Note: This English translation is for reference purposes only. In the event of any discrepancy between theJapanese original and this English translation, the Japanese original shall prevail. The Financial Futures
Association of Japan assumes no responsibility for this translation or for direct, indirect or any other form ofdamage arising from the translation.

Results of the Actual Conditions Survey of Over-The-Counter Retail Foreign Exchange
Margin Trading
October 31, 2022
Research Department, The Financial Futures Association of Japan
Introduction
The Financial Futures Association of Japan (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”), in
cooperation with the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee, conducts in every April a surveyof business model and other actual conditions of over-the-counter (OTC) retail foreign exchange (FX)
margin trading (hereinafter referred to as “OTC retail FX margin trading,” or foreign exchange margin
trading, referred to as “FX margin trading”) conducted by members that handle OTC retail FX margin
trading.
The Association also collects from Association members various data that are necessary for
examining the management condition of each member company of the Association (hereinafterreferred to as the “Monitoring Data” 1 in this report) on a regular basis.
The results of the survey of actual conditions mentioned above are aggregated and analyzed while
taking the Monitoring Data into account, and are summarized as follows:Part 1: Survey of Actual Conditions of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading in April 2022
1. Survey Method
We conducted the survey by distributing questionnaires to all the members that handled OTC retail
FX margin trading as of April 30, 2022 (excluding members that only provide intermediary services),and asking them to answer the questions on the questionnaires.
2. Number of Members Subject to the Survey
The number of members subject to the survey 2 (unless otherwise specifically provided, hereinafterreferred to as the “Members”) was 49 3.
Exhibit 1: Change in Number of Members Subject to the Survey
Survey Month and Year
April 2013
April 2014
April 2015

Number of Members Subject to theSurvey59
61
56(Unit: Company (Member))Year-on-Year Change-42-5

1 Trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers uses a figure aggregated based on the monitoring
survey that is reported by each member to the financial regulatory authority, a copy of which is to be submitted to the
Association. Therefore, please note that the figures do not completely match those publicly announced by the
Association on the monthly flash report on OTC FX transactions.
2 As all Members that handle OTC retail FX margin trading (hereinafter referred to as “Members handling OTC retail FX
margin trading”) are the Members subject to the survey, the meaning of the “Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading” is the same as that of the “Members subject to the survey.” However, please understand that both expressions
are used in this report, depending on the context or for making the report easier to understand.
3 For the April 2019 survey, two of the Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading had no record of actual trades.
They are excluded from the Members subject to the survey. (The same also applies in Part 2.)

1

April 2016
April 2017
April 2018
April 2019
April 2020
April 2021
April 2022

51
53
53
51
52
51
49

-5
2
0
-2
1
-1
-2

3. Collected Results<Item 1>
(1) Business Model
The Association focused on the flow of executing a transaction of OTC retail FX margin trading,and categorized the flows into 24 groups indicated in the “Table of Business Model Category” below(the total number of model numbers indicated in the table below (“model No.” in the Exhibit)) as abusiness model depending on the characteristics of the flow:
Table of Business Model Category
Model No. of

No. of Firms Used for

Each BusinessWhite Label

Cover Transactions toModel (model[Note 1]

Formulate Prices [Note
2]

No.)

Marry

Timing of Execution with

(During Trading

Customers and Cover

Hours) [Note 3]

Transaction [Note 4]

1

Discretionary

2

Yes

3

BeforeSingle4

After
Discretionary

5

No

After

6

Not

Before7

applicable

Discretionary

8

Yes

9

BeforeSeveral10

After
Discretionary

11

No

After

12

Before13

Discretionary

14

Yes

15
17

BeforeSingle16

After
Discretionary

No

Applicable

After

18

Before19

Discretionary

20

Several

Yes

21

After
Before2

22Discretionary

23

No

24

After
BeforeNote 1: White label means a transaction form where a Member executes a transaction with a customer under its own
name using a pricing/execution system managed by another foreign exchange broker (including FX operator).
This includes a case where a Member uses a system provided by its parent company, etc.
Note 2: This means the number of firms that provide a cover rate used for formulating the price, not the number of firms
who actually conduct cover transactions. In a normal condition, if a trading price with customers is formulated
based on the rate provided by a specific single firm that is used for cover transaction, it is described as “Single,”
while if the rate is selected or synthesized from those provided by several firms that are used for covertransactions every time the price for customers is formulated, it is described as “Several.”
Note 3: During the daytime, if there is a system that controls the price fluctuation risk arising from transactions withcustomers by using marry, it is described as “Yes,” while if there is no such system, it is described as “No.”
Additionally, if cover transactions are made for all the transactions executed with customers during the daytime
in principle, it is described as “No,” while if cover transactions are not made for some of the transactions
executed with customers during the daytime, and the price fluctuation risk is offset by open positions created bytransactions with other customers that match against the original transactions, it is described as “Yes.”
Note 4: In a normal condition, if a cover transaction is made after executing a transaction with a customer, it is describedas “After,” while if a transaction with a customer is executed only after a cover transaction is completed, it isdescribed as “Before.” If a cover transaction can be made either before or after executing a transaction with acustomer, it is described as “Discretionary.” Also, if a Member holds its own position by making a covertransaction before receiving a customer order and can match its own position against the customer’s order, it isdescribed as “Discretionary.” If a transaction with a customer can be completed at the same time when a covertransaction is made under a system such as STP, it is described as “Before.” In the case of white label,“Discretionary,” “After,” or “Before” is determined depending on the timing of cover transaction made by theoutsourcing contractor. It is not necessary to consider response at the time of emergency.

(2) Distribution of Business Models
Exhibit 2 shows the number of Members subject to the survey (49 companies in total) that adopt acertain business model (model No.) shown in the Table of Business Model Category in Part 1,
Section 3, <Item 1>-(1). The total number of responses was 58, which exceeded the total number ofthe Members subject to the survey, as some Members adopted several business models (model No.).
When we look at the breakdown of each business model (model No.), 18 Members (accounting forabout 31.0% of the total responses) adopted at least one of model Nos. 16 to 18 (the business models
that are a white label form, use one firm for cover transactions, and do not conduct marry transactions),
while 24 Members (accounting for about 41.4% of the total responses) adopted at least one of modelNos. 7 to 9 (the business models that are not a white label form, use several firms for cover transactions,and can conduct marry transactions). Individually, model No. 8 (the business model that is not a whitelabel form, uses several firms for cover transactions, can conduct marry transactions, and conducts a3

cover transaction after carrying out contract with a customer) was adopted by 18 Members (accounting
for approximately 31.0% of the total responses).
Exhibit 3 shows the number of Members subject to the survey (49 in total) that adopted either “Single(one)” or “Several (two, or three or more)” business models (model No.).

