Note: This English translation is for reference purposes only. In the event of any discrepancy between the Japanese original
and this English translation, the Japanese original shall prevail. The Financial Futures Association of Japan assumes noresponsibility for this translation or for direct, indirect or any other form of damage arising from the translation.

Results of the Actual Conditions Survey of Over-The-Counter Retail Foreign Exchange
Margin Trading
October 29, 2021
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 2021
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, 2021 (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 51 3.
Exhibit 1: Change in Number of Members Subject to the Survey
Survey Month and Year
April 2013
April 2014
April 2015
April 2016
April 2017
April 2018
April 2019
April 2020
April 2021

Number of Members Subject to the Survey
59
61
56
51
53
53
51
52
51

(Unit: Company (Member))Year-on-Year Change
-4
2
-5
-5
2
0
-2
1
-1

Trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers uses a figure aggregated based on the monitoring survey that isreported 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 thesame 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.)
11

3. Collected Results<Item 1>
(1) Business Model
The Association focused on the flow of executing a transaction of OTC retail FX margin trading, andcategorized 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
Each Business
Model (model No.)White Label[Note 1]

No. of Firms Used for
Cover Transactions to
Formulate Prices[Note 2]Marry
(During Trading
Hours)[Note 3]1

Discretionary
Yes

2
3

DiscretionaryNo57Discretionary
Yes

8

After
BeforeSeveral10

After
BeforeNot
Applicable

9

After
BeforeSingle46Timing of Execution with
Customers and CoverTransaction[Note 4]Discretionary
No

11

After

12

Before13

Discretionary
Yes

14
15

Single16Discretionary
No

17
18
19

22

After
BeforeApplicable

Discretionary
Yes

20
21

After
BeforeAfter
BeforeSeveralDiscretionary
No

23
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 wherea 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 selectedor synthesized from those provided by several firms that are used for cover transactions 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 with customers byusing marry, it is described as “Yes,” while if there is no such system, it is described as “No.” Additionally, if covertransactions are made for all the transactions executed with customers during the daytime in principle, it is described as

2

“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 by transactions with other customers that match against theoriginal 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 described as “After,”while if a transaction with a customer is executed only after a cover transaction is completed, it is described as “Before.” If
a cover transaction can be made either before or after executing a transaction with a customer, it is described as“Discretionary.” Also, if a Member holds its own position by making a cover transaction before receiving a customer orderand can match its own position against the customer’s order, it is described as “Discretionary.” If a transaction with acustomer can be completed at the same time when a cover transaction 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 the outsourcing 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 (51 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 60, 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.), 16 members (accounting forabout 26.7% 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 marrytransactions), while 26 members (accounting for about 43.3% of the total responses) adopted at least
one of Model Nos. 7 to 9 (the business models that are not a white label form, use several firms forcover transactions, and can conduct marry transactions), out of which the number of Members that
adopted Model No. 8 (the business model that is not a white label form, uses several firms for covertransactions, can conduct marry transactions, and conducts a cover transaction after carrying out
contract with a customer) was 20 (accounting for approximately 33.3% of the total responses).
Exhibit 3 shows the number of Members subject to the survey (51 in total) that adopted either“Single (one)” or “Several (two, or three or more)” business models (model No.).

3

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 a single model

The number of Members that adopt
several (two) models

The number of Members that adopt
several (three or more) models

43

7

1

(3) Ranking of Members Based on Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with
Customers and Business Models Adopted
We rank the Members subject to the survey based on the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin
trading, and categorize them into three classes 4. Exhibit 4 shows the total number of Members byeach of three 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 Third Class, and Model Nos. 6 and 18 for the Second Class.

4

We rank the Members subject to the survey by the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading in FY ended April 2021, andcategorized the top one-third as the First Class (Rank 1st to 17th), the next one-third as the Second Class (Rank 18th to 34th), andthe remaining one-third as the Third Class (Rank 35th to 51st).

