Table of Contents

Good Faith Violation: The Ultimate Guide to Trading in a Cash Account

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney or financial advisor. Always consult with a professional for guidance on your specific legal or financial situation.

What is a Good Faith Violation? A 30-Second Summary

Imagine you have $1,000 in your checking account. On Monday, your friend gives you a check for $500, which you immediately deposit. Your account balance now shows $1,500, but that $500 is “pending” or “unsettled.” Before the check officially clears, you see a must-have item for $1,200. You write a check for it, knowing the $500 will clear soon. This is the real-world equivalent of what happens in a good faith violation in stock trading. You used money that was “in your account” but not officially yours yet. A good faith violation (GFV) is a specific trading infraction that occurs in a `cash_account` when you sell a stock that you purchased with funds that have not yet settled. Essentially, you are selling a security before you have fully paid for it with cleared money. While it sounds technical, it’s one of the most common pitfalls for new investors. It's not a crime that will land you in jail, but it is a serious rule violation that can lead to significant restrictions on your trading account. Understanding this rule is absolutely critical to avoiding headaches and protecting your ability to invest freely.

Part 1: The Regulatory Foundations of Good Faith Violations

The 'Why' Behind the Rule: Protecting the Financial System

The concept of a good faith violation isn't an arbitrary rule designed to trap investors. Its roots go back to the aftermath of the `great_depression` and the stock market crash of 1929. Before this era, trading was rampant with speculation, often fueled by borrowed money and credit (known as `margin`) that didn't actually exist. When the market crashed, this house of cards collapsed, leading to widespread financial ruin. In response, Congress passed the landmark `securities_exchange_act_of_1934`, which created the `Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)` and gave it the power to regulate the markets. One of the core goals was to ensure that when someone buys a security, they can actually pay for it. This led to the creation of formal settlement periods—a designated time for the buyer's cash to be delivered to the seller and the seller's securities to be delivered to the buyer. The Federal Reserve Board was given authority under this act to set rules for credit extended by `broker-dealers`. The result was `regulation_t`, the master rulebook governing how investors use cash and credit to purchase securities. The good faith violation rule is a direct extension of Regulation T's mandate: you must be able to fully pay for your purchase. Selling a stock before the funds you used to buy it have settled is seen by regulators as a form of “unsecured credit,” where you are effectively using the brokerage firm's money to float your trade, even if just for a day or two. The rule exists to maintain market stability and prevent a domino effect of failed trades.

The Law on the Books: Regulation T

The primary rule governing good faith violations is the Federal Reserve Board's `regulation_t`. While the regulation itself is dense legal text, its application to cash accounts is straightforward. Regulation T requires that an investor in a `cash_account` must make “full cash payment” for any securities purchased without creating a credit extension. The interpretation by the `SEC` and `FINRA` (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) is that using the proceeds from a sale before that sale has settled constitutes a form of credit.

How Brokerage Firms Implement the Rule

While `regulation_t` is a federal rule, each brokerage firm is responsible for monitoring its clients' accounts and enforcing the regulations. This leads to minor variations in how warnings and restrictions are applied, although the underlying rule is the same everywhere. Here is a general comparison of how major brokerage firms might handle good faith violations. Always check your specific broker's policy, as it may change.

Brokerage Firm GFV Count for Restriction Restriction Type Forgiveness Policy
Fidelity 3 GFVs in 12 months on a rolling basis. 90-day restriction (can only buy with settled cash). May grant a one-time “good faith” exception upon request per the lifetime of the account.
Charles Schwab 3 GFVs in 12 months. 90-day restriction (must use settled cash for purchases). Generally does not advertise a forgiveness policy; restrictions are enforced.
E*TRADE 4 GFVs in a 12-month period. 90-day restriction on the fourth violation. Case-by-case basis, but not a standard advertised policy.
TD Ameritrade 3 GFVs in a 12-month rolling period. 90-day restriction (buy orders only accepted if you have sufficient settled cash). Does not typically offer forgiveness; emphasizes investor education to prevent violations.

What this means for you: No matter which broker you use, the core principle is the same. You are personally responsible for tracking your settled cash balance. Violating the rule three or four times will almost certainly result in your account being restricted for 90 days, significantly hindering your trading flexibility.

Part 2: Deconstructing the Core Elements

To truly understand a good faith violation, you need to see it in action. Let's break down a real-world scenario element by element.

The Anatomy of a Good Faith Violation: A Clear Example

Let's follow an investor named Alex who has a `cash_account` with $0 in settled cash but owns 100 shares of Company A.

This example highlights the critical timing element. If Alex had waited until Wednesday to sell his Company B stock, there would have been no violation, because the cash from his Company A sale would have been fully settled.

The Players on the Field: Who's Who in a GFV Case

Part 3: Your Practical Playbook

Step-by-Step: How to Avoid and Handle a Good Faith Violation

Knowledge is power. Follow this chronological guide to protect your account.

Essential Records and Communications

While there are no legal “forms” to file, keeping track of your own activity is crucial.

Part 4: Related Trading Violations: A Comparative Analysis

A good faith violation is part of a family of “cash account trading violations.” Understanding the distinctions is key, as they are often confused but have different levels of severity.

Violation Type Definition Key Difference from GFV Consequence
Good Faith Violation Selling a security purchased with unsettled funds before the initial funds settle. The investor has the funds on the way; the issue is one of timing. Warning, then 90-day settled cash restriction.
Freeriding Violation Buying a security and then selling it without ever paying for the initial purchase at all. This is more serious. It means the funds to cover the first trade never arrived in the account. Immediate 90-day account freeze (cannot buy, may only sell).
Liquidation Violation Buying a security, but then being forced to sell another security to meet the payment obligation for the first purchase. You fail to pay for a purchase on time and the broker has to liquidate other positions to cover it. Warning, then 90-day settled cash restriction.

Deeper Dive: Freeriding

`freeriding` is a more severe violation of `regulation_t`. This occurs if, in our example with Alex, his initial sale of Company A for $5,000 somehow failed (e.g., the trade was busted, or it was funded by a check that bounced). If he had already used that “money” to buy and sell Company B, he would have profited from a trade he literally never paid for. This is considered a serious breach of market rules. The penalty is typically an immediate 90-day freeze on the account, where you cannot make any new purchases.

Deeper Dive: Liquidation Violation

A `liquidation_violation` is similar to a GFV but focuses on the failure to pay. For example, say you have $1,000 settled cash. On Monday you buy $3,000 of Stock X, promising to deposit the extra $2,000 by the settlement date (Wednesday). On Wednesday, you still haven't deposited the cash, so your broker is forced to sell your $3,000 position in Stock X to cover the cost. This forced sale is a liquidation violation. Like a GFV, accumulating too many of these results in a 90-day settled cash restriction.

Part 5: The Future of Good Faith Violations

Today's Battlegrounds: The Move to T+1 Settlement

For decades, the standard settlement cycle in the U.S. was T+3. In 2017, it moved to T+2. As of May 28, 2024, the U.S. securities industry has transitioned to a T+1 settlement cycle.

On the Horizon: Real-Time Settlement and Blockchain

The ultimate endgame for market infrastructure is T+0, or real-time settlement. Technologies like blockchain and distributed ledgers (`dlt`) offer the theoretical possibility of trades settling almost instantaneously.

See Also