Exhibit 2: Total Number of Members that Adopt Each Model Number in Part 1, 3-(1)(Unit: Company (Member))

Exhibit 3: Breakdown of Members by Number of Business Models Adopted(Unit: Company (Member))

The number of Members that
adopt

The number of Members that adopt

The number of Members that adopt

a single model

several (two) models

several (three or more) models

41

7

1

(3) Ranking of Members Based on Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Tradingwith Customers and Business Models Adopted
We rank the Members subject to the survey based on the trading volume of OTC FX trading, and4

categorize them into three classes 4. Exhibit 4 shows the total number of Members by each of thethree classes that adopted a certain business model (Model No. show in 3-(1)) as in Exhibit 2.
When we look at the breakdown, we found that the most widely adopted models were model No. 8
for the First Class and the Second Class, and model No. 18 for the Third Class.
Exhibit 4: Total Number of Members in Each of Three Classes Based on OTC Retail
FX Margin Trading Volume (with Customers) Ranking
that Adopted a Certain Model (Model No.) Shown in Part 1, 3-(1)(Unit: Company (Member))

The First Group
Members
The Second Group
Members
The Third Group
Members<Item 2> Use of Prime Broker (PB)5 System and Volume of Use(1) Change in the Use of PBs by the Members Subject to the Survey
Exhibit 5 shows the number of Members using the Prime Broker (PB) system, the number ofcontracts made through the PB system, the number of PBs, and the trading volume of OTC retail FX
margin trading with customers under the PB system.
We rank the Members subject to the survey by the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading in FY ended April
2022, and categorized the top one-third as the First Class (Rank 1st to 17th), the next one-third as the Second Class(Rank 18th to 33rd), and the remaining one-third as the Third Class (Rank 34th to 49th).
5
Prime Broker (PB) means a broker who intermediates a transaction between the Member and a bank that is used for acover transaction, and takes up the position of the Members based on the give-up instruction or by a tri-party agreement
for the settlement between the Member and the financial institution used for the cover transaction.
4

5

Exhibit 6 shows the number of Members by the use of the Prime Broker (PB) system in terms of
Newly started, Ceased (terminated), Increased, and Decreased:
Exhibit 5: Use of PB system and the Usage AmountNo. of

PB usage

PBs

amountNo. of Members

No. of Members

using the PB

made through the PB system(Net)

System(total) [Note 2][Note 3]

April 2013

17

30

－

－

April 2014

16

30

7

52,764,799

April 2015

17

31

8

99,643,704

April 2016

15

31

10

70,312,312

April 2017

15

30

7

45,205,313

April 2018

16

31

7

56,646,873

April 2019

16

31

6

50,243,748

April 2020

17

38

9

65,406,358

April 2021

18

42

10

75,102,439

April 2022

16

38

9

108,821,216

Survey Month andYear [Note 1](million yen)

Note 1: Survey of the number of PBs (net) and the PB usage amount began in April 2014 (The same shall apply in
Exhibits 6 and 7).
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2019 survey for the figures of April 2020.
Note 3: It is the number of PBs that the Members have contracted after deducting the overlapped numbers.

Exhibit 6: Use of PB system (Newly started, Ceased (terminated), Increased, andDecreased)(Unit: Company (Member))

Survey Month andYear

No. of Members thatceasedusing PBs

No. of Members that

No. of Members that

decreased

increased thethe number of PBs

number of PBs used

used

[Note 2]

No. of Members that
newly started using
PBs

April 2014

2

1

3

1

April 2015 [Note]

0

3

2

2

April 2016 [Note]

2

0

3

1

April 2017

0

3

2

0

April 2018

0

0

0

1

April 2019

0

1

1

0

April 2020

0

0

5

1

6

April 2021

0

0

2

1

April 2022[Note]

1

1

0

0

Note: In addition to the figures indicated above, one Member that used the PB system ceased the business as of April
2015, and one Member was absorbed by another Member as of April 2016 and April 2022, respectively.
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2019 survey for the figures of April 2020.

(2) Attributes of PBs 6
As shown in Exhibit 7, the number of PBs used by the Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading was a total of 9 in 2022. Of these, the attribute of eight PBs is “i. Financial institutions
subject to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee.”

Exhibit 7: Use of PBs by Attribute(Unit: Company (PB))
i. Financial

ii. Financialiii. Financial institution

institutions subject

institution subject

subject to reporting toSurvey Monthto reporting to theto reporting to thea central bank, etc.

Domestic PBs

Overseas PBs

and YearTokyo Foreign

Bank of Japan(overseas) (excluding

other than i to iii

other than i to iii

Exchange Market(excluding those

those categorized as i

Committee

categorized as i)

or ii)

April 2014

6

-

1

-

-

April 2015

4

-

2

-

2

April 2016

6

-

2

-

2

April 2017

5

-

1

-

1

April 2018

5

-

1

-

1

April 2019

5

-

1

-

-

April 2020

8

-

1

-

-

April 2021

8

-

1

-

1

April 2022

8

-

0

-

1

<Item 3> Offering of Automatic Trading Tools(1) Offering of Automatic Trading Tools to Customers
Exhibit 8 shows the number of Members that offered automatic trading tools to customers every
April from 2013 onwards, and in the case where the automatic tool was offered, the number ofMembers that offered a tool that was internally developed, externally developed, or both.

6 Please refer to the footnote in Part 2, 3-(1) for each attribute of PBs.

7

Exhibit 8: Number of Members Offering Automatic Trading Tools and the Attributesof Developers of the Tools(Unit: Company (Member))No. ofWhether the automatic trading tools offered were

Members

internally developed, externally developed, or boththat
Survey Month and Year

offeredautomatic

Internally developed

Externally developed (developed by others)

Bothtrading
tools
April 2013

19

1

16

2

April 2014

21

3

16

2

April 2015

23

4

16

3

April 2016

25

7

15

3

April 2017

25

8

14

3

April 2018

20

6

11

3

April 2019

21

4

13

4

April 2020

23

5

13

5

April 2021

20

4

12

4

April 2022

19

3

12

4

(2) Impact of Automatic Trading Tools
Exhibit 9 shows the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by
all the Members subject to the survey, by the Members that offered automatic trading tools, and by theMembers that did not offer automatic trading tools, as of every April from 2013 onwards.
Exhibit 10 shows the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by
the Members that offered automatic trading tools (total of seven Members) in all the surveys conducted
every April from 2013 onwards, and by the Members that did not offer automatic trading tools (totalof 17 Members) in all the surveys conducted every April from 2013 onwards.