4

Exhibit 4: Total Number of Members in Each of Three Classes Based on OTC Retail FX
Margin Trading Volume Ranking that Adopted a Certain Model (model No.) Shown inPart 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.
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:

5

Prime Broker (PB) means a broker who intermediates a transaction between the Member and a bank that is used for a covertransaction, and takes up the position of the Members based on the give-up instruction or by a tri-party agreement for thesettlement between the Member and the financial institution used for the cover transaction.

5

Exhibit 5: Use of PB system and the Usage Amount
Survey Month andYear

No. of Members
using the PB System

No. of contracts
made through the
PB system(total) [Note 2]

No. of PBs(Net)

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[Note 1]

PB usage amount(million yen)

[Note 3]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, and Decreased)(Unit: Company (Member))
Survey Month andYear

No. of Members thatceased using PBs

No. of Members that
decreased thenumber of PBs used

No. of Members that
increased thenumber of PBs used

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

6

1

April 2021

0

0

2

1

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.

(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 10 in 2021. Of these, the attribute of eight PBs is “i. Financial institutions
subject to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee.”6

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

6

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

April 2014

i. Financial
institutions
subject toreporting to theTokyo Foreign
Exchange
MarketCommittee
6-iii. Financial
institution subject toreporting to acentral bank, etc.
(overseas)(excluding thosecategorized as i or
ii)
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

Survey Monthand Yearii. Financial
institution
subject toreporting to the
Bank of Japan(excluding thosecategorized as i)

Domestic PBs
other than i to iii

Overseas PBs
other than i to
iii

-

-

<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.
Exhibit 8: Number of Members Offering Automatic Trading Tools and the Attributes ofDevelopers of the Tools(Unit: Company (Member))
Survey Month andYear

No. of Membersthat offeredautomatic trading tools

Whether the automatic trading tools offered
were internally developed, externally developed, or bothInternallydeveloped

Externally developed(developed by others)

Both

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

7

(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 (total of 17 Members) in all the surveys conducted every April from 2013 onwards.
Exhibit 9: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customer(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, %)Change(As
Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin comparedwithTrading with Customers
previousyear)

Change(Ascomparedwithpreviousyear)

Change(Ascomparedwithpreviousyear)

Change(Ascomparedwith April
2013)

Change(Ascomparedwith April
2013)

Change(Ascomparedwith April
2013)

SurveyMonth andYear

Members
Membersthat offeredsubject to theautomatic
Surveytrading tools

Membersthat did notoffer
automatic
trading tools

Members
subject totheSurveyMembersthatofferedautomatic
trading
tools

Membersthat did
not offer
automatic
trading
tools

Members
subject totheSurveyMembersthatofferedautomatic
trading
tools

Membersthat did
not offer
automatic
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%

April 2016

407,399,182

98,816,141

308,583,041

89.9%

269.3%

74.1%

92.1%

132.0%

84.0%

April 2017319,281,362

79,001,116

240,280,246

78.4%

79.9%

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%

April 2021

543,629,832

104,821,804

438,808,028

103.0%

89.9%

106.7%

123.0%

140.0%

119.5%

8

Exhibit 10: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customer(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

SurveyMonth andYear

Members that Members that (Reference)
Change in Change in (Reference) Change in Change in (Reference)
have offered have not
Members that
(A)
(B)
Change in (A)(B)
Change inautomatic
offeredhave conducted (As
(As
(C)
(As
(As
(C)
trading tools automatic
OTC retail FX compared compared (Ascompared compared (Asin all the
trading tools margin trading withwithcompared with April with April compared
years fromin all thefor all the years previous previous with
with April
2013)
2013)
April 2013 to years fromyear)
previous
2013)
from April 2013 year)
2021 (total of April 2013 to to 2021 other
year)
seven
2021 (total of than (A) and (B)Members)... 17(total of 20(A)
Members)... Members)… (C)(B)

