24/5 Trading: Structural Shift — or Structural Risk?

Extended trading hours are often seen as a logical next step, but both our survey data and feedback from TradeTech suggest a different reality. Demand from retail clients is increasing, yet operational readiness is lagging. Most market participants are only starting to assess what this shift means for their end-to-end operating model. To better understand this transition, we conducted a survey among selected trading, operations, and technology leaders and attended the expert panel at Trade Tech. The results provide a more differentiated—and in some areas more critical—view than the narrative often seen in the market.

Learnings from TradeTech 2026

One of the clearest takeaways from TradeTech Amsterdam is that the European market reality does not support a simplistic extension of trading hours. More trading hours do not necessarily create more liquidity. Instead, they may result in liquidity being spread more thinly across the day, which can have implications for market quality.

This is the area of highest concern:

• If market structure is designed around availability rather than actual liquidity, execution quality may deteriorate. 
• It becomes a fundamental question: what should markets actually deliver? Constant access or a more traditional but still essential point: markets as a system for capital allocation, supporting the real economy and building long-term trust. 

Learnings from our survey - Alignment on Direction, Not on Readiness

The survey results indicate some alignment amongst respondents: extended trading hours will become relevant—but not without significant friction.

Two findings stand out:

• Operational complexity is perceived as a key constraint, with the majority of respondents expecting medium to high implementation effort, and only a very small minority anticipating limited impact. 
• The expected timeline is gradual: most participants see 24/5 trading and clearing becoming relevant within 12–24 months or beyond. 

There is a strong expectation from clients towards brokers in navigating this transition—particularly in aligning trading and post-trade processes. Qualitative feedback indicates concerns about a lack of liquidity and that parts of the industry are not ready in terms of operational handling in middle-offices, treasury and core systems. Taken together, the results suggest that the industry is aligning on the direction of travel—but not on the readiness to execute it.

Trading Perspective — Demand Driven by Access, Not Liquidity

From a trading perspective, interest in 24/5 is primarily driven by retail clients and client-centric use cases, while expectations of structural liquidity improvements remain secondary.

The most relevant applications include reaction to earnings and macro events outside core trading hours and hedging/risk management for global exposures. Client facilitation is viewed as key driver. However, expectations for improved liquidity and execution quality remain low. Participants highlighted challenges such as wider spreads outside core hours, uncertain price discovery as well as reduced execution quality and increased slippage.

For trading desks, this raises a fundamental question: does 24/5 create new opportunities—or shift existing activity into less efficient market conditions?

Implications highlighted by respondents include:

• Focus on use-case driven adoption, not blanket expansion of coverage 
• Define clearly which client segments justify extended trading availability 
• Adapt execution strategies to lower liquidity environments 
• Reassess performance metrics outside core trading hours 
• Strengthen analytics around spreads, slippage, and execution quality 

Operations Perspective — Where the Real Transformation Will Happen

Survey responses indicate that the most significant challenges lie in post-trade and operational processes, including:

• Cut-offs and handoffs across time zones 
• Reconciliation and break management in continuous cycles 
• Funding, FX, and liquidity windows 
• Margining and collateral processes 
• Staffing and 24/5 operating models 
• Treat 24/5 readiness as a transformation program, not an incremental adjustment 
• Review dependencies on funding cycles, FX windows, and clearing cut-offs 
• Strengthen monitoring, controls, and incident response frameworks 
• Reassess staffing models, including on-call and follow-the-sun setups 
• Control frameworks and monitoring 
• Incident response models 
• System availability and support structures 

Respondents rated these areas as medium to high impact.

The Critical Misconception — Trading Availability ≠ Market Quality

A central theme across the survey responses is a persistent misconception about extended trading. Retail participants implicitly assume that longer trading hours lead to:

• Continuous liquidity 
• Stable pricing dynamics 
• Seamless clearing and settlement 

These elements evolve at different speeds.

Bridging the Gap — The Role of Transaction Banking

The survey highlights a clear expectation towards external partners—particularly in bridging the gap between front-office demand and operational execution. This is where external providers, including transaction banking providers, can move beyond execution support and act as an integrator across the trading and operations value chain. Key areas of support include post-trade readiness and process design, clearing, settlement, and control frameworks. The role is not to provide isolated solutions, but to help clients translate strategic intent into operational reality.

Conclusion — Preparedness Will Define Success

The transition towards longer trading hours and clearing is underway—but it will be neither immediate nor linear. Survey feedback and attendees of TradeTech suggest differing preferences between retail and institutional clients. Use cases are identifiable and very likely not profitable. Operational readiness remains limited. Bottomline: In this environment, competitive advantage will not come from being early—but from being operationally prepared. Firms that approach this shift purely from a trading perspective risk underestimating its complexity. The biggest challenges are not in trading, but in operations and post‑trade. At its core, the debate is about purpose: what should markets deliver.