8

Exhibit 9: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customers(By all the Members subject to the survey, and Members that offered/did not offer automatic trading
tools in each survey conducted every April from 2013 onwards)(Unit: million yen, %)Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin
Trading with Customers

Chang
e
(As
compared withprevio
us
year)

Chang
e
(As
compared withprevious
year)

Members that
did not offer
automatic
trading tools

Memb
ers
subject
to theSurveyMemb
ers thatofferedautomatic
trading
tools

Chang
e
(As
compared withprevio
us
year)
Memb
ers that
did not
offer
automatic
trading
tools

Chang
e
(As
compared with
April
2013)

Chang
e
(As
compared with
April
2013)

Memb
ers
subject
to theSurveyMemb
ers thatofferedautomatic
trading
tools

Chang
e
(As
compa
red
with
April
2013)
Memb
ers that
did not
offer
automatic
trading
tools

SurveyMonth andYear

Members
subject to theSurveyMembers thatofferedautomatic
trading tools

April 2013

442,119,319

74,879,925

367,239,394

-

-

-

-

-

-

April 2014

238,252,636

35,660,526

202,592,110

53.9%

47.6%

55.2%

53.9%

47.6%

55.2%

April 2015

453,041,189

36,697,371

416,343,818

190.2

102.9

205.5

102.5

49.0%

113.4

%

%

%

%

89.9%

269.3

74.1%

92.1%

April 2016

407,399,182

98,816,141

308,583,041%
April 2017319,281,362

79,001,116

240,280,246

78.4%

79.9%

%
132.0

84.0%

%
77.9%

72.2%

105.5

65.4%

%
April 2018309,440,740

87,218,594

222,222,146

96.9%

110.4

92.5%

70.0%

%

116.5

60.5%

%

April 2019

240,804,618

57,956,661

182,847,957

77.8%

66.4%

82.3%

54.5%

77.4%

49.8%

April 2020

527,763,826

116,650,925

411,112,901

219.2

201.3

224.8

119.4

155.8

111.9

%

%

%

%

%

%

103.0

89.9%

106.7

123.0

140.0

119.5

%

%

%

%

April 2021

543,629,832

104,821,804

438,808,028%
April 2022

991,844,591

193,770,710

798,073,881

9

182.4

184.9

181.9

224.3

258.8

217.3

%

%

%

%

%

%

Exhibit 10: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customers(By Members that offered or did not offer automatic trading tools in all the surveys conducted
every April from 2013 onwards)(Unit: million yen, %)Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin
Trading with Customers
Membersthat haveofferedautomatic
trading
tools in all
the years
from April
2013 to2022 (totalof seven
Members)..
. (A)Members thathave notofferedautomatic
trading tools
in all theyears from
April 2013 to2022 (total of17
Members)...
(B)(Reference)
Members that
have
conducted
OTC retail
FX margintrading for all
the years
from April
2013 to 2022
other than (A)and (B) (totalof 17
Members)…
(C)

April 2013

11,070,396

295,326,287

126,959,089

April 2014

5,241,405

171,345,063

56,001,691

SurveyMonth andYear

Changein (A)(As
compared withprevious year)Changein (B)(As
compared withprevious year)(Reference)
Changein (C)(As
compared withprevious year)Changein (A)(As
compared with
April
2013)

Changein (B)(As
compared with
April
2013)

(Reference)Changein (C)(As
compared with
April
2013)

-

-

-

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

47.3%

58.0%

44.1%

47.3%

58.0%

44.1%

190.3
%

195.3%

71.8%

110.4%

86.1%

April 2015

7,952,351

326,124,085

109,366,177

151.7%

April 2016

8,422,027

300,210,296

94,621,874

105.9%

92.1%

86.5%

76.1%

101.7%

74.5%

April 2017

6,813,317

232,087,673

75,453,070

80.9%

77.3%

79.7%

61.5%

78.6%

59.4%

April 2018

7,402,775

210,871,762

85,640,927

108.7%

90.9%

113.5%

66.9%

71.4%

67.5%

April 2019

11,386,071

156,590,707

69,265,812

153.8%

74.3%

80.9%

102.9%

53.0%

54.6%

200.0%

210.8%

120.8%

109.1%

104.6%

155.2%

123.9%

114.1%

176.3%

250.9%

229.9%

201.2%

April 2020

23,339,173

356,818,429

138,541,436

205.0%

April 2021

17,180,618

366,041,823

144,852,499

73.6%

April 2022

27,770,423

678,938,321

255,425,058

161.6%

227.9
%
102.6
%
185.5
%

<Item 4> Offering of API 7 to Customers(1) Offering of API to Customers
Exhibit 11 shows the number of Members that offered API every April from 2013 onwards.
Exhibit 11: Number of Members that Offered API(Unit: Company (Member))

April 2013

No. of Members thatoffered API
5

No. of Members that
stopped offering API－

No. of Members thatstarted offering API－

April 2014

7

0

2

April 2015

15

0

8

April 2016

12

3

1

Survey Month and YearIn this document, API (Application Programming Interface) means specifications of the interface that is used to
exchange data with external software (mainly a system for system trading).

710April 2017

12

2

2

April 2018

11

3

2

April 2019

10

2

1

April 2020

9

1

0

April 2021

9

1

1

April 2022

7

3

1

(2) Impact of Application Programming Interface
Exhibit 12 shows the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by
all the Members subject to the survey, Members that offered Application Programming Interface (API),and Members that did not offer API in each survey conducted every April from 2013 onwards.
Exhibit 13 shows the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by
the Members that have offered API in all the surveys conducted every April from 2013 onwards (totalof three Members) and by the Members that have not offered automatic trading tools in all the surveys
conducted every April from 2013 onwards (total of 25 Members).
Exhibit 12: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customers(By all the Members subject to the survey, and Members that offered/did not offer API in eachsurvey conducted every April from 2013 onwards)(Unit: million yen, %)Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin
Trading with Customers

Change(Ascompared withpreviousyear)

Change(Ascompared withpreviousyear)
Members thatofferedAPI ineach
surveymonth

Change(Ascomparedwithpreviousyear)
Membersthat did
not offer
API ineach
surveymonth

Change(Ascomparedwith April
2013)

Change(Ascompared withApril
2013)
Members thatofferedAPI ineach
surveymonth

Change(Ascomparedwith April
2013)
Membersthat did
not offer
API ineach
surveymonth