April 2013

11,070,396

295,326,287

130,260,273 ---100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

April 2014

5,241,405

171,345,063

57,337,855

47.3%

58.0%

44.0%

47.3%

58.0%

44.0%

April 2015

7,952,351

326,124,085

111,178,035

151.7%

190.3%

193.9%

71.8%

110.4%

85.4%

April 2016

8,422,027

300,210,296

96,072,117105.9%

92.1%

86.4%

76.1%

101.7%

73.8%

April 2017

6,813,317

232,087,673

76,263,695

80.9%

77.3%

79.4%

61.5%

78.6%

58.5%

April 2018

7,402,775

210,871,762

86,214,522

108.7%

90.9%

113.0%

66.9%

71.4%

66.2%

April 2019

11,386,071

156,590,707

69,603,762

153.8%

74.3%

80.7%

102.9%

53.0%

53.4%

April 2020

23,339,173

356,818,429

138,977,362

205.0%

227.9%

199.7%

210.8%

120.8%

106.7%

April 2021

17,180,618

366,041,823

145,384,831

73.6%

102.6%

104.6%

155.2%

123.9%

111.6%<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
Survey Month and Year
April 20137

No. of Members thatoffered API
5

No. of Members that
stopped offering API—(Unit: Company (Member))No. of Members that started
offering API—

April 2014

7

0

2

April 2015

15

0

8

April 2016

12

3

1

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

In this document, API (Application Programming Interface) means specifications of the interface that is used to exchange datawith external software (mainly a system for system trading).

9(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(total of three Members) and by the Members that have not offered automatic trading tools in all thesurveys conducted every April from 2013 onwards (total of 27 Members).
Exhibit 12: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customer(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, %)ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChange
(As
(As
(As
(As
(As
(As
Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin compared compared compared compared compared compared
Trading with Customers
with
with
with
with
with
with
previous previous previous
April
April
April
year)
year)
year)
2013)
2013)
2013)
Members
Survey Monthsubject to theand Year
SurveyMembersthat offered
API

Membersthat did notoffer API

Members Members
Members Members
thatthat didthat
that did
Members
Members
offerednot offerofferednot offersubject tosubject to
API in
API in
API in
API in
the
the
each
each
each
each
SurveySurveysurveysurveysurveysurvey
month
month
month
month

April 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%

10

Exhibit 13: Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading with Customer(By Members that offered/ did not offer API in all the surveys conducted every April from2013 onwards)(Unit: million yen, %)Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin
Trading with Customers
Members that Members that (Reference)
Change in Change in (Reference) Change in Change in (Reference)
Change inChange inhave offered have not
Members that
(A)
(B)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(C)
(As
(As
(As
API for all the offered API have conducted
(As
(As
(As
for all the
OTC retail FX
compared compared
compared compared
years fromcompared with April with April comparedmargin trading
with
with
Survey April 2013 to years fromwithwith April
2013)
2013)
Month and 2021 (total of April 2013 to for all the years previous previous
previous
2013)
2021 (total of from April 2013
year)
year)
three
Year
year)
to 2021 otherMembers)... 27
Members)... than (A) and (B)(A)(B)(total of 14
Members)… (C)April 2013

46,387,948

320,656,863

69,612,145

-

-

-

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

April 2014

20,378,817

176,377,807

37,167,699

43.9%

55.0%

53.4%

43.9%

55.0%

53.4%

April 2015

41,039,288

328,085,959

76,129,224

201.4%

186.0%

204.8%

88.5%

102.3%

109.4%

April 2016

31,931,616

301,826,673

70,946,151

77.8%

92.0%

93.2%

68.8%

94.1%

101.9%

April 201724,653,767

232,752,326

57,758,592

77.2%

77.1%

81.4%

53.1%

72.6%

83.0%

April 201826,125,260

225,537,507

52,826,292

106.0%

96.9%

91.5%

56.3%

70.3%

75.9%

April 2019

20,779,470

165,924,875

50,876,195

79.5%

73.6%

96.3%

44.8%

51.7%

73.1%

April 2020

43,253,181

374,626,354

101,255,429

208.2%

225.8%

199.0%

93.2%

116.8%

145.5%

April 2021

45,173,980

371,381,282

112,052,010

104.4%

99.1%

110.7%

97.4%

115.8%

161.0%<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 Tradingthat Also Handled OTC Currency Option Trading

