第11回 FIAジャパン オペレーション委員会 議事録（公開版）FIA Japan Operations Committee — 11th Meeting Minutes (Public Version)

Note (Chatham House Rule): This record has been prepared under the Chatham House Rule; statements that would identify individual speakers have been removed. With the exception of the Chair (Shun Yanagisawa), the Secretariat (Tony Crane), the chairs of other FIAJ committees, and the Webmaster (David Wilkinson), neither individual names nor organization names are recorded. No substantive content — what was discussed or decided — has been altered.

Note (Status of this public version): This public version is not a verbatim rendering of the Secretariat's internal version. Wording has been deliberately altered to apply the Chatham House Rule. Substantive content — what was discussed and decided — matches the internal version, but word-for-word equivalence is not intended. The source is source/minutes/第11回_FIAジャパン_オペレーション委員会_議事録_v2.md.

Note (Reference translation): The English text below is a reference translation prepared for the website. The Secretariat's official record for this meeting exists in Japanese only.

1. Meeting Overview

2. Executive Summary

The 11th meeting of the committee focused primarily on the following three themes.

1. Clarifying the definitional gap between "Execution Date" and "Trade Date" in ISO and FIX (presented by JASDEC)
2. Review and distribution preparation of the industry questionnaire (position settlement methods and average unit price calculation methods)
3. Vendor status update on average unit price calculation methods (unit price method vs. amount method)

Key Points of Agreement

• Before considering system changes, priority is given to establishing a shared industry-wide understanding of terminology definitions.
• It was confirmed that ISO and FIX define the fields corresponding to "execution date" and "trade date" differently. Standardization policy will be considered after surveying actual operational practice at each firm.
• Broad agreement on the direction of designating the unit price method as the recommended industry standard for both realized and unrealized P&L.
• The industry questionnaire (Questions 1–5) will be finalized and distributed by early June.
• A committee member will attend the Foreign Asset Management Forum (FAMF) meeting on June 10, 2026 as a representative of FIA Japan (arranged by GSAM).
• It was confirmed that communication with FIA Global has already been completed and that support has been obtained.
• The next meeting was set for Tuesday, June 23, 2026 — 13:00 JST (moved later in response to participants' preferences).

3. Review of the Previous (10th) Meeting and Carry-Over Items

3.1 Background of Committee Activities (for New Participants)

Given the increase in participants at the start of the new fiscal year, it was confirmed that the summary of Sessions 1–10 had been distributed by email. The committee's activities are organized into the following four phases.

Streams running in parallel are as follows:

• Average unit price group (standardization of unit price method vs. amount method)
• FIFO logic (industry rollout of Pattern 3)
• Trade date / execution date issue (aligning ISO and FIX definitions)

3.2 Main Carry-Over Items from the 10th Meeting (April 21, 2026)

4. Agenda Item 1: Survey of Definitional Differences for Dates in ISO and FIX (presented by JASDEC)

4.1 Background and Problem Statement

In the futures and options space, there are cases where the execution date and the trade date can differ. In particular, with the expansion of overnight trading (e.g., 24-hour trading on Nasdaq and others), date management for trades spanning the daytime and night sessions has become more complex.

It has been confirmed that the two major international standards, ISO and FIX, define these date fields differently, and that inconsistency in the referenced dates across systems creates a risk of variation in calculation results.

4.2 Comparison of Definitions in ISO and FIX

Key point: In ISO, "Trade Date" is used to mean the execution date, whereas in FIX "TradeDate" means the trade date. Globally, "Trade Date" is sometimes used ambiguously, against a background in which Japanese practice and statutory documents are centered on the execution date.

4.3 Impact of the Definitional Differences

• Referenced dates such as the settlement base date may differ across systems, creating a risk that calculation results vary.
• Discrepancies in the concept of "execution date" may arise between upstream (trading systems) and downstream (reporting, regulatory reporting, etc.).
• Differences in terminology usage between cash and futures products were also raised as a concern.

4.4 Direction for Further Investigation and Response

• Prioritize fact-finding: Confirm how each firm's systems actually operate internally. Verify whether there is agreement on the dates referenced in average unit price calculations and elsewhere.
• Assess the impact of definitional change: Evaluate the scope of impact (calculation results, reports, regulatory reporting).
• Consider changes to international standards: Consider a proposal to correct the ISO usage in which execution-related items have conventionally referred to the "trade" in futures and options. However, changing an international standard requires significant time and cost, and close coordination with vendors.
• Visualization: Visualize the ranges of execution date and trade date in matrices and diagrams to form an interim consensus. Definitions will be finalized based on the hearing results.

5. Agenda Item 2: Terminology Alignment and Translation Consistency

5.1 Organizing English Terminology

Committee members discussed the correspondence between Japanese and English terminology.

• From a committee member at Broadridge: Explained that in the securities industry "Trade Date" is sometimes used synonymously with "Execution Date," and that terminology inconsistencies also exist internally.
• Approach: Agreement was reached to first organize and visualize actual practice at each firm, and then to consider a standardization policy. Priority is given to organizing terminology in both Japanese and English.

