin Lambert. Last updated: September 3, 2026
Post-trade operations are increasingly being seen as a source of competitive advantage and capital efficiency rather than a back-office cost centre, as sell-side derivatives clearing firms grapple with T+1 settlement, rising data complexity and mounting regulatory pressure, a new report from Acuiti and Osttra – a post-trade services provider – has found.
The report is based upon a survey and interviews with 45 sell-side firms, including FCMs and clearing brokers, and finds that 96% of respondents with OTC derivatives activity and 89% of those participating in listed derivatives markets saw better post-trade netting and optimisation as a significant route to balance sheet and capital efficiency.
The firms say the shift is being driven by the compressed timelines of T+1 settlement, a shifting global regulatory landscape and growing recognition that a modernised post-trade infrastructure is a key platform to mitigate these challenges with. The calculation of G-SIB ratings, moving from a static end-of-year basis to daily calculation is a big factor in the regulatory change.
Investment in post-trade process is also increasingly viewed as a competitive advantage and source of alpha. Nearly nine in 10 respondents saw superior post-trade transparency, speed, and automation as a key competitive differentiator when servicing institutional clients, with 43% saying it is already a significant driver of client decisions.
The research also highlights the operational drag created by manual processes: 66% of firms said their listed derivatives operations teams were spending more than 10% of their time resolving post-trade exceptions, fails and settlement breaks, while 82% said that more than 10% of their bilateral OTC derivatives trades were still confirmed manually rather than electronically.
Poor data quality was found to have wide-ranging consequences. Commissions and fee payments were cited by 64% of respondents as the main pain point caused by poor data quality, while 54% said it impacted T+1 reconciliation and exception management. This is a key area for firms to get right as AI deployment accelerates in the space.
Adoption of artificial intelligence in post-trade is already well underway, with almost a third of firms in live production deployment and a similar proportion running active pilots.
“Across global financial markets, post-trade capability is proving to be a decisive differentiator in how counterparties collaborate,” says Erik Petri, head of optimisation at Osttra. “As compressed timelines like T+1 raise the bar for speed and accuracy, both hedge funds and asset managers benefit significantly from real-time transparency and efficient margin and collateral management. Investing in post-trade infrastructure doesn’t just deepen client relationships – it empowers trading desks to operate with far greater capital efficiency.
“Greater capital optimisation will require data that is timely and accurate,” he continues. “Firms will be looking to move data seamlessly between the front and middle office, allowing the trading desk to make more efficient and better-informed trading decisions.”
Ross Lancaster, head of research at Acuiti, adds, “For years, post-trade has been viewed as a cost centre rather than a source of value. Our research shows that view is changing. The sell-side has recognised that faster, cleaner post-trade processing doesn’t just reduce risk and operational cost, but also frees up capital that can be redeployed into the front office. Post-trade is increasingly a source of hidden alpha, and the firms that treat it as a strategic capability rather than a background utility will be the ones that pull ahead.”
The Full FX View
Can the post-trade really be a competitive advantage? This report claims it can, and to a degree it is right – if firms are unwilling to invest in, and connect to, post-trade services, then they will undoubtedly be left behind.
Given the regulatory pressures, however, it is a fair question to ask, how many firms will not be willing? It seems a no-brainer to reduce costs in an era where spread compression remains a big theme for the front office.
So really this is a question of connectivity to one or more of the utility-like infrastructures in the industry, which will ensure a firm remains competitive. It is hard to see how a firm can really differentiate if it is using compression, novation, netting and PvP settlement or clearing. Yes, this all costs money, but it will probably be money well-spent – and it is because most firms will realise this, that it is unclear if there is a competitive advantage, or if there is, for how long it will last.
Firms have been investing in their internal post-trade efficiency for years – that is highlighted by the complaint about the impact of data quality on their processing rates – so this really is all about connectivity and third-party services, the latter being where the network effect for capital purposes really plays out.
One (slightly cynical) observation on the report is that while it states that firms which are able to free up capital currently trapped in inefficient post-trade processes would prioritise improving client service and competitive positioning, followed by technology investment and infrastructure modernisation, those same firms are highly likely to be in another survey complaining about the cost of data and other services. Perhaps they will look at improving their “competitive positioning”, but at some stage the bean-counters will step in and take the costs savings off the bottom line rather than reinvest!
Ultimately, therefore, this report is right, when it says that firms are looking at the back office less as a cost centre, but the top group of firms are probably going to struggle to deliver the alpha and advantages predicted, purely because most will be connected to the same places and have the same processes. Post-trade remains a utility – it can always be improved incrementally of course – but the biggest benefit provided by servicing firms is to deliver standardisation as much as possible so that the all-important network effect can take place.
