第7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 — 7th 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 version of the 7th meeting minutes. 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 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

At the 7th Operations Committee meeting held on January 20, 2026, the issue of the "dual structure of date management (trade date vs. execution date)" was raised.

• Surfacing the date problem: Confirmed that the divergence between the "Trade Date" (as required by statutory books and records) and the "Execution Date" (market practice and the global standard) generates reconciliation breaks across average unit price, FIFO, margin calculation, and holiday trading.
• Standardization of average unit price calculation methods: Presented harmonized examples of the "amount method" and the "unit price method" for futures and options, and confirmed that the committee will consult with JSDA toward standardization.
• Engagement with infrastructure and regulators: Substantive discussion of institutional design, including having specific logic written explicitly into the JSCC/JSDA guidelines, alternatives for close-out declaration following the abolition of the "open/close flag," and evaluation of "equivalence" for KYC requirements.

3. White Paper Progress and Global Coordination (source §1)

The Chair, Yanagisawa, opened the meeting with a progress report on the "White Paper on Standardization of Domestic Futures Post-Trade Processing" currently being drafted.

• Coordination with FIA Global: Agreement was reached with FIA Global on this initiative at the Asia conference in December 2025. Efforts to resolve Japan-specific practices are highly regarded as a return to global standards (DMIST: 30/30/30, etc.), and the policy going forward is to disseminate the guidelines in both Japanese and English.
• Buy-side reaction: Major asset managers have high expectations for standardization; their greatest concern is how to absorb calculation logic that differs by investor category — such as tokkin and investment trusts — and consistency with trust banks. Asset managers will be approached after specifications are unified.

4. Deep Dive into the Structural Issue: "Trade Date" vs. "Execution Date" (source §2)

The greatest share of the meeting was devoted to the distortion in date management specific to Japan.

Key points of discussion

• Constraint on trust banks: Under their fiduciary duty, trust banks perform accounting entries treating only the "trade date" recognized by the exchange as authoritative.
• JASDEC (Hofuri): JASDEC's systems contain both fields. It must be confirmed whether the ISO definitions of execution date and trade date align with the definitions used in Japan (particularly in the futures market).
• Impact analysis: Hypothesis that narrowing the date definition to one, or changing the mapping rules, would affect the following areas:
  1. Average unit price: The aggregation range for orders spanning dates would change.
  2. FIFO: The basis for the priority of positions being closed out (oldest first) would change, creating divergence from logic such as the global-standard FIFO.
  3. Items recorded in various reports and statutory books and records

5. Standardization of Average Unit Price Calculation Logic and Roadmap (source §3)

Concrete agreement was reached on resolving the coexistence of the "amount method" and the "unit price method" in profit-and-loss calculations that use average unit price (realized and unrealized P&L).

Buy-side reaction: whether vendors such as NRI and Vendor A provide the calculation methods as standard features. If they are not standard, each asset manager must build them, which is inefficient. A request was made to also conduct hearings with Vendor A.

Realized P&L

• Amount method: Calculate execution price * quantity closed * contract multiplier line by line, truncating fractions below one yen. Adjust the remainder at the time of the final close-out so that the execution amount fixed on the trade date matches the total of the execution amounts closed out over multiple transactions.
• Unit price method: Calculate execution price * quantity closed * contract multiplier line by line, truncating fractions below one yen.

Unrealized P&L

• Amount method: Calculate execution price * quantity * contract multiplier line by line, truncating fractions below one yen. After truncation, compute the total and subtract settlement price * quantity * contract multiplier.
• Unit price method: Calculate (settlement price − execution price) * quantity * contract multiplier line by line, truncate fractions below one yen, and then compute the total.

Decisions

• Explicit statement in the guidelines: In the short term, the committee will request that the JSDA (Japan Securities Dealers Association) average unit price guidelines set out the calculation logic for both the "amount method" and the "unit price method" explicitly, with worked examples. The purpose is to eliminate any room for interpretation, building on the existing logic held by vendors such as NRI.
• Setting a transition period: Aim ultimately to converge on the "unit price method," the globally standard calculation method, with a system transition period of 3 to 5 years.

6. New Topic: "Equivalence (Substitute Compliance)" for KYC/AML (source §4)

The issue was raised that KYC (identity verification) requirements for institutional investors in Japan are excessively burdensome by global comparison.

• Proposal: Introduce "Substitute Compliance," under which KYC procedures already completed at an overseas entity's location would be recognized as valid in Japan for institutional investment, and establish arrangements allowing identity verification to be performed on the basis of disclosed information. This would reduce the cost of entry into the Japanese market for overseas investors.

7. Open Items and Risks (source §5)

• Whether the execution date field is mandatory across the various systems (the scale of system modification impact if it were abolished).
• Tolerance for the transitional "one-yen difference" arising from migration from the amount method to the unit price method (the prevalence of miscellaneous P&L treatment; at present a one-yen difference cannot be accepted, and there is no solution).

