Agreeing an exchange rate and safely exchanging the two currencies are separate tasks. An FX counterparty can pay its currency yet fail to receive the currency owed in return. The BIS’s June 2026 analysis of the April 2025 Triennial Survey examines this settlement exposure by looking at how the currency payments were completed. BIS: Uncovering FX settlement risk, 2025 Triennial Survey
Follow the evidence
Trace how the event could reach markets, then inspect a competing explanation.
Compare explanations
Switch lenses to see what each account explains—and what remains uncertain.
WFN analysis: imagine two counterparties that offset several obligations before making the remaining payments. The amount still to be exchanged may be smaller, which can reduce the exposure. That arithmetic alone does not establish that either remaining payment is conditional on receiving the other. A settlement review needs both the net amount and the rule connecting the final transfers. Consider an explicitly hypothetical trade requiring delivery of 100 units of one currency against an agreed amount of another. If the first transfer becomes final while the second remains unpaid, the exposure concerns the delivered principal. A small change in the exchange rate does not describe the size of that missing payment. Price risk and payment-completion risk therefore belong in separate fields. Linked settlement also leaves other questions to investigate. An institution still needs to arrange the required funds and meet operational deadlines. A protected final exchange does not establish that funding will be available at every required moment. The practical review follows the full process, from the original obligation to the evidence that both currency transfers became final.
WFN analysis: imagine two counterparties that offset several obligations before making the remaining payments. The amount still to be exchanged may be smaller, which can reduce the exposure. That arithmetic alone does not establish that either remaining payment is conditional on receiving the other. A settlement review needs both the net amount and the rule connecting the final transfers. Consider an explicitly hypothetical trade requiring delivery of 100 units of one currency against an agreed amount of another. If the first transfer becomes final while the second remains unpaid, the exposure concerns the delivered principal. A small change in the exchange rate does not describe the size of that missing payment. Price risk and payment-completion risk therefore belong in separate fields. Linked settlement also leaves other questions to investigate. An institution still needs to arrange the required funds and meet operational deadlines. A protected final exchange does not establish that funding will be available at every required moment. The practical review follows the full process, from the original obligation to the evidence that both currency transfers became final.
A useful record identifies the currencies, counterparties, payment dates, settlement arrangement and finality evidence. For a claim that netting or a settlement service reduces risk, ask which exposure is reduced and how. The service name by itself cannot substitute for the applicable rules. This is a suggested editorial review method, rather than an assessment of any individual provider. For an FX market briefing, retain the survey’s reference period alongside its percentages. The BIS figures illuminate infrastructure and settlement practices; they do not prescribe a direction for a currency pair. If an argument connects settlement arrangements to financing costs or market access, state that additional argument separately and identify the evidence needed to test it.
What the survey actually measured
The BIS reports that just over $5 trillion, or 36% of average daily settlement in the survey month, used payment versus payment. Another $7.6 trillion, or 54%, used methods that mitigated settlement risk without eliminating it. More than $1.4 trillion, or 10%, settled on a gross bilateral basis. These figures describe April 2025 settlement, not today’s trading turnover. BIS: Uncovering FX settlement risk, 2025 Triennial Survey
Basel guidance defines payment versus payment by linking the final transfer of one currency to the final transfer of the other. The arrangement addresses the risk of losing the principal paid when the corresponding payment does not arrive. The guidance separately identifies replacement-cost and liquidity risks in FX settlement. Basel Committee: FX settlement risk management, RMA20
Why netting and linked payment are different
WFN analysis: imagine two counterparties that offset several obligations before making the remaining payments. The amount still to be exchanged may be smaller, which can reduce the exposure. That arithmetic alone does not establish that either remaining payment is conditional on receiving the other. A settlement review needs both the net amount and the rule connecting the final transfers.
Consider an explicitly hypothetical trade requiring delivery of 100 units of one currency against an agreed amount of another. If the first transfer becomes final while the second remains unpaid, the exposure concerns the delivered principal. A small change in the exchange rate does not describe the size of that missing payment. Price risk and payment-completion risk therefore belong in separate fields.
Linked settlement also leaves other questions to investigate. An institution still needs to arrange the required funds and meet operational deadlines. A protected final exchange does not establish that funding will be available at every required moment. The practical review follows the full process, from the original obligation to the evidence that both currency transfers became final.
Build a settlement record that can be checked
A useful record identifies the currencies, counterparties, payment dates, settlement arrangement and finality evidence. For a claim that netting or a settlement service reduces risk, ask which exposure is reduced and how. The service name by itself cannot substitute for the applicable rules. This is a suggested editorial review method, rather than an assessment of any individual provider.
For an FX market briefing, retain the survey’s reference period alongside its percentages. The BIS figures illuminate infrastructure and settlement practices; they do not prescribe a direction for a currency pair. If an argument connects settlement arrangements to financing costs or market access, state that additional argument separately and identify the evidence needed to test it.