Skip to main content
diversification.com
← Back to D Definitions

Delivery versus payment dvp

What Is Delivery Versus Payment (DVP)?

Delivery versus payment (DVP) is a securities settlement method that ensures the simultaneous transfer of securities and the corresponding payment. Within the broader context of financial market infrastructure, DVP is a critical mechanism designed to eliminate or significantly reduce principal risk in financial transactions. It mandates that a buyer's payment obligations are fulfilled before or concurrently with the delivery of the purchased securities. This synchronized exchange, often facilitated by a central counterparty (CCP) or a central securities depository (CSD), prevents a situation where one party delivers an asset without receiving the corresponding value, or vice versa.

History and Origin

The widespread adoption of delivery versus payment (DVP) gained significant momentum in the aftermath of the global stock market crash of October 1987. This event exposed vulnerabilities in existing clearance and settlement practices, prompting international financial bodies to seek more robust risk mitigation strategies. The Group of Thirty, an international economic policy consultative group, played a pivotal role, issuing recommendations that included making DVP the standard method for settling securities transactions by 1992.

Following these recommendations, the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS), now known as the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), comprised of representatives from major central banks, initiated further study on DVP. Their 1992 report, "Delivery versus payment in securities settlement systems," solidified the framework for achieving DVP and highlighted its importance in reducing credit risk and liquidity risk in the financial system.9 This collaborative effort underscored the global recognition of DVP as an essential element for financial stability.

Key Takeaways

  • Delivery versus payment (DVP) is a settlement method ensuring the simultaneous exchange of securities and funds.
  • Its primary purpose is to eliminate principal risk, where one party delivers assets but does not receive payment, or vice versa.
  • DVP systems enhance market integrity and reduce systemic risk by ensuring transaction finality.
  • The concept gained prominence after the 1987 market crash, leading to its widespread adoption as a best practice in securities markets.
  • Modern financial market infrastructures, including central banks, widely utilize DVP to process high-value transactions securely.

Interpreting the Delivery Versus Payment (DVP)

Delivery versus payment (DVP) is interpreted as a fundamental safeguard in the securities market, signifying a commitment to transaction integrity and risk reduction. When a system operates on a DVP basis, it means that the risk of one party failing to meet its obligation while the other party has already performed is virtually eliminated. This is crucial for maintaining confidence and efficiency, especially in wholesale payment systems and other high-value transactions.

The presence of a DVP mechanism indicates a robust risk management framework, as it directly addresses settlement risk. It ensures that ownership of a security is transferred only when the corresponding cash payment is confirmed, thereby preventing potential losses due to default. For participants, DVP offers assurance that their side of the trade will only be executed if the counterparty's side is also fulfilled, leading to greater certainty and reduced exposure in the market.

Hypothetical Example

Consider an institutional investor, DiversiFund, looking to purchase 10,000 shares of XYZ Corp. stock from a broker-dealer, Global Trades Inc. The agreed-upon price is $50 per share, totaling $500,000.

Under a delivery versus payment (DVP) arrangement, the settlement process would unfold as follows:

  1. Trade Execution: DiversiFund places the order, and Global Trades Inc. executes the trade. The trade date is recorded.
  2. Instruction Matching: Both DiversiFund's custodian bank and Global Trades Inc.'s custodian bank send instructions to the central securities depository (CSD) with the details of the transaction, including the security, quantity, and cash amount. The CSD matches these instructions.
  3. Simultaneous Exchange: On the settlement date, which for equities in the U.S. is typically one business day after the trade date (T+1), the CSD facilitates the DVP.
    • Global Trades Inc.'s securities account is debited by 10,000 shares of XYZ Corp.
    • DiversiFund's securities account is credited by 10,000 shares of XYZ Corp.
    • Simultaneously, DiversiFund's cash account is debited by $500,000.
    • Global Trades Inc.'s cash account is credited by $500,000.

This simultaneous exchange ensures that Global Trades Inc. receives its payment only when DiversiFund receives its shares, and vice versa. Neither party is exposed to the risk of having delivered their side of the transaction without receiving the corresponding value.

Practical Applications

Delivery versus payment (DVP) is a ubiquitous and fundamental principle in modern financial markets, underpinning the secure and efficient transfer of assets. Its practical applications span various segments of the financial industry:

  • Securities Settlement Systems: DVP is integral to the operations of national and international securities settlement systems. For instance, the Federal Reserve's Fedwire Securities Service, a real-time securities settlement system, processes a vast majority of its transfers on a DVP basis, ensuring the simultaneous exchange of securities and funds.8,7 This applies to U.S. Treasury securities, agency securities, and other eligible instruments.6
  • Central Securities Depositories (CSDs): CSDs rely on DVP to facilitate the safe transfer of ownership of dematerialized securities. They act as central points where both the securities and cash legs of a transaction converge, ensuring the finality of settlement.
  • Repurchase Agreements (Repos): In the repurchase agreement (repo) market, particularly in centrally cleared segments, DVP is crucial. It ensures that the cash lender receives the collateralized securities at the same time the cash borrower receives the funds, and vice versa when the repo unwinds.5,4
  • Regulatory Frameworks: Regulators globally, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) alongside IOSCO, emphasize DVP as a core principle for sound financial market infrastructures. The SEC, for example, has progressively shortened the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions to reduce various risks, including those mitigated by DVP. The standard settlement cycle moved from T+3 to T+2 in 2017 and further to T+1 in 2023.3,2

These applications highlight DVP's role in minimizing credit and liquidity risks, promoting market stability, and facilitating the smooth functioning of global financial transactions.