Survey Monthand Year

Members
subject to theSurveyMembersthat offered
API

Membersthat did notoffer API

Members subject
to theSurveyApril 2013

442,119,319

50,594,975

391,524,344

-

-

-

-

-

-

April 2014

238,252,636

24,711,589

213,541,047

53.9%

48.8%

54.5%

53.9%

48.8%

54.5%

April 2015

453,041,189

81,606,353

371,434,836

190.2%

330.2%

173.9%

102.5%

161.3%

94.9%

April 2016

407,399,182

91,996,657

315,402,525

89.9%

112.7%

84.9%

92.1%

181.8%

80.6%

April 2017319,281,362

33,756,891

285,524,471

78.4%

36.7%

90.5%

72.2%

66.7%

72.9%

April 2018309,440,740

36,217,966

273,222,774

96.9%

107.3%

95.7%

70.0%

71.6%

69.8%

April 2019

240,804,618

33,931,673

206,872,945

77.8%

93.7%

75.7%

54.5%

67.1%

52.8%

April 2020

527,763,826

76,670,474

451,093,352

219.2%

226.0%

218.1%

119.4%

151.5%

115.2%

April 2021

543,629,832

57,927,310

485,702,522

103.0%

75.6%

107.7%

123.0%

114.5%

124.1%

April 2022

991,844,591

25,790,214

966,054,377

182.4%

44.5%

198.9%

224.3%

51.0%

246.7%

11

Members
subject to
the Survey

Exhibit 13: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customers(By Members that offered/ did not offer API in all the surveys conducted every April from 2013
onwards)(Unit: million yen, %)SurveyMonth andYear

Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin
Trading with Customers(Reference)
Members
Members thatthat have
Members thathave conducted
offered API
have notOTC retail FX
for all theoffered API for
margin trading
years fromall the years
for all the years
April 2013
from April
from April
to 20222013 to 2022
2013 to 2022
(total of(total of 25
other than (A)twoMembers)... (B) and (B) (total of
Members)..
14 Members)…
. (A)
(C)

April 2013

555,714

317,488,418

115,311,640

April 2014

595,244

175,135,323

56,857,592

Chang
e in
(A)
(As
compa
red
with
previo
us
year)

Chang
e in
(B)
(As
compa
red
with
previous
year)(Refer
ence)
Chang
e in
(C)
(As
compa
red
with
previo
us
year)

-

-

-

107.1
%
7.3%

Chang
e in
(A)
(As
compa
red
with
April
2013)

Chang
e in
(B)
(As
compa
red
with
April
2013)

(Refer
ence)
Chang
e in
(C)
(As
compa
red
with
April
2013)

100.0
%
107.1
%

100.0
%

100.0
%

55.2%

49.3%

7.8%

102.8
%

101.5
%

55.2%

49.3%

186.4
%

205.7
%

92.0%

87.6%

54.7%

94.6%

88.9%

77.2%

79.4%

174.2
%

73.1%

70.6%

April 2015

43,274326,415,368

116,983,971

April 2016

304,206

300,431,534

102,518,457

April 2017

968,040

232,017,128

81,368,892

April 2018

290,782

225,035,361

78,589,321

30.0%

97.0%

96.6%

52.3%

70.9%

68.2%

73.6%

90.6%

66.7%

52.2%

61.7%

225.9
%

202.6
%
108.7
%
174.2
%

117.9
%
116.8
%
216.7
%

125.1
%
136.0
%
236.9
%

703.0
%
318.2
%

April 2019

370,793

165,680,409

71,191,388

127.5
%

April 2020

260,250

374,204,914

144,233,874

70.2%

April 2021

440,246

370,848,971

156,785,723

April 2022

956,293

688,000,812

273,176,697

169.2
%
217.2
%

99.1%
185.5
%

46.8%
79.2%
172.1
%

<Item 5> Currency Options
Exhibit 14 shows the number of Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading that also handledcurrency option trading (limited to the currency options regulated by the Financial Instruments andExchange Act) every April from 2013 onwards.
Exhibit 14: Number of Members Handling OTC Retail FX Margin Trading that Also
Handled OTC Currency Option Trading(Unit: Company (Member))

Survey Month and Year
April 2013
April 2014
April 2015
April 2016
April 2017
April 2018
April 2019

Number of Members that handled OTC Currency Options
No. of Members that also handled retail BO trading [Note]
8
6
10
7
10
8
10
7
10
8
9
7
12
8

12

April 2020
April 2021
April 2022

13
13
13

8
8
8

Note: Retail BO means currency binary options for retail customers that are defined in the “Business Conduct Rules on
Retail OTC Binary Option Trading” published by the Association.

13

Part 2: Aggregation and Analysis of Cover Transaction Data for OTC Retail FX Margin
Trading
1. Cover Transactions Subject to Aggregation and Attributes of Members
Table 1 shows the number of Members that handled OTC retail FX margin trading by type ofbusiness.
Table 1: Number of Members Handling OTC Retail FX Margin Trading by Type ofBusiness(Unit: Company (Member))
Attribute of Member

Registered Financial

Securities

Financial Futures Company,

Institution

Company [Note]etc. [Note]

April 2012

3

34

27

64

April 2013

3

30

26

59

April 2014

5

31

25

61

April 2015

5

30

21

56

April 2016

5

30

16

51

April 2017

5

29

19

53

April 2018

6

29

18

53

April 2019

6

27

18

51

April 2020

7

27

18

52

April 2021

7

26

18

51

April 2022

7

26

16

49

(Business Type)
Survey Month and

Total

Year

Note: Securities Company means a Member of the Association that is also a member of the Japan Securities Dealers
Association (excluding specified business members and special members), and Financial Futures Company etc.
means a Member of the Association other than a Registered Financial Institution or Securities Company. However, if a
Member of the Association newly joins the Japan Securities Dealers Association after becoming a Member of the
Association, or if the weight of its business other than financial futures trading exceeds that of financial futures trading,or for other specific reasons, the attribute of the Member shall be changed and the number of respective Members
shall be recounted.

2. Impact of FX Margin Trading in Japan on Foreign Exchange Market(1) Flow of Transactions
The flow of funds in OTC retail FX margin trading consists of the flow between a customer and a
Member that handles OTC retail FX margin trading (internal circulation) and the flow between a
Member that handles OTC retail FX margin trading and a firm used for cover transactions (external
circulation). Marry transactions that are offset within a Member that handles OTC retail FX margin
14

trading without carrying out a cover transaction with an outside firm are categorized as internal
circulation.
Furthermore, when we look at the retail FX margin trading in Japan through Tokyo Financial
Exchange’s Click365 that is regarded as a transaction in a domestic exchange, as it has a framework
under which an investor and a market maker are matched for the transaction, we can say that it has
similar characteristics to those of the external flow of the OTC retail FX margin trading.
As the trading volume that is regarded as external circulation in retail FX margin trading (external
circulation volume) increases, it may impact the FX market through firms used for cover transactions(as well as market makers).
Table 2 below shows the external circulation volume of retail FX margin trading.
Table 2: External Circulation Volume of FX Margin Trading
OTC retail FX margin trading
Survey Monthand Year

April 2012
April 2013

(1) Trading
Volume with
Customers

1,278,975
4,421,193(2) External
Circulation Volume(Total amount ofcover transactions)[Note 1](2)/(1)(%)

