第3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 — 3rd 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 translation of the Secretariat's internal record. 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.

Note (Reference translation): The Secretariat's English record for this meeting consists of an Executive Summary and a Detailed Summary only, which are reproduced in the Appendix below. Sections 2 through 6 of this English text are a reference translation of the Japanese record, prepared for the website.

---

08-26 Operations Committee Meeting: #3 Standardization of Japan Domestic Futures Post-Trade Processing

---

1. Meeting Overview

Item	Details
Meeting Name	FIA Japan Operations Committee — 3rd Roundtable (Standardization of Japan Domestic Futures Post-Trade Processing)
Date and Time	Tuesday, August 26, 2025 — 17:00–18:00
Venue	Citi Japan office
Chair	Shun Yanagisawa (Citi)
Secretariat	FIA Japan (Tony Crane)
Attendance	18 participants as counted from the attendee list (no total is stated in the source)
Next Meeting	One of Tuesday, September 16 – Friday, September 19, 2025 / Online (Zoom) only / Availability to be submitted by Friday, September 5

---

2. Overview

This document is the record of the Operations Committee's 3rd roundtable on improving futures post-trade processing. The meeting covered the election of the committee chair, an announcement regarding the FIA Japan summer event, and the agenda item on standardizing operations for domestic futures trading.

The central discussion concerned domestic futures trading: the reconciliation differences caused by the lack of a uniform average unit price calculation method (a mix of the amount method and the price method) revealed by the industry survey, the need to standardize FIFO logic, and measures to improve inefficient workflows. Concern was expressed about "Galapagosization" — Japan-specific rules diverging from global standards — and the direction of pursuing automation and standardization across the industry was confirmed.

---

3. Main Agenda Items

3.0 Purpose and Approach of the Meeting

• Because the previous meeting covered too broad a range of topics, it was shared that the purpose of this meeting was to focus on specific items and to narrow the scope.

3.1 (1) Election of the Operations Committee Chair

• The incumbent Chair (Yanagisawa) proposed continuing as Chair for the current term, and members agreed.
• For subsequent terms, an expectation was expressed that other members would also contribute as chair or vice-chair.

3.2 (2) FIA Japan Summer Event

• Event Outline

  • It was announced that the FIA Japan summer event will be held on September 17 at the International House of Japan in Torinokizaka.
  • The event consists of two parts: a study session (15:00–18:00) and a networking reception (from 18:00).
  • The study session is free of charge; more than two attendees per company may participate, and non-FIA members may attend as guests.

• Purpose and Background of the Event

  • FIA Japan holds three events each year: the New Year gathering, the summer event, and the AGM (Annual General Meeting) in May.

• Content of the Study Session

  • Two panel-discussion-format study sessions are planned within the event.
  • Improvement of futures post-trade processing
    • Moderator: Citi — Yanagisawa
    • Panelists: speakers from Broadridge, GS, MTBJ, and JSCC
  • Power futures
    • Moderator: a speaker from Skipping Stone
    • Panelists: speakers from EEX, Mitsubishi UFJ, Phillip Securities, and JPX

• Networking Reception

  • Reception-style networking begins at 18:00.
  • A speaker from JICT will take the stage at the opening ceremony.

3.3 (3) Survey Results on the Treatment of Average Unit Price in Domestic Futures (GS, MS)

• Survey Outline

  • A hearing survey on industry practice was conducted in order to standardize the treatment of the average unit price in domestic futures.
  • Scope: 12 firms in total — 4 trust banks and 8 securities firms.
  • Response rate: 100%.

• Responses from Trust Banks

  • They do not adopt any specific average unit price rule; reconciliation is basically performed against instruction sheets prepared by the asset manager, or against the securities firm's statement submitted by the asset manager as reconciliation data.
  • In some trust bank departments, the average unit price is calculated in accordance with JSDA and OSE guidance, and the execution amount is calculated using the "amount method."
  • The main cause of differences is the discrepancy in the execution amount arising from the treatment of decimals in partial fills.

• Responses from Securities Firms

  • The calculation of the average unit price itself is clarified in the JSDA and OSE guidance, and there is no difference among firms.
  • The issue lies in the lack of a uniform calculation method when determining the execution amount from the calculated average unit price.
    • Amount method: little difference from JSCC's calculation method, so discrepancies rarely arise.
    • Price method: differences from JSCC's calculation method can arise, producing discrepancies of a few yen.