Survey Month and Year
April 2013
April 2014
April 2015
April 2016
April 2017
April 2018
April 2019
April 2020
April 2021

(Unit: Company (Member))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
13
8
13
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.

11

Part 2: Aggregation and Analysis of Cover Transaction Data for Over-The-Counter Retail
Foreign Exchange 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 of Business(Unit: Company (Member))
Attribute of Member(Business Type)
Survey Month and Year

April 2012
April 2013
April 2014
April 2015
April 2016
April 2017
April 2018
April 2019
April 2020
April 2021

Registered
Financial
Institution

Securities
Company [Note 1]

Financial Futures
Company, etc. [Note 2]

Total

3
3
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7

34
30
31
30
30
29
29
27
27
26

27
26
25
21
16
19
18
18
18
18

64
59
61
56
51
53
53
51
52
51

Note 1: Securities Company means a member of the Association that is also a member of the Japan Securities Dealers Association(excluding OTC derivative members and special members).
Note 2: Financial Futures Company, etc. means a member of the Association (including commodity futures trading companies) otherthan a Registered Financial Institution and Securities Company.

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
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 FX margin trading (external
circulation volume) increases, it may impact the FX market through firms used for covertransactions (as well as market makers).
Table 2 below shows the external circulation volume of retail FX margin trading.

12

Table 2: External Circulation Volume of FX Margin Trading
OTC retail FX margin trading
Survey Monthand Year(1) Trading
Volume with
Customers(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 External
365
Circulation
VolumeTrading
Volumeof FX Margin[Notes 2, 3] Trading=(2)+(3)April 2012

1,278,975

700,28854.8%

578,687

49,157

749,445

April 2013

4,421,193

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

April 2016

4,073,991

1,681,387

41.3%

2,392,604

31,728

1,713,115

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

Note 1: Based on the Monitoring Data. Hedge transactions and other transactions are included for members for which hedgetransactions 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 the month-end
settlement price.
Note 3: There were a total of six MM (market makers) as of June 30, 2021 (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 margin trading accounted for 77.7%of the spot trading volume in the Tokyo foreign exchange market.
Table 3: Comparison between Spot Transactions in the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market andExternal Circulation Volume(Unit: 100 million yen, %)Survey Results Announced by the Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market Committee [Note 1]
Survey Monthand Year(1) Spot Trading
Volume(2) Of which,Transactions with
Non-Financial
Institution Customers(domestic) [Note 2](3) Total External
Circulation Volume of
FX Margin Trading(The same as those in(4) in Table 2)(3)/(1)(%)(3)/(2)(%)

April 2012

1,614,486

319,237

749,44546.4%

234.8%

April 2013

3,077,047

793,050

2,100,566

68.3%

264.9%

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

2,086,902

445,068

1,287,925

61.7%

289.4%

April 2018

2,809,094

1,083,271

1,295,257

46.1%

119.6%

April 2019

2,741,964

1,108,325

1,056,986

38.5%

95.4%

April 2020

3,012,421

948,547

1,782,708

59.2%

187.9%

April 2021

3,176,389

986,0032,468,424

77.7%

250.3%

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” published13

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, and 108.885 yen in 2021).
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 be recorded as transactions with
non-financial institution customers. However, it should be noted that such transactions 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.