5.2 Need for Mapping Across Vendors and Systems

• Request each vendor to map its system definitions.
• Begin hearings centered on futures, and conduct comparative verification on the cash side as needed.
• Prepare a comparison table of the relevant fields in ISO and FIX (at the field level, with examples).

6. Agenda Item 3: Review of the Industry Questionnaire and Distribution Preparation

6.1 Overview of the Questionnaire

The "Questionnaire on Position Settlement Methods and Average Calculation Methods for the Standardization of Domestic Futures Trading" (Questions 1–5) was reviewed.

Items surveyed:

6.2 Execution Date and Position Management for Overnight Trading (details of Q4-2)

Regarding the treatment of the execution date for overnight trading (the OSE night session, etc.), a question design with concrete examples covering the following four patterns was proposed.

Important: Where Patterns 2–4 apply, confirming the background (system constraints, client requirements, legal requirements, etc.) is essential.

• It is also necessary to confirm whether an "oldest execution date first" requirement may enter the FIFO ordering (oldest trade date first; within the same day, lowest price first).
• Clarify the definitions and branches using diagrams (box diagrams) and revise the wording of the questionnaire accordingly.

6.3 Distribution Plan

• Finalize the survey template and distribute it by early June. The Chair, Mr. Yanagisawa, will be responsible for explaining the questionnaire.
• Recipients: asset managers, trust banks, vendors, and industry associations (JSDA, etc.)
• The need to prepare charts and visualizations to facilitate comparison was also confirmed.
• Response deadline: end of June 2026 (carried over from the 10th meeting)

7. Agenda Item 4: Vendor Status Update on Average Unit Price Calculation Methods

7.1 Results of Additional Hearings

Supplementary note: Detailed confirmation of rounding treatment (including handling of resulting differences) is ongoing. Further review is required of Vendor A's standard specifications and inspection bulletins, and of Vendor B's calculation formulas.

7.2 Direction for Industry Standardization

• The committee reached broad agreement on the direction of designating the unit price method as the recommended industry standard for both realized and unrealized P&L.
• Vendor B also recognizes the need to respond to an industry standard.
• Rollout approach for JSDA and regulators: Prepare explanatory materials presenting the unit price method as the recommended method, and advance preparations for rollout to JSDA and the regulatory authorities.
• Once additional confirmations such as rounding treatment are complete, proceed with the standardization briefing and rollout preparations.

7.3 Cumulative Summary of Major Vendors and Systems to Date

8. Agenda Item 5: Participation in the Foreign Asset Management Forum (FAMF)

8.1 Overview

• Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2026
• Background: GSAM arranged participation in the FAMF.
• FIA Japan representative attending: A committee member is preparing to attend.
• Under coordination: Whether Tony Crane and a committee member will also attend is being coordinated.

8.2 Preparations

• By early June, FIA Japan will organize its discussion points and proposals and compile and submit a draft agenda (owner: the committee member).
• Depending on the themes, attendance by Tony Crane or the committee member will also be considered.

9. Other Business

9.1 File and Material Sharing and Security Constraints (call for ideas)

• Material sharing is currently conducted by email. Because security restrictions differ across firms (file-share access restrictions, inability to connect to Zoom, etc.), the optimal sharing method is under consideration.
• Request to committee members: Ideas are invited for a file-sharing method accessible to everyone, taking each firm's security environment into account.
• Factors under consideration: accessibility, permission design, version control, and permissions for external participants.

9.2 Standardization of the Minutes Format and Request for Review

• Minutes for the past 10 meetings have been prepared in Markdown format. It was confirmed that AI will be used to format them and provide them in a standard format.
• Request to committee members: Drafts will be circulated widely before the final version, and volunteers to participate in the review are invited. Feedback is sought to improve the level of detail and accuracy.

10. Key Decisions

11. Action Items

12. Plans Ahead of the Next Meeting

By June 10, 2026 (FAMF meeting):

• Collect feedback on the agenda for the FAMF meeting
• Organization and submission of discussion points and proposals by the committee member

June 23, 2026 (12th meeting):

• Review of initial hearing results
• Discussion of the approach to industry mapping of execution date and trade date
• Interim report on survey responses
• Final confirmation of the average unit price (realized P&L) calculation formula

13. Reference: Issues Progress Tracker (as of the end of the 11th meeting)

🔍 Issue identified / under discussion ｜ 📝 Policy under consideration / being formulated ｜ ✅ Agreed / decided ｜ 🚀 In execution ｜ 🔄 Under follow-up

Prepared: May 26, 2026 (as of the close of the 11th meeting) Next update: June 23, 2026 (after the 12th meeting) Administered by: FIA Japan Operations Committee Secretariat ／ Chairman: Shun Yanagisawa (Citigroup)

These minutes are a record of the discussions held during the meeting. Please direct any corrections or amendments to the Secretariat (Tony Crane).