• Average Unit Price Calculation Methods and Issues

  • Existing guidance
    • The JSDA guidance (March 2015) and the OSE guidance (February 2015) permit the use of an average unit price.
    • Calculation of the average unit price: divide the total execution amount by "number of contracts x multiplier," rounding at the fifth decimal place to obtain a figure to four decimal places.
    • Calculation of the execution amount: computed using the calculated average unit price, with amounts under 1 JPY truncated. The timing of truncation is not specified.
  • Differences arising from the calculation method
    • When a position is settled in multiple lots, the calculation method produces differences in the final profit and loss.
    • Amount method: an adjustment of a few yen is made at the final settlement so that the total matches the sum of the original execution amounts. As a result, the P&L matches that of a single-lot settlement.
    • Price method: the execution amount is calculated using the average unit price at each settlement, with no rounding adjustment. Consequently, the final total P&L can differ from the amount method by a few yen.

• Choice of P&L Calculation Method

  • It became clear that multiple calculation methods exist for futures P&L. This was newly identified through this hearing survey.
  • The JSDA guidelines treat calculating the execution amount from the average unit price as standard, but do not clearly specify a uniform calculation method for the subsequent P&L calculation (the timing of truncating amounts under 1 JPY).

• Differences Between Domestic and Overseas Practice

  • It was noted that the "price method" is common overseas, and concern was raised that adopting the "execution amount method" domestically could create problems when working with global development teams.
  • This situation was described as "Galapagosization," and it was recognized that it could result in a Japan-specific approach.
  • Notwithstanding these concerns, a consensus formed that securities firms recommend adopting the "execution amount method" in order to eliminate differences from the settlement amounts of JSCC (Japan Securities Clearing Corporation) and to remove the need for operational adjustments.

• Rounding and the Impact on Unrealized P&L

  • The fundamental cause of differences in P&L calculation was identified as the guidelines' failure to specify the timing at which fractions under 1 JPY are truncated.
  • In recent years, the increase in smaller-denomination products such as TONA futures and Mini Nikkei has increased the cases in which differences (on the order of 2 to 3 yen) arise from the calculation method.
  • Because this issue arises not only at final settlement but continuously in the daily unrealized P&L calculation for as long as the position is held, its impact is considered significant.
  • This issue is widely recognized as the "sub-decimal problem" and also relates to other areas such as fee calculation.

• Impact on Clients

  • If the "price method" is adopted, the residual fraction at final settlement may be processed as "miscellaneous P&L."
  • It was noted that clients such as asset owners strongly dislike having such miscellaneous P&L recorded.
  • An opinion was also raised that confirming the calculation method with clients and trust banks in advance can avoid problems such as daily reconciliation amounts failing to match.

• Calculation Differences of a Few Yen in Domestic Futures Trading

  • It was raised as an issue that calculation differences of a few yen, which are not seen in overseas trading, arise in domestic futures trading.
  • A hypothesis was put forward that the cause is that in domestic trading there is a process in which the trust bank reconciles the execution amount to confirm the fact of the trade, whereas no such process exists in overseas trading.
  • A proposal to process the final difference as miscellaneous P&L was also raised, but the opinion was expressed that the reason why processing as miscellaneous P&L is not possible needs further investigation.

• Consideration of the Execution Amount Calculation Method (Price Method vs. Amount Method)

  • In connection with the calculation difference issue, it was discussed whether the calculation method should be the "price method" or the "amount method."
  • One view was that aligning with the overseas method (the price method) would achieve global consistency and simplify processing.
  • On the other hand, it was pointed out that the calculation logic of JSCC (Japan Securities Clearing Corporation) may presuppose the amount method, and that if the amount method is adopted as the industry standard, the reasons for differing from the overseas method must be made clear.
  • No conclusion was reached on this issue, and it will be discussed again at the next meeting.

3.4 (4) Survey Toward Standardization of FIFO Logic (JPM)

• Lists of the FIFO logic used at JPM and Citi (including both standard and non-standard variants) were shared in Excel as a starting point for developing an industry standard.

• The goal is to establish a list of standard FIFO methods that are acceptable on the broker side, and to present a clear policy to clients.

• It was confirmed that requirements specific to domestic futures trading, such as "time priority" and the "open/close" flag, also need to be discussed together with FIFO standardization.