3. Cover Transactions for OTC Retail FX Margin Trading(1) Firms Used for Cover Transactions by Attribute 8 and Use of Cover Transactions
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 theattribute of firms used for cover transactions with which Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading make a 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, thenumber of Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading is approximately 8.6 on average per
financial institution subject to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee, which ishigher 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))

Survey Month andYear[Note 2]

1. Total from (1) to (3)(1) Financial institutions subject toreporting to the Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market Committee(2) Financial institutions subject toreporting to the Bank of Japan(excluding (1))(3) Other financial institutions, etc.
subject to reporting to a central bank(overseas) (excluding (1) and (2))

2. Total of firms that are notcategorized into any of the above but
are used for cover transactions (totalof (4) and (5))(4) Domestic Operators(5) Overseas Operators Total

U.S.

U.K.

Singapore

Australia

Others [Note 1]

Grand Total

Attributeof Firms Used
for
Cover
Transactions

April 2012

20

15

2

3

35

13

22

7

7

4

1

3

55

April 2013

26

21

1

4

30

10

20

3

9

4

1

3

56

April 2014

25

18

1

6

32

12

20

2

9

4

3

2

57

April 2015

22

16

1

5

35

11

24

3

9

4

5

3

57

April 2016

22

16

1

5

36

13

23

3

8

4

4

4

58

8

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 to reporting to the Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market Committee”; financial institutions, etc. that cooperate with the “Central Bank Survey on Foreign Exchange andDerivatives (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”; and financial institutions, etc. that cooperate with the “FX and Derivatives
Survey” conducted by a central bank other than in Japan are categorized into “Other financial institutions, etc. subject to reporting
to a central bank (overseas).”14

April 2017

26

19

1

6

41

13

28

5

10

5

4

4

67

April 2018

25

19

1

5

43

13

30

5

11

4

4

6

68

April 2019

26

19

1

6

45

14

31

5

11

5

4

6

71

April 2020

27

19

1

7

49

14

35

5

12

8

3

7

76

April 2021

26

19

1

6

44

12

32

5

11

7

3

6

70

Note 1: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, and Vanuatu.
Note 2: Corrections have been made to figures reported in the 2019 survey for the figures of April 2020.

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))

1. Total from (1) to (3)(1) Financial institutions subject toreporting to the Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market Committee(2) Financial institutions subject toreporting to the Bank of Japan(excluding (1))(3) Other financial institutions, etc.
subject to reporting to a central bank(overseas) (excluding (1) and (2))

2. Total of firms that are not categorized
into any of the above but are used forcover transactions (total of (4) and (5))(4) Domestic Operators(5) Overseas Operators Total

U.S.

U.K.

Singapore

Australia

Others [Note 2]Grand Total

Attributeof Firms Used
for
Cover
Transactions

April 2012

141

110

9

22

78

30

48

21

8

14

1

4

219

April 2013

140

109

2

29

63

27

36

5

13

14

1

3

203

April 2014

141

123

2

16

68

31

37

3

14

15

3

2

209

April 2015

128

113

1

14

68

24

44

4

16

16

5

3

196

April 2016

136

116

1

19

68

25

43

8

11

15

4

5

204

April 2017

152

132

1

19

79

29

50

10

13

16

4

7

231

April 2018

156

137

1

18

86

32

54

6

19

16

5

8

242

April 2019

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

8

21

20

3

6

276

Survey Monthand Year

Note 1: This is a total aggregated figure after categorizing firms for cover transactions used by Members handling OTC retail FX
margin trading by attribute.
Note 2: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, and Vanuatu.

15

(2) Trading Volume of Cover Transactions by Attribute of Firms Used for Cover Transactions
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 31.8% of all cover transactions.
Table 6 shows the aggregated result by categorizing data in (1), (2), and (4) of the attributes of firms
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)

(1) Financial institutions subject to reporting to
the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee(2) Financial institutions subject to reporting to
the Bank of Japan (excluding (1))(3) Financial institutions, etc. subject to reporting
to a central bank (overseas) (excluding (1) and(2))

2. Other Firms Used for Cover Transactions(Other than 1.)(4) Domestic Operators

U.S.