Internal
Circulation
Volume=(1)-(2)(Unit: 100 million yen, %)(3) Click(4) Total
365
External
Circulation
Trading
Volume Volume[Notes 2, 3] of FX Margin
Trading=(2)+(3)700,28854.8%

578,687

49,157

749,445

2,025,760

45.8%

2,395,432

74,8062,100,566

April 2014

2,382,526

986,06941.4%

1,396,457

23,3581,009,427

April 2015

4,530,411

1,818,843

40.1%

2,711,568

32,955

1,851,798

2,392,604

31,728

1,713,115

April 2016

4,073,991

1,681,387

41.3%

April 2017

3,192,813

1,265,381

39.6%

1,927,432

22,544

1,287,925

April 2018

3,094,407

1,271,873

41.1%

1,822,534

23,384

1,295,257

April 2019

2,408,046

1,042,452

43.3%

1,365,593

14,534

1,056,986

April 2020

5,277,638

1,763,017

33.4%

3,514,620

19,691

1,782,708

April 2021

5,436,298

2,451,217

45.1%

2,985,080

17,2072,468,424

April 2022

9,918,445

3,726,576

37.6%

6,191,869

40,6893,767,265

Note 1: Based on the Monitoring Data. Hedge transactions and other transactions are included for members for which
hedge transactions and other proprietary trading are difficult to distinguish from cover transactions.
Note 2: This figure represents the monthly trading volume disclosed by the Tokyo Financial Exchange multiplied by themonth-end settlement price.
Note 3: There were a total of six MM (market makers) as of June 30, 2022 (Commerzbank, Deutsche Securities, Barclays
Bank, Goldman Sachs Japan, Nomura Securities, and MUFG Bank).

(2) Comparison with the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market
As shown in Table 3, the total external circulation volume of FX trading accounted for 87.8% of the
spot trading volume in the Tokyo foreign exchange market.

15

Table 3: Comparison between Spot Transactions in the Tokyo Foreign Exchange
Market and External Circulation Volume(Unit: 100 million yen, %)Survey Monthand Year

April 2012

Survey Results Announced by the Tokyo
Foreign Exchange Market Committee [Note 1](1) Spot Trading(2) Of which,VolumeTransactions with
Non-Financial
Institution Customers(domestic) [Note 2]
1,614,486
319,237(3) Total External
Circulation Volume of
FX Trading(The same as those in(4) in Table 2)(3)/(1)(%)(3)/(2)(%)

749,44546.4%

234.8%

793,050

2,100,566

68.3%

264.9%

April 2013

3,077,047

April 2014

2,347,993

764,693

1,009,42743.0%

132.0%

April 2015

3,263,748

1,272,232

1,851,798

56.7%

145.6%

April 2016

2,638,980

588,956

1,713,11564.9%

290.9%

April 2017 [Note3]
April 2018

2,429,826

596,991

1,287,925

53.0%

215.7%

2,809,094

1,083,271

1,295,257

46.1%

119.6%

April 2019 [Note3]
April 2020

2,705,120

1,107,138

1,056,986

39.1%

95.5%

3,012,421

948,547

1,782,708

59.2%

187.9%

April 2021 [Note3]
April 2022

3,176,389

982,1512,468,424

77.7%

251.3%

4,291,185

962,077

3,767,26587.8%

391.6%

Note 1: Figures in (1) and (2) of the table above are calculated by multiplying the spot trading volume described in“[Reference Table] <Table 1>” in the “Survey on Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume in Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market” published by the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee by the yen/dollar spot rate as of
17:00 at the end of April published by the Bank of Japan (80.74 yen in 2012, 97.83 yen in 2013, 102.51 in 2014,118.91 yen in 2015, 108.40 yen in 2016, 111.29 yen in 2017, 109.40 yen in 2018, 111.675 yen in 2019, 106.06 yen
in 2020, 108.885 yen in 2021, and 130.595 yen in 2022).
Note 2: We adopt the same definition of non-financial institution customers as those on the “Survey on Foreign
Exchange Transaction Volume in Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market” published by the Tokyo Foreign Exchange
Market Committee. In the survey, it is explained that transactions with FX margin trading operators should berecorded as transactions with non-financial institution customers. However, it should be noted that suchtransactions can be classified into a category other than those with non-financial institution customers if the FX
margin trading operator is not a specialized FX margin trading operator.
Note 3: For April 2017 and 2019, corrections were made in accordance with the revised version of the “Results of theSurvey of Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume in the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market” published by the Tokyo
Foreign Exchange Market Committee. For April 2021, errors in the figures were confirmed and corrected.

3. Cover Transactions for OTC Retail FX Margin Trading(1) Firms Used for Cover Transactions by Attribute 8 and Use of Cover Transactions
When we determine the attribute, financial institutions that participate in (report to) the “Survey on Foreign Exchange
Transaction Volume in Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market” are categorized into “Financial institutions subject toreporting to the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee”; financial institutions that cooperate with the “Central
Bank Survey on Foreign Exchange and Derivatives (FX and Derivatives Survey)” conducted once in three years by
the Bank of Japan (excluding those categorized into the financial institutions subject to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market Committee) are categorized as “Financial institutions subject to reporting to the Bank of Japan”; and8

16

The number of firms for cover transactions used by the Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading by attribute shown in Table 4 and the total number of Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading that use firms for cover transactions (by attribute) shown in Table 4-2 indicate the attribute offirms used for cover transactions with which Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading makea cover transaction.
The number of Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading is approximately 3.9 per firm used
for cover transactions. When we look at the attributes of firms used for cover transactions, the numberof Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading is approximately 8.8 on average per financial
institution subject to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee, which is higher
than the general average.
Table 4: Number of Firms for Cover Transactions by Attribute Used by Members Handling
OTC Retail FX Margin Trading(Unit: Company (Operator))
Attribut
es
of
Firms
Used forCover
Transact
ions

Survey
Month
and
Year
[Note 2]
April
2012
April
2013
April
2014
April
2015
April
2016
April
2017

1.
Tot
al
fro
m
(1)
to
(3)

(1)
Financialinstitutions
subjecttoreporti
ng to
the
Tokyo
Foreign
Exchange
Market
Commi
ttee

(2)
Financialinstitutions
subjecttoreporti
ng to
the
Bank
of
Japan
(excluding (1))(3)
Otherfinancialinstituti
ons,
etc.
subjecttoreporting to acentralbank(overseas)(excluding (1)and (2))

2. Totalof firms
that arenotcategori
zed into
any oftheabove
but areused forcover
transactions(total of(4) and
(5))

(4)
Dome
stic
Opera
tors

(5)
Overs
eas
Opera
tors
Total

U.
S.

U.
K.

Singa
pore

Austr
alia

20

15

2

3

35

13

22

7

7

4

1

3

55

26

21

1

4

30

10

20

3

9

4

1

3

56

25

18

1

6

32

12

20

2

9

4

3

2

57

22

16

1

5

35

11

24

3

9

4

5

3

57

22

16

1

5

36

13

23

3

8

4

4

4

58

26

19

1

6

41

13

28

5

10

5

4

4

67

Oth
ers
[No
te 1]

Grand
Total

financial institutions, etc. that cooperate with the “FX and Derivatives Survey” conducted by a central bank other thanin Japan are categorized into “Other financial institutions, etc. subject to reporting to a central bank (overseas).”17

April
2018
April
2019
April

25

19

1

5

43

13

30

5

11

4

4

6

68

26

19

1

6

45

14

31

5

11

5

4

6

71

27

19

1

7

49

14

35

5

12

8

3

7

76

26

19

1

6

50

15

35

6

13

7

3

6

76

26

19

1

6

45

15

30

4

12

6

3

5

71

2020
April
2021
April
2022
Note 1: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, andVanuatu.
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2020 survey for the figures of April 2021.

