In the early days of modern financial markets (mid-20th century and earlier), settlement periods were quite long – often five business days (T+5) or more. This was due to the manual, paper-based nature of trading. Physical stock certificates had to be delivered. Payments were processed via checks. Settlement systems and processes in back-office operations were coordinated by mail or phone.
With the advancement of electronic trading, back-office automation, and centralized clearing through organizations like the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the US and many other markets transitioned to a T+3 cycle in the 1990s. This three-day period was seen as a balance between operational feasibility and reducing credit and counterparty risk.
The European Union (EU) moved to T+2 in 2014 as part of regulatory reforms after the 2008 financial crisis (e.g., the European settlement regulation, CSD Regulation). The US followed in September 2017, citing benefits like reduced risk exposure and greater harmonization with global financial markets. Other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Hong Kong, and Canada, also adopted T+2, making it the new global standard.
From then on, the consensus was that a T+2 cycle was appropriate. From a risk perspective, the two-day gap between trading and financial transaction settlement was not an obstacle because of the role of clearing houses. The two-day window also allowed middle and back-office settlement systems and processes to be completed in time, including cross-border securities settlement.