U.K.

Singapore

Australia

Others [Note]

Grand Total

April 2012

334,156

312,265

021,890366,131234,011 132,120

65,95331,861

29,604

3,781

918

700,288

April 2013

872,994537,7530335,241

1,152,765

929,451 223,314

18,80860,095 136,950

5,972

1,486

2,025,760

April 2014

562,145546,098

0

16,047423,923

347,362

76,5609,942

32,667

29,775

3,089

1,084

986,069

April 2015

1,066,640

1,043,167

023,472752,202636,729 115,473

38,95336,862

18,156

20,976525

1,818,843

April 2016

841,822789,458

052,364

839,564

750,352

89,212

36,766

18,381

19,973

10,196

3,893

1,681,387

April 2017558,313521,352

036,960707,068

617,018

90,04938,08834,248

7,697

6,503

3,511

1,265,381

April 2018606,608

580,509

0

26,099665,264

553,916

111,347

46,43333,411

15,433

14,321

1,747

1,271,873

April 2019537,300

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

April 2021

830,855

778,846052,008

1,620,362

1,452,932 167,430

69,92761,02921,98011,7712,720

2,451,217

SurveyMonth andYear

(5) Overseas Operators Total

1. Financial Institutions (financial institutions
included in category (1) to (3))Financial
Institutions (financial institutions included in
categories (1) to (3))

Attributeof Firms
Used forCover
Transactions

Note: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, and Vanuatu.

16

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: %)SurveyMonth andYear

1. Financial Institutions (financial institutions
included in category (1) to (3))Financial
Institutions (financial institutions included in
categories (1) to (3))(1) Financial institutions subject to reportingto the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market
Committee(2) Financial institutions subject to reportingto the Bank of Japan (excluding (1))(3) Financial institutions, etc. subject toreporting to a central bank (overseas)(excluding (1) and (2))

2. Other Firms Used for Cover Transactions(Other than 1.)(4) Domestic Operators(5) Overseas Operators Total

U.S.

U.K.

Singapore

Australia

Others [Note]

Grand Total

Attributeof Firms
Used forCover
Transactions

April 2012

47.7%

44.6%

0.0%

3.1%

52.3%

33.4%

18.9%

9.4%

4.5%

4.2%

0.5%

0.1%

100.0%

April 2013

43.1%

26.5%

0.0%

16.5%

56.9%

45.9%

11.0%

0.9%

3.0%

6.8%

0.3%

0.1%

100.0%

April 2014

57.0%

55.4%

0.0%

1.6%

43.0%

35.2%

7.8%

1.0%

3.3%

3.0%

0.3%

0.1%

100.0%

April 2015

58.6%

57.4%

0.0%

1.3%

41.4%

35.0%

6.3%

2.1%

2.0%

1.0%

1.2%

0.0%

100.0%

April 2016

50.1%

47.0%

0.0%

3.1%

49.9%

44.6%

5.3%

2.2%

1.1%

1.2%

0.6%

0.2%

100.0%

April 2017

44.1%

41.2%

0.0%

2.9%

55.9%

48.8%

7.1%

3.0%

2.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.3%

100.0%

April 2018

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%

April 2019

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%

April 2020

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%

2.9%

2.5%

0.9%

0.5%

0.1%

100.0%

April 2021

Note: Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Belize, Cyprus, UAE, Germany, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Greece, and Vanuatu.