Limitations and Criticisms

While delivery versus payment (DVP) is a cornerstone of secure securities settlement, it does have certain limitations and nuances. DVP primarily addresses and mitigates principal risk, which is the risk that one party delivers an asset but does not receive the corresponding value. However, it does not entirely eliminate all forms of risk in a transaction.

For example, operational risk, such as errors in trade matching or system failures, can still occur and potentially disrupt the DVP process, leading to settlement failures even if the underlying DVP mechanism is sound. Furthermore, while DVP ensures that the exchange happens simultaneously, it does not protect against market risk, which is the risk that the value of the securities or cash may change between the time the trade is agreed upon and the time it settles.

Another area of discussion revolves around "non-DVP" transactions. While the industry largely operates on a DVP basis, some transfers of securities may occur "free of payment" (FOP), where securities are transferred without a simultaneous transfer of funds. This might happen in cases like gifts, inheritances, or internal transfers between accounts. Such transactions inherently carry different risk profiles, as they bypass the simultaneous exchange safeguard of DVP. The Investment Adviser Association (IAA) has engaged with the SEC regarding the application of the Custody Rule to non-DVP trading, highlighting that while DVP eliminates principal risk for the exchange, other risks like unauthorized trading persist regardless of the settlement method.1 Regulators and market participants continue to refine frameworks to manage these varied risks effectively across all types of securities transfers.

Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) vs. Free of Payment (FOP)

Delivery versus payment (DVP) and Free of Payment (FOP) represent two distinct methods for settling securities transactions, differing fundamentally in their treatment of the exchange of assets and cash.

Delivery Versus Payment (DVP), as discussed, mandates that the delivery of securities occurs simultaneously with the payment of funds. This synchronized exchange is designed to eliminate principal risk, ensuring that neither the buyer nor the seller is exposed to the risk of delivering their side of the trade without receiving the corresponding counter-value. In a DVP transaction, the "delivery leg" (securities movement) and the "payment leg" (cash transfer) are intrinsically linked, meaning one cannot occur without the other. This model is the standard for most commercial securities trades due to its inherent safety.

Free of Payment (FOP), conversely, involves the transfer of securities without a concurrent exchange of cash within the same settlement system. While the term "free of payment" might suggest no payment is involved, it often means that payment occurs through an independent mechanism, or that the transfer is not a purchase/sale. Examples include gifting securities, transferring shares between accounts under the same ownership, or certain corporate actions. Because the securities and cash legs are not directly linked within the same settlement process, FOP transactions carry a higher degree of principal risk compared to DVP, as there is a possibility that the securities are delivered but payment is not received, or vice versa, if an alternative payment method fails.

The key distinction lies in the simultaneity and linkage of the cash and securities movements. DVP provides a robust, risk-mitigating framework by enforcing this simultaneity, whereas FOP allows for the transfer of securities independent of a direct, synchronized payment.

FAQs

What is the primary purpose of delivery versus payment (DVP)?

The primary purpose of delivery versus payment (DVP) is to mitigate principal risk in securities transactions. This ensures that a seller delivers securities only upon receipt of payment, and a buyer makes payment only upon receipt of the securities, preventing one party from incurring a loss if the other defaults.

How does DVP reduce risk in financial markets?

DVP reduces risk by ensuring the simultaneity of delivery and payment. This eliminates the possibility of "delivery risk" (securities delivered, no payment received) and "payment risk" (payment made, no securities received), thereby reducing both credit risk and liquidity risk in the settlement process.

Is DVP used for all types of financial transactions?

DVP is predominantly used for securities transactions where the exchange of an asset for cash is required, such as equities, bonds, and certain derivatives. However, some transfers, like gifts or internal account movements, may occur "free of payment" (FOP) if no concurrent cash exchange is involved.

Who typically facilitates DVP?

Delivery versus payment (DVP) is typically facilitated by central securities depositories (CSDs) or clearing organizations, which act as trusted intermediaries. These entities manage the accounts for both securities and cash, ensuring that the debits and credits occur simultaneously in real-time or near-real-time.

What is the difference between DVP and Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS)?

While both relate to payment systems, DVP specifically refers to the simultaneous exchange of securities and cash. Real-time gross settlement (RTGS) is a type of payment system where individual transactions are settled continuously and immediately on a gross basis. DVP can be achieved within an RTGS system, where each securities delivery and its corresponding payment are settled individually and irrevocably as they occur.