8. Action Items (deadline: by the next meeting on February 17) (source §7)

In the source, section numbering skips from §5 to §7; §6 is absent. This has been preserved as in the source.

• [Secretariat] Circulate today's materials; update the group email address.

• [OSE] Investigate the system-level definitions of "trade date" and "execution date" for night-session and holiday trading, and how those definitions came about.

• [All committee members / securities firms] Confirm the statutory requirements for execution date and trade date, and in which reports they are mandatory; and the differences between cash and futures products.

• [Average Unit Price WG / NRI] Confirm with NRI the existing calculation formulas for the amount method and the unit price method, and prepare a draft proposal to JSDA.

  Reference materials shared by NRI Materials on the ASP service "I-STAR" regarding average unit price calculation methods were shared with the FIA Operations Committee. Please refer to "ii3825 Addition of P&L Calculation Methods for Derivatives (Futures) Transactions_0001" and "Q&A Collection D-07 Overview of P&L Calculation Processing for Futures Transactions."

• [JASDEC] Confirm the actual mapping practice at JASDEC (Hofuri) (trade date vs. execution date) and the differences between the ISO standard and domestic standards.

  Response (January 23):

  Regarding the futures practice of currently defining the execution date as the Execution Date and the trade date as the Trade Date, we believe this is a matter where, after confirming the FIX definitions, and if the definitions prove to be correct, the affinity with international standards will need to be considered.

  1. Market rules under PSMS As set out in the attached file "Market Rules.pdf," PSMS establishes the manner in which the execution date and the trade date are used as market rules for PSMS users. In light of the discussion at the 7th meeting, in cases ① and ③ of the market rules there can be instances where the execution date and the trade date differ. Our understanding is that in global market practice only the trade date required for processing is used, whereas in Japan the execution date is required as a statutory requirement, so the two are distinguished — and that this is a local practice. We would be grateful if you could point out any discrepancies with this understanding.

  2. Definitions of execution date and trade date As to execution date and trade date in ISO 20022, per the attached file setr027.pdf (the Trade Report recognized as an international standard), the definitions are: execution date = Trade Date: "Specifies the date/time on which the trade was executed." trade date = Processing Date: "Processing date of the trading session." (The relevant passages are highlighted. Pages 4, 26, and 27 of the "setr027" PDF are the applicable sections.)

  Post-trade messages are international standard messages, but at present we are the only user of them. However, FIX and — at the time — Omgeo participated in the development of these messages; the field names and their definitions were determined jointly by the three parties and were approved by the ISO 20022 SEG, which evaluates international standards. In the course of that work, the circumstances of the night session were taken into account, as were the definitions then in use in FIX and at Omgeo, and the results are reflected in the messages. Furthermore, the use of these messages is now being discussed in connection with the move to T+1 in the EU, so more users may adopt them going forward.

  As for the definitions of post-trade messages, the concepts of Trade Date and Processing Date already existed in standardized use in the settlement domain, and these messages follow those concepts. For reference, we attach the definitions in the settlement instruction message as sese023.pdf. (Everything that uses Trade Date is defined as "Specifies the date/time on which the trade was executed," but we use the settlement instruction, a representative message, as the example. The relevant passages are highlighted.)

  3. The concern that has arisen on our side Having reviewed the historical background and the ISO 20022 definitions, so far as we are aware the only instance of Trade Date not being defined as the date of execution is the discussion at the 7th Operations Committee meeting. The point, therefore, is whether it is only futures market participants who use a different definition.

  4. Issue raised We believe it is necessary to confirm the definitions of execution date and trade date, including whether FIX defines Trade Date differently for futures and for cash products. On the basis of that confirmation, we believe we will need to consider the affinity with international standards. (At present, personally, it feels to us that the definition used by futures market participants differs from the international standard, and that unification between cash and futures may be needed. That said, given futures market practice and the FIX definitions, one could also aim to unify the practical usage of terminology between ISO and futures market participants within the futures domain — that is, to standardize by aligning the ISO definitions with practice. In any event, unless the definitions are made clear we cannot move forward, and in pursuing standardization of futures post-trade processing we do not think this is something that can be left aside.)

• [All committee members / securities firms] Respond to the KYC questionnaire and prepare a proposal on the definition of "institutional investor" and the scope of relaxation, working jointly with the Legal Committee.

9. Other Business (source §8)

• FIA Japan New Year Reception: January 21, from 15:30 (International House of Japan). Confirmed speakers include the Commissioner of the Financial Services Agency and a member of the House of Representatives.
• FIA Japan Forum 2026: Confirmed for September 10 (Tokyo Stock Exchange Hall).

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