Table 4-2: Total Number of Members Handling OTC Retail FX Margin Trading that Use Firms
for Cover Transactions (by Attribute) [Note 1](Unit: Company (Member))
Attributesof Firms Used
for
Cover
Transactions

1.
Tota
l
from
(1)
to
(3)

(1)
Financialinstituti
ons
subjecttoreporti
ng to
the
Tokyo
Foreign
Exchange
Market
Commi
ttee

(2)
Finan
cial
institu
tions
subje
ct to
report
ing to
the
Bank
of
Japan
(exclu
ding
(1))

(3)
Other
financial
institutio
ns, etc.
subjecttoreporting to acentralbank(overseas)(excluding (1)and (2))

2. Totalof firms
that arenotcategoriz
ed intoany ofthe above
but areused forcover
transactions (totalof (4) and
(5))

(4)
Do
me
stic
Op
erat
ors

(5)
Ove
rsea
s
Ope
rator
s
Tota
l

U.S.

April 2012

141

110

9

22

78

30

48

April 2013

140

109

2

29

63

27

April 2014

141

123

2

16

68

April 2015

128

113

1

14

April 2016

136

116

1

April 2017

152

132

April 2018

156

April 2019

O
th
er
s

U.K
.

Sing
apor
e

A
us
tr
al
ia

21

8

14

1

4

219

36

5

13

14

1

3

203

31

37

3

14

15

3

2

209

68

24

44

4

16

16

5

3

196

19

68

25

43

8

11

15

4

5

204

1

19

79

29

50

10

13

16

4

7

231

137

1

18

86

32

54

6

19

16

5

8

242

163

143

1

19

86

31

55

6

20

17

5

7

249

April 2020

174

152

1

21

104

38

66

6

21

27

4

8

278

April 2021

182

164

1

17

94

36

58

7

22

20

3

6

276

April 2022

187

167

2

18

91

37

54

5

22

19

3

5

278

Survey Monthand Year[Note 3]

[
N
ot
e
2]

Grand
Total

Note 1: This is a total aggregated figure after categorizing firms for cover transactions used by Members handling OTC

18

retail FX margin trading by attribute.
Note 2: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, andVanuatu.
Note 3: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2020 survey for the figures of April 2021.

(2) Trading Volume of Cover Transactions by Attribute of Firms Used for CoverTransactions
As in Table 4 and Table 4-2, Table 5 and Table 5-2 show the trading volume of cover transactions
executed between Members that handle OTC retail FX margin trading and firms used for covertransactions after categorizing firms used for cover transactions by attribute. When we look at thedata by attribute, financial institutions subject to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market
Committee accounted for 31.5% of all cover transactions.
Table 6 shows the aggregated result by categorizing data in (1), (2), and (4) of the attributes offirms used for cover transactions as shown in Table 5 as domestic cover transactions, and data in (3)and (5) as overseas cover transactions.
Table 5: Trading Volume of Cover Transactions by Attribute of Firms Used for CoverTransactions(Unit: 100 million yen)

(2) Financial institutions subject to reporting to the Bank ofAttribut
es
of
Firms
Used
for
Cover
Transactions(3)
Financial
institutions, etc.
subject toreportingto acentralbank(overseas)(excluding (1) and(2))

2. Other
Firms
Used forCover
Transacti
ons(Otherthan 1.)(4)
Domestic
Operators(5)
Overseas
Operators
Total

021,890366,131234,011537,7530335,241

1,152,765

562,145546,098

0

16,047April
2015

1,066,640

1,043,167

0

April
2016

841,822789,458

April
2017

558,313

April
2018

606,608

1.
Financial
Institutions(financial
institutions includedincategory(1) to (3))(1)
Financial
institutions subjecttoreportingto theTokyo
Foreign
Exchange
MarketCommitte
e

April
2012

334,156

312,265

April
2013

872,994

April
2014

Survey
Month
and
Year
[Note
2]

OthersU.S.

U.K.

Singapore

Australia

132,120

65,95331,861

29,604

3,781

918

700,288929,451

223,31418,80860,095

136,950

5,972

1,486

2,025,760

423,923

347,362

76,5609,942

32,667

29,775

3,089

1,084

986,069

23,472752,202636,729

115,473

38,95336,862

18,156

20,976525

1,818,843

052,364

839,564

750,352

89,212

36,766

18,381

19,973

10,196

3,893

1,681,387

521,352

036,960707,068

617,018

90,04938,08834,248

7,697

6,503

3,511

1,265,381

580,509

0

26,099665,264

553,916

111,347

46,43333,411

15,433

14,321

1,747

1,271,873

19[Note]

Grand Total

April2019

537,300

512,944024,356505,151

392,217112,934

47,73436,684

16,229

9,907

2,377

1,042,452

April
2020

725,258

686,091

039,167

1,037,758

884,114

153,644

54,49860,211

21,85913,3903,684

1,763,017

830,855

778,846052,008

1,620,362

1,452,932

167,430

68,042

62,91421,98011,7712,720

2,451,217

1,254,521

1,173,781

080,7392,472,055

2,110,193

361,862

110,707

189,886

49,933

2,194

9,140

3,726,576

April
2021
April
2022

Note: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, andVanuatu.
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2020 survey for the figures of April 2021.

