This article was first published in the Repo Annual 2026 here
Richard Glen, solutions architect at HQLAᵡ, discusses how liquidity management is being forced to evolve, from end-of-day models
to being available at a precise point in time
For decades, liquidity management was shaped in an era when resilience was assessed at fixed reporting points rather than continuously through the business day. Intraday volatility was recognised but it was largely assumed that adequate opening funding and credit lines would absorb whatever pressures arose in between. Daily fluctuations existed, but they were treated as manageable noise — operational issues to be smoothed over rather than strategic concerns demanding constant attention. That assumption no longer holds.
Today’s global financial markets operate at intraday speed. Payments, margin calls, securities settlements, and collateral substitutions arrive continuously across the business day, often under tight deadlines and within narrow operational windows. Liquidity shortfalls no longer wait patiently until tomorrow’s opening balances. They emerge suddenly, peak sharply and must be addressed in real time. What was once an operationali nconvenience has become an enterprise level risk issue — and an increasingly important focus for supervisors and regulators worldwide.
Several structural forces are converging to expose the limitations of traditional end-of-day funding models. The most visible is the compression of settlement cycles. The global move towards T+1 settlement significantly reduces the time available to source cash and collateral, increasing the sensitivity of funding operations to intraday timing mismatches. At the same time, cleared markets are calling margin intraday with greater frequency, responding dynamically to market volatility rather than waiting until end-of-day. Liquidity is no longer simply required ‘today’; it is required at a precise point in time.
Regulatory expectations have evolved in parallel. Supervisors are no longer satisfied with static, end-of-day liquidity ratios alone. Increasingly, they are focused on how institutions monitor, control, and fund intraday liquidity peaks. Firms are expected to demonstrate that liquidity buffers are operationally usable throughout the business day — not merely held as unencumbered balances overnight. The emphasis has shifted from theoretical resilience to demonstrable agility.
At the same time, prudent buffers have become less efficient. Prefunding daily activity with excess cash or maintaining large precautionary credit lines carries an increasingly visible cost. High-quality liquid assets (HQLA) consume balance sheets, attract capital charges, and weigh on return on equity when immobilised as ‘just in case’ resources. In an environment of tighter capital constraints and heightened balance sheet scrutiny, unused liquidity is no longer free.
The result is clear: intraday liquidity management has moved from the margins of treasury operations into the core of strategic decision-making.
Despite this shift, most funding markets remain anchored to an overnight paradigm. In many jurisdictions, overnight repo remains the shortest widely available and operationally standardised tenor. In practice, many front and back office systems still lack native support for true same‑day start and end legs, constrained by hard‑coded assumptions designed for slower markets.
Collateral optimisation processes reinforce this rigidity. Allocation decisions are typically performed in organisational and technological silos, at fixed points during the day, and are heavily reliant on forecasts rather than real‑time positions. While collateral substitution, trade unwinds or ad hoc funding adjustments are possible intraday, they are often operationally heavy, imprecise, and poorly aligned to time‑specific liquidity needs.
This creates a structural mismatch. Institutions face short‑lived intraday liquidity peaks but are forced to rely on overnight funding, carrying balance sheet exposure longer than economically necessary. The cost of this mismatch — in capital usage, funding expense, and risk — grows as market velocity increases. Intraday repo itself is not a new concept. In some markets, particularly in the United States, pricing frameworks that supported funding by the minute encouraged early innovation. Elsewhere, however, intraday repo has remained more aspirational than scalable. That is now
beginning to change.
Regulators are not mandating intraday repo as a specific product. Their direction of travel, however, is increasingly clear. Supervisory guidance consistently points towards real‑time visibility of intraday liquidity positions, early identification of emerging stress points, and reduced reliance on unsecured or discretionary intraday credit — particularly during periods of market volatility.
Intraday repo succeeds when positioned as an extension of familiar secured funding practices, enabled — rather than defined — by new technology”
Equally important is the emphasis placed on collateral mobility. Supervisors scrutinise a firm’s ability to mobilise high‑quality collateral at short notice as evidence that liquidity buffers are genuinely usable under stress. In effect, the regulatory question has shifted from “how much liquidity do you hold?” to “how effectively can you deploy it when it matters most?”. Intraday repo speaks directly to this challenge. By converting high‑quality securities into time‑specific, secured funding, it transforms theoretical liquidity buffers into operational resources that can be deployed precisely when required.
Historically, the principal barrier to intraday repo has been infrastructure. That barrier is now eroding.
Modern collateral platforms such as HQLAᵡ combine regulated custody with distributed ledger technology to represent ownership of securities on a shared digital ledger. Rather than physically moving securities across fragmented custody networks, ownership of collateral can be transferred digitally, precisely when required. This capability fundamentally alters the economics of secured funding and allows lenders to generate additional alpha on intraday balances and borrowers to optimise their cost of funding.
Firstly, it enables true intraday delivery‑versus‑payment (DVP). Securities and cash can be synchronised across different collateral and cash platforms to the extent that the settlement of two obligations can be atomically linked, reducing principal risk and thereby meeting PFMI principle 12.
Secondly, digital controls allow start and end legs of repo transactions to be agreed and priced to the minute — or even the second — based on certainty that both sides of the trade are positioned for immediate settlement. This precision enables funding to be sourced only for the duration it is required, rather than defaulting to overnight tenors.
Third, certainty over cash and collateral flows significantly reduces operational and settlement risk. The defining difference is precision: liquidity is mobilised only when needed, and only for as long as needed.
Despite growing interest, the adoption of intraday repo hinges on pragmatic considerations. Firms want tangible balance sheet and capital benefits, not abstract claims of efficiency. They want compatibility with existing custody, settlement and repo infrastructure rather than wholesale system replacement. And they want regulatory comfort, not technology novelty risk.
Intraday repo succeeds when positioned as an extension of familiar secured funding practices, enabled — rather than defined — by new technology. Incremental adoption is therefore critical. Institutions look for credible pathways from pilot use cases to scaled deployment, underpinned by a clear return on investment.
Importantly, firms are also thinking beyond individual transactions. Intraday repo becomes most powerful when embedded within a broader collateral mobility strategy spanning repo, securities lending, and margin management. Treated in isolation, intraday repo delivers incremental benefit. Treated as part of an integrated collateral ecosystem, it delivers structural advantage.
Liquidity does not respect institutional, market, or technological boundaries. Intraday funding markets will only scale if collateral platforms, cash ledgers, and trading venues can connect seamlessly.
This is where interoperability reshapes the opportunity. A modular ecosystem — such as the one being developed by HQLAᵡ, J.P. Morgan, and Ownera — coordinates execution, lifecycle management and DVP settlement across multiple venues and cash options. Firms can service intraday liquidity needs from their preferred custody locations, without dependence on a single funding counterparty, cash provider, or liquidity venue.
Alignment with shared, privacy‑preserving networks such as the Canton Network further amplifies this effect. By enabling collateral use cases to interoperate naturally with other securities financing and margin applications, the industry shifts from bilateral optimisation towards network‑level efficiency. At that point, intraday repo ceases to be a niche concept discussed by specialists. It becomes a practical response to the realities of modern markets — and to how regulators increasingly expect liquidity risk to be managed.
As markets continue to accelerate, precision is becoming more valuable than volume. Institutions that rely solely on overnight funding will carry avoidable costs, risks, and rigidity. Those that invest in real‑time collateral mobility and interoperable infrastructure gain something more valuable than additional liquidity. They gain control, and in faster markets, control is the scarcest asset of all.
.svg)