• Standard vs. Japan-Customized FIFO Calculation Logic

  • Current FIFO calculation logic falls broadly into global standard logic (based on FIS GMI and similar) and domestic non-standard logic (Japan customization).
    • The policy is to survey the situation at other vendors as well and update the global standard list.
    • The non-standard logic was developed mainly to accommodate the requirements of domestic asset managers.
  • The non-standard logic in particular is highly complex, with requirements finely subdivided by client.
    • As an example, one logic variant (B) was built to fit the system of a specific asset management company and combines multiple conditions such as "open/close," "night session trades," "oldest trade first," and "highest unit price first."
    • It was pointed out that such complex logic drives support costs and human error, and that execution data can still diverge even after the logic is implemented.

3.5 (5) Current Workflow and Its Issues (NRI)

• The workflow among asset managers, securities firms, and trust banks was shared as a basis for discussion. In the current workflow, after execution data is received, execution calculation and reconciliation are performed in in-house systems, and the data is then passed to the trust bank where reconciliation is performed again — resulting in duplicated work.

• It was recognized that such duplicated processes are inefficient and that all parties are performing wasted work.

• An opinion was expressed that the ideal state is to advance automation by building a mechanism in which reconciliation is performed on a common infrastructure (platform) of the kind used globally, with the results shared.

• Automation and the Shift to Global Standards (OSTTRA)

  • As a future direction, online matching services such as Triana, provided by Osttra, were raised as one solution.
    • These services complete allocation processing and matching online between the buy side and brokers, and are simpler than the current flow.
  • A shared understanding was reached that the introduction of matching (reconciliation) is a mandatory requirement going forward.
  • As automation advances globally, there is concern that if the Japanese market alone clings to unique rules such as "not tolerating even a 1 JPY discrepancy," it will be left behind by global trends and "Galapagosization" will advance further.

• Comparison with the Global "DMIST" Initiative (Citi — Yanagisawa)

  • "DMIST (the 30-30-30 rule)," the FIA's proposed standard for accelerating post-trade processing, was introduced.
    • It calls for give-up, allocation instruction, and take-up each to be completed within 30 minutes of execution.
  • In Japan, practices that diverge from the global standard — such as give-up processing being performed after the market closes (until 17:00, and effectively until around 18:00) — are seen as problematic.
  • There was agreement that this fundamental structural problem needs to be addressed.

---

4. Open Issues and Risks

• Two calculation methods, the "amount method" and the "price method," coexist in average unit price processing, and this is the cause of reconciliation differences and P&L discrepancies of a few yen.
• Because adopting the "execution amount method" domestically differs from the global standard, there is a risk of future problems in coordination with internal global teams.
• The fundamental policy for resolving the broader "sub-decimal problem," which also relates to fee calculation, remains undetermined.
• A standard rule needs to be established for the timing at which sub-decimal fractions are truncated in the calculation of unrealized P&L.
• The root cause of calculation differences between domestic and overseas trading is presumed to lie in the execution amount reconciliation process, but this has not yet been confirmed.
• Whether to unify on the price method or the amount method is undecided and will continue to be discussed at the next meeting.
• Detailed discussion is required on how requirements specific to domestic futures (the open/close flag, time priority, etc.) affect the standardization of FIFO logic.
• Clinging to Japan-specific reconciliation rules (for example, strict amount reconciliation to the yen) may leave the market behind the global trend toward automation and result in "Galapagosization."
• How to handle domestic non-standard execution calculation logic going forward. The ideal is to consolidate onto standard logic, but achieving this requires coordination with the buy side and vendors.
• How the industry should correct Japanese post-trade practices that diverge from global standards, such as performing give-up processing after the market closes.

---

5. Action Items

#	Action
1	Investigate the reason why processing as miscellaneous P&L is not possible.
2	Ahead of the next meeting, conduct hearings on the standard FIFO methods that each firm supports.
3	Reserve 60 minutes at the next Zoom meeting for each firm (vendors, etc.) to present its own system workflow for 15 minutes each, followed by free discussion.
4	In parallel with the above, consider requesting cooperation from asset managers (the buy side). (Timing to be handled carefully; further consideration required.)

The source records these as unchecked checkboxes (not started). No owners or deadlines are stated in the source.

---

6. Next Meeting

• Candidate dates: Tuesday, September 16 – Friday, September 19, 2025
• Format: Online (Zoom) only
• Request to members: Submit convenient dates and times by Friday, September 5, 2025.

---

Appendix: Secretariat's English Summary (source text, anonymized)

The following two sections are the English record prepared by the Secretariat and distributed with the minutes. Only the Chatham House transformation has been applied; the wording is otherwise as in the source.