Table 5-2: Trading Volume of Cover Transactions by Attribute of Firms Used for CoverTransactions (As a Percentage of Grand Total in Each Month by Attribute)(Unit: %)Attribute
s
of
Firms
Used forCover
Transacti
ons(3)
Financial
institutions,etc.
subjecttoreporting to acentralbank(overseas)(excluding(1) and(2))

2. Other
Firms
Used forCover
Transacti
ons(Otherthan 1.)(4)
Domestic
Operators(5)
Overseas
Operat
ors
Total

1.
Financial
Institutions(financial
institutions includedincategory(1) to (3))(1)
Financial
institutions subjecttoreportingto theTokyo
Foreign
Exchange
MarketCommittee(2)
Financial
institutions
subjecttoreporti
ng to
the
Bank
of
Japan
(exclu
ding
(1))

April
2012

47.7%

44.6%

0.0%

3.1%

52.3%

33.4%

April
2013

43.1%

26.5%

0.0%

16.5
%

56.9%

57.0%

55.4%

0.0%

1.6%

58.6%

57.4%

0.0%

April
2016

50.1%

47.0%

April
2017

44.1%

April
2018

April
2019

SurveyMonthand Year[Note 2]

April
2014
April
2015

April
2020
April
2021
April
2022

OthersU.S.

U.K.

Singapore

Austral
ia

18.9
%

9.4%

4.5%

4.2%

0.5%

0.1%

100.0%

45.9%

11.0
%

0.9%

3.0%

6.8%

0.3%

0.1%

100.0%

43.0%

35.2%

7.8%

1.0%

3.3%

3.0%

0.3%

0.1%

100.0%

1.3%

41.4%

35.0%

6.3%

2.1%

2.0%

1.0%

1.2%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

3.1%

49.9%

44.6%

5.3%

2.2%

1.1%

1.2%

0.6%

0.2%

100.0%

41.2%

0.0%

2.9%

55.9%

48.8%

7.1%

3.0%

2.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.3%

100.0%

47.7%

45.6%

0.0%

2.1%

52.3%

43.6%

8.8%

3.7%

2.6%

1.2%

1.1%

0.1%

100.0%

51.5%

49.2%

0.0%

2.3%

48.5%

37.6%

10.8
%

4.6%

3.5%

1.6%

1.0%

0.2%

100.0%

41.1%

38.9%

0.0%

2.2%

58.9%

50.1%

8.7%

3.1%

3.4%

1.2%

0.8%

0.2%

100.0%

33.9%

31.8%

0.0%

2.1%

66.1%

59.3%

6.8%

2.8%

2.6%

0.9%

0.5%

0.1%

100.0%

33.7%

31.5%

0.0%

2.2%

66.3%

56.6%

9.7%

3.0%

5.1%

1.3%

0.1%

0.2%

100.0%[Note]

Grand
Total

Note: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, andVanuatu.
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2020 survey for the figures of April 2021.

20

Table 6: Change of Trading Volume of Cover Transactions (Domestic andOverseas)(Unit: 100 million yen, %)Survey Month andYear

Trading Volume of
Cover Transactions(Total)Domestic Cover Transactions

Overseas Cover Transactions

Percentag

Trading Volume

Trading Volume

e of Total

Percentag
e of Total

April 2012

700,288546,27678.0%

154,01022.0%

April 2013

2,025,760

1,467,204

72.4%

558,555

27.6%

April 2014

986,069

893,461

90.6%

92,607

9.4%

April 2015

1,818,843

1,679,896

92.4%

138,946

7.6%

April 2016

1,681,387

1,539,810

91.6%

141,576

8.4%

April 2017

1,265,381

1,138,371

90.0%

127,009

10.0%

April 2018

1,271,873

1,134,425

89.2%

137,447

10.8%

April 2019

1,042,452

905,16186.8%

137,290

13.2%

April 2020

1,763,017

1,570,205

89.1%

192,811

10.9%

April 2021

2,451,217

2,231,778

91.0%

219,438

9.0%

April 2022

3,726,576

3,283,477

88.1%

443,098

11.9%(3) Trading Volume of Cover Transactions Based on the Trading Volume of OTC Retail
FX Margin Trading
In order to show the trading volume of cover transactions in connection with the trading volume of
OTC retail FX margin trading (with customers), we firstly rank Members that handle OTC retail FX
margin trading by their trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading (with customers) in eachsurvey year and month, and then categorize them into six classes (e.g. from first to third). Tables 7 to
10 show data of OTC retail FX margin trading categorized by the above six classes.
Table 7: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading (with Customers) (byranking class based on the trading volume with customers)(Unit: 100 million yen)
Survey

1st to 3rd

4th to 10th

11th to 20th

21st to 30th

31st to 40th

41st place

place

place

place

place

place

and more

April 2012

559,208

438,497

176,432

71,18528,1505,500

1,278,975

April 2013

2,093,296

1,523,692

586,132

163,396

49,501

5,173

4,421,193

April 2014

1,294,840

675,578

306,871

70,00527,0848,145

2,382,526

April 2015

2,476,761

1,367,613

497,839

134,886

46,896

6,415

4,530,411

April 2016

2,064,879

1,426,025

457,247

89,27134,0172,550

4,073,991

April 2017

1,592,561

1,119,193

381,791

72,77722,921

3,566

3,192,813

April 2018

1,532,188

1,088,132

372,326

78,89920,261

2,599

3,094,407

Month and
Year

21

Total

April 2019

1,105,735

878,668

340,876

64,972

13,862

3,930

2,408,046

April 2020

2,672,564

1,834,592

642,342

101,134

21,175

5,828

5,277,638

April 2021

2,349,286

2,222,596

661,131

170,133

25,793

7,355

5,436,298

April 2022

4,599,956

3,841,037

1,104,636

306,169

57,566

9,078

9,918,445

Table 8: Trading Volume of Cover Transactions by Members Handling OTC Retail FX
Margin Trading by Ranking Class Based on the Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX
Margin Trading with Customers(Unit: 100 million yen)
Survey Month

1st to 3rd

4th to 10th

11th to 20th

21st to 30th

31st to 40th

41st place

and Year

place

place

place

place

place

and more

Total

April 2012

64,558

390,440

144,234

63,20433,1504,699

700,288

April 2013

467,500

863,764

519,334

122,196

47,995

4,969

2,025,760

April 2014

264,476354,287

275,918

58,87824,4198,089

986,069

April 2015

405,016

902,433

337,143

128,655

39,271

6,323

1,818,843

April 2016

331,651

929,141

301,644

90,70325,9472,299

1,681,387

April 2017

149,716

726,007

301,578

65,654

18,584

3,840

1,265,381

April 2018

195,368

685,475

292,146

79,95816,4662,457

1,271,873

April 2019

149,598

538,506

279,607

57,343

13,433

3,962

1,042,452

April 2020

193,427

1,008,661

438,192

97,383

19,694

5,657

1,763,017

April 2021

644,672

1,256,854

373,449

148,978

19,9287,333

2,451,217

April 2022

506,396

2,321,613

585,908

253,957

46,037

12,661

3,726,576

Table 9. Ratio of Trading Volume of Cover Transactions by Ranking Class Basedon the Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading Volume of CoverTransactions(Unit: %)Survey Month and1st to 3rd