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

Trading Volume of
Cover Transactions(Total)Domestic Cover Transactions

Overseas Cover Transactions

Trading Volume

Percentage
of Total

Trading Volume

Percentage
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%

219,4389.0%

17

(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) (by ranking
class based on the trading volume with customers)(Unit: 100 million yen)

SurveyMonth andYear

1st to 3rdplace

4th to 10thplace

11th to 20thplace

21st to 30thplace

31st to 40thplace

41st placeand 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

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

Total

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

SurveyMonth andYear

1st to 3rdplace

4th to 10thplace

11th to 20thplace

21st to 30thplace

31st to 40thplace

41st placeand more

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

18

Total

Table 9: Ratio of Trading Volume of Cover Transaction
by Ranking Class Based on the Trading Volume of OTC Retail FX Margin Trading to the
Total Trading Volume of Cover Transactions
1st to 3rdplace

4th to 10thplace

11th to 20thplace

21st to 30thplace

31st to 40thplace

(Unit: %)41st place andmore

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%

Survey Month andYear

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)
1st to 3rdplace

4th to 10thplace

11th to 20thplace

21st to 30thplace

31st to 40thplace

(Unit: % [Note])
41st place andmore

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

14.4%

61.5%

75.7%

88.2%

85.1%

94.4%

Survey Month and
Year

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 a change of the firm used for cover transactions ortransaction errors.

19

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 found a trend that 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. Among the Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading, a slightly decreasing number of Members, whose trading volume of OTC retail FX margin
trading is smaller, have adopted a white label form in recent years, use a single firm for covertransactions, and do not conduct marry transactions. When we rank Members handling OTC retail
FX margin trading by the trading volume to divide them into classes, we found members in a classwith a smaller trading volume generally still had a higher share of cover transactions.
Automatic trading tools are provided this year by 20 Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading, decreased from last year (23 Members in 2020), and a lower number of them offer internallydeveloped tools than in 2020. 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
19.3% (about 22.1% in 2020). 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 3.3% (about
4.5% in 2020) 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. In this regard, theprovision of automatic trading tools 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.
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 9 companies in 2021), and the trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers
executed by the Members that have provided API was approximately 10.7% (about 14.5% in 2020)of the total trading volume of all the members handling OTC retail FX margin trading withcustomers. The trading volume of OTC retail FX margin trading with customers executed byoperators that have continuously provided API since FY 2013 accounted for roughly 8.5% (about
8.3% in 2020) 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 FY 2013, which suggeststhat 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.
Judging from the fact that compared with the results of spot trading at the foreign exchange market
of around 318 trillion yen released by the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market Committee survey, theamount of transactions by non-financial institution customers (domestic) into which transactions by
Members handling OTC retail FX margin trading are categorized is approximately 99 trillion yen
with the external circulation of OTC retail FX margin trading reaching approximately 245 trillion
yen, it appears that OTC retail FX margin trading has a certain impact on the foreign exchange
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 been on an increasing trend in recent years,
which indicates that there is generally an upward trend in the number of counterparts for Members
handling OTC retail FX margin trading in cover transactions in all attributes of firms for covertransactions. However, this year’s survey confirmed that the total number of said Members is on thesame level as in the previous survey, and that, as for the said attribute, the number of financial
institutions that participate in (report to) the Survey on Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume inTokyo Foreign Exchange Market has been increasing as counterparties in cover transactions. With20

regard to the trading volume of cover transactions by attribute of cover counterparty traders, theamount of cover transactions by firms used for cover transactions has been increasing in domestic
operators as seen in Table 5-2, (4). It was also confirmed that ratios of financial institutions thatparticipate in (report to) the Survey on Foreign Exchange Transaction Volume in Tokyo Foreign
Exchange Market are more than half in the total number of Members handling OTC retail FX margin
trading and approximately 30% in trading volume of cover transactions. This indicates that thebusiness 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 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 protectedby the applicable copyright laws and international treaties. The Financial Futures Association of Japan does notassume any liability for and has no obligation to compensate for any loss or damage caused by or arising from dataand information contained herein, including any errors, omissions, or reliance on this information.
Copyright © The Financial Futures Association of Japan All Rights Reserved.

21