Executive Summary: Operations Committee Meeting on Standardization of Japan Domestic Futures Post-Trade Processing

• Primary Focus: The meeting centered on standardizing post-trade operations for domestic futures in Japan, addressing inefficiencies and deviations from global standards. Key topics included inconsistencies in trade price calculation, the need for standardized FIFO allocation logic, and the inefficiencies of the current workflow.
• Key Problem - Calculation Discrepancies: A major issue identified is the lack of a standard method for calculating the final settlement amount from an average price. The industry is split between an "Amount Method" (金額方式), which minimizes discrepancies with the clearing house (JSCC), and a "Price Method" (単価方式), which is the global standard. This inconsistency leads to reconciliation breaks of a few yen.
• "Galapagosization" Risk: While the consensus leaned towards adopting the "Amount Method" domestically to avoid operational adjustments and client complaints about miscellaneous profit/loss entries, members acknowledged this would create a Japan-specific practice. This deviation from global norms raises concerns about the Japanese market becoming a "Galapagos," isolated from global automation and development trends.
• Call for Automation and Standardization: The current workflow involves redundant reconciliation steps between brokers and custodian banks, recognized as highly inefficient. There was a strong consensus on the need to move towards automation by adopting common industry platforms, such as Osttra's Triana, for online matching and allocation, mirroring global practices.
• Next Steps: Action items include investigating why miscellaneous P&L treatment is unacceptable, surveying firms on their current FIFO logic, and organizing presentations from vendors on system workflows to find a common path toward standardization and automation.

Detailed Summary of Key Discussion Points

1. Inconsistent Average Price Calculation — An industry survey confirmed that while the calculation of the average price itself is standardized, the subsequent calculation of the total settlement amount is not.

• Amount Method: Adjusts the final leg of a split execution to ensure the total settlement amount matches the sum of the original execution amounts. This aligns with JSCC's calculations and is preferred by brokers.
• Price Method: Calculates each settlement leg independently using the average price, which can result in small rounding differences (a few yen) compared to the Amount Method. This is the common practice globally.
• Root Cause: The issue stems from ambiguity in JSDA and OSE guidelines regarding the timing of rounding for figures less than 1 JPY. The problem is magnified by the increase in smaller-tick products like TONA futures.

2. Standardization of FIFO Allocation Logic

• JPM and Citi shared their lists of standard and non-standard (Japan-customized) FIFO logic as a starting point for creating an industry-wide standard.
• Current non-standard logic, developed to meet specific domestic asset manager requirements, is overly complex, leading to high maintenance costs and operational errors.
• The goal is to establish a list of acceptable standard FIFO methods that brokers can support, simplifying the process for clients.

3. Inefficient Workflow and Divergence from Global Standards

• The current post-trade process in Japan involves multiple, duplicative reconciliation steps, a practice deemed inefficient by all participants.
• Japan's practices lag significantly behind global standards like the FIA's "DMIST" initiative, which calls for give-up, allocation, and take-up to be completed within 30 minutes each. In Japan, these processes often occur hours after the market closes.
• The committee agreed that clinging to unique domestic rules, such as demanding zero-tolerance for 1 JPY discrepancies, risks isolating the Japanese market from the global trend of automation.

4. Other Agenda Items

• Committee Chair: Mr. Yanagisawa (Citi) was re-elected as the committee chairman.
• FIA Japan Summer Event: An announcement was made for the FIA Japan Summer Event on September 17th, which will feature panel discussions on post-trade improvements and power futures.

---

Reference: Attendee List

Individual names are withheld except for the Chair and Secretariat. Participating organizations, attendance mode, and row count (= number of participants) are preserved as in the source. The source joins multiple names from the same organization on a single line (in the form "Name & Name & Name (Organization)"); they have been expanded to one person per row so that the headcount remains countable.

Organization	Mode	Name
Citi	not stated in source	Shun Yanagisawa (Chair)
Citi	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
Citi	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
GS	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
GS	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
JPM	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
MS	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
Nomura	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
MTBJ	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
FIS	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
OSTTRA	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
OSTTRA	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
Broadridge	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
NRI	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
NRI	not stated in source	— (name withheld)
BofA	Zoom	— (name withheld)
Blackrock	Zoom	— (name withheld)
FIA Japan	not stated in source	Tony Crane (Secretariat)

Total: 18 participants (counted from the attendee list; no total is stated in the source.)

---

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