4th to 10th

11th to 20th

21st to 30th

31st to 40th

41st place and

Year

place

place

place

place

place

more

April 2012

9.2%

55.8%

20.6%

9.0%

4.7%

0.7%

April 2013

23.1%

42.6%

25.6%

6.0%

2.4%

0.2%

April 2014

26.8%

35.9%

28.0%

6.0%

2.5%

0.8%

April 2015

22.3%

49.6%

18.5%

7.1%

2.2%

0.3%

April 2016

19.7%

55.3%

17.9%

5.4%

1.5%

0.1%

April 2017

11.8%

57.4%

23.8%

5.2%

1.5%

0.3%

April 2018

15.4%

53.9%

23.0%

6.3%

1.3%

0.2%

April 2019

14.4%

51.7%

26.8%

5.5%

1.3%

0.4%

April 2020

11.0%

57.2%

24.9%

5.5%

1.1%

0.3%

April 2021

26.3%

51.3%

15.2%

6.1%

0.8%

0.3%

22

April 2022

13.6%

62.3%

15.7%

6.8%

1.2%

0.3%

Table 10: Ratio of Trading Volume of Cover Transactions (Table 8) to the Trading
Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading (Table 7)(by ranking class based on the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading withcustomers)(Unit: % [Note])
Survey Month and Year

1st to 3rd

4th to 10th

11th to 20th

21st to 30th

31st to 40th

41st place and[Note 2]

place

place

place

place

place

more

April 2012

11.5%

89.0%

81.8%

88.8%

117.8%

85.4%

April 2013

22.3%

56.7%

88.6%

74.8%

97.0%

96.1%

April 2014

20.4%

52.4%

89.9%

84.1%

90.2%

99.3%

April 2015

16.4%

66.0%

67.7%

95.4%

83.7%

98.6%

April 2016

16.1%

65.2%

66.0%

101.6%

76.3%

90.1%

April 2017

9.4%

64.9%

79.0%

90.2%

81.1%

107.7%

April 2018

12.8%

63.0%

78.5%

101.3%

81.3%

94.6%

April 2019

13.5%

61.3%

82.0%

88.3%

96.9%

100.8%

April 2020

7.2%

55.0%

68.2%

96.3%

93.0%

97.1%

April 2021

27.4%

56.5%

56.5%

87.6%

77.3%

99.7%

April 2022

11.0%

60.4%

53.0%

82.9%

80.0%

139.5%

Note: It is possible that the trading volume of cover transactions may exceed the trading volume of OTC retail FX
margin trading (i.e. over 100%) due to the transfer of open positions following the change of the firm used forcover transactions or transaction errors.
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2020 survey for the figures of April 2021.

23

Conclusion (General Comments and Considerations)

The following is a conclusion (general comments and considerations) of the survey:
When we look at the business model for OTC retail FX margin trading that is executed by
Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading, we find that many Members handling OTC retail
FX margin trading do not adopt a white label form, but instead they use several firms for covertransactions and conduct marry transactions. This transaction form is particularly adopted by
Members with a large amount of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers. On the other hand,
there are also many Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading that adopt a white label form,
use a single firm for cover transactions, and do not conduct marry transactions. This form isparticularly adopted by Members with a small amount of OTC retail FX margin trading. This trend issimilar to the results of the past surveys, and the results of this survey followed suit.
Automatic trading tools are provided this year by 19 Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading, down from last year (20 Members in 2021), and a lower number of them offer internallydeveloped tools than in 2021. Out of the total trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading withcustomers executed by all the Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading, the trading volume
executed by the Members that have provided automatic trading tools accounted for approximately
19.5% (about 19.3% in 2021). The share has been around 20% to 25% in recent years. The trading
volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by operators that havecontinuously provided automatic trading tools since FY 2013 accounted for roughly 2.9% (about
3.3% in 2021) of the total trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executedby operators that have conducted such trading for all the survey years since 2013. However, incomparison with 2013 (April), the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers
in each year executed by the Members who consistently provided automatic trading tools has beenslightly higher than those of the other Members in recent years.
When we look at API, we see that the number of Members handling OTC retail FX margin tradingand providing API has been on a decreasing trend since 2015 (for reference, 15 companies in 2015
and 7 companies in 2022), and the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers
executed by the Members that have provided API was approximately 2.6% (about 10.7% in 2021) of
the total trading volume of all the Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading with customers.
The trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by operators that havecontinuously provided API since FY 2013 accounted for roughly 0.1% of the total trading volume of
OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by operators that have conducted suchtrading for all the survey years since FY 2013. In addition, in comparison with April 2013, thetrading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers in each year executed by Members
who consistently provided automated trading tools has been slightly lower than those of the otherMembers in the past few years, although it was once higher in some periods in the past. These datasuggest that the provision of API is deemed not to have contributed to a specific increase of trading
volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed by the Members.
24

Judging from the fact that compared with the results of spot trading at the foreign exchange
market of around 429 trillion yen released by the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee
survey, the amount of transactions by non-financial institution customers (domestic) into whichtransactions by Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading are categorized is approximately
96 trillion yen, with the external circulation of OTC retail FX margin trading reaching approximately
372 trillion yen, it appears that OTC retail FX margin trading has a certain impact on the foreignexchange market, as shown in last year’s report.
As for usage of cover transactions by attribute, the total number of Members handling OTC retail
FX margin trading that use firms for cover transactions has remained the same level as in theprevious survey, while as for the total number of Members by attribute, the number of financial
institutions that participate in (report to) the Survey on Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume on
Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market has been increasing as counterparties in cover transactions. With
regard to the trading volume of cover transactions by attribute of cover counterparty traders, theincreasing ratio of amount of cover transactions by domestic operators to the total amount in eachyear has been stabilizing in the past few years, as seen in Table 5-2, (4).
It was also confirmed that ratios of financial institutions that participate in (report to) the Survey
on Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume in Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market are more than 60% in
the total number of Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading and more than 30% in trading
volume of cover transactions. This indicates that the business relationship has continuously been
established between Members that handle OTC retail FX margin trading and financial institutions
that participate in (report to) the Survey on Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume in Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market through cover transactions for OTC retail FX margin trading.
(Written by Koji Kurakata of the Research Department of the FFAJ)･ The Financial Futures Association of Japan does not guarantee that data and information provided in this document
are accurate, correct, and/or up to date, although it has made every effort to ensure such accuracy, correctness, andtimeliness.
･ All of the information contained in this document (text, charts, tables, etc.) is subject to copyright and is protected by
the applicable copyright laws and international treaties. The Financial Futures Association of Japan does not assume
any liability for and has no obligation to compensate for any loss or damage caused by or arising from data andinformation contained herein, including any errors, omissions, or reliance on this information.
Copyright © The Financial Futures Association of Japan All Rights Reserved.

25