Trade Repositories

In the work of reporting over-the-counter derivative trade information to authorities, you need to know what the receiving entity accepts and what it passes on, and to whom.

Why trade repositories were created

In September 2009, G20 leaders meeting in Pittsburgh in the United States agreed that over-the-counter derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories¹. After the 2008 financial crisis, authorities recognized that they needed a source of comprehensive and consistent data on the over-the-counter derivatives market, and they encouraged the establishment of trade repositories².

According to the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMI), the international principles for financial market infrastructure (FMI), a trade repository is an entity that maintains a centralized electronic record (database) of transaction data. It is a type of financial market infrastructure that has newly emerged in the over-the-counter derivatives market. If it is well designed and operated with effective risk controls, it can improve transparency of transaction information for authorities and the public by centralizing the collection, storage, and dissemination of data³.

Authorities use the data for four purposes: assessing systemic risk and financial stability, monitoring the market and enforcing the law, supervising market participants, and resolving failed financial institutions⁴. The 2010 recommendations of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) called for collecting data on all over-the-counter derivative trades, whether or not they are eventually cleared. For trades that are cleared or terminated early, the FSB also called for keeping the original trade terms on record⁵.

The role of Japanese trade repositories

The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) says that trade information goes to a trade repository or a designated foreign trade repository. A central counterparty (CCP) (called a financial instruments clearing organization, etc. in the FIEA) sends information on the trades for which it has assumed the obligations. Financial instruments business operators, etc. send, as a rule, information on their trades other than those for which a clearing organization has assumed the obligations. Of the trades for which a clearing organization has assumed the obligations, only those that a Cabinet Office order specifies are covered⁶. A designated foreign trade repository is an entity that does the same kind of business abroad and has been designated by the Prime Minister⁷.

Trade information flows as follows.

1. A clearing organization or a financial instruments business operator, etc. sends trade information to a trade repository.
2. The repository keeps a record of the trade information and submits it to the Commissioner of the Financial Services Agency.
3. The repository publishes aggregate figures for outstanding balances and the number of trades.

Figure description

Of the three parties in the figure, the sender is, as a rule, a clearing organization or a financial instruments business operator, etc. TR is the trade repository, and the Commissioner box is the Commissioner of the Financial Services Agency. Which trades are covered depends on the Cabinet Office order described in the next paragraph. The dashed lines show the flow of information, not money. The repository also publishes aggregate figures. Publication is a separate task from reporting to the Commissioner of the Financial Services Agency, and the figure draws no arrow for it.

A Cabinet Office order sets out which trades are covered. Trades whose counterparty is the national government, a local government, the Bank of Japan, or the like, and trades whose counterparty is a parent company, a subsidiary, or the like, are not covered⁸. Reporting deadlines, reporting items, and the operations that produce reports are covered in Regulatory Reporting.

The FIEA and the Cabinet Office order set out what a trade repository does with the information it receives, including steps 2 and 3 above.

When it learns of a change to trade information, a repository also submits the change by the business day after the day it learned of it, and it submits the records it holds at least once a month. If the repository takes measures to make its data viewable by the Commissioner, that can replace the report¹⁰¹¹.

Consider a hypothetical example in which Bank D (fictional) is a financial instruments business operator, etc. Apply the conditions above to see who sends information on each of three trades.

To become a trade repository, an entity must be designated by the Prime Minister. The requirements for designation are as follows.

• It is a corporation other than one established under foreign laws and regulations.
• There are no grounds such as a past revocation of designation, criminal penalties, or disqualification of officers.
• It has a sound financial base and a good outlook for revenue and expenditure.
• In light of its personnel structure, it has the knowledge and experience to carry out the business properly and reliably, and it has sufficient public trust.

When an entity is designated, its trade name, location, and date of designation are announced in the Official Gazette¹⁶.

The version of the Financial Services Agency's list of trade repositories dated January 6, 2015 shows one entity, DTCC Data Repository Japan K.K., as a trade repository¹⁷. In the FSB's table, this entity was authorized in Japan and Australia at the end of June 2018. No other entity was authorized in Japan¹⁸.

What authorities and the public can see

According to PFMI Principle 24, a trade repository provides timely and accurate data that meets the needs of both authorities and the public. For the public, it provides, to the extent available and appropriate, at least aggregated data on open positions, number of trades, and amounts, and breakdowns by categories such as counterparty and currency. Authorities need access to participant-level data to the extent relevant to their mandates, such as market oversight and the resolution of failed financial institutions¹⁹.

Whether authorities can actually access a repository's data depends on each country's laws. The FSB's 2010 recommendations called for market regulators, central banks, prudential supervisors, and resolution authorities to have effective access to the data they need for their mandates²⁰. The FSB's 2015 peer review found that obstacles to authorities' access remain widespread, that some countries impose constraints even on domestic authorities, and that there are almost no arrangements under which foreign authorities can access a repository's data²¹.

How the United States and Europe recognize repositories

The authority that recognizes repositories, and the method it uses, differ by country and region.

The US Commodity Exchange Act requires registration with the CFTC to perform the functions of a swap data repository. A derivatives clearing organization may also register as a swap data repository²². A repository accepts the data the CFTC prescribes, confirms the accuracy of the data with both counterparties to the swap, and keeps it. It gives the CFTC direct electronic access and keeps the trade information it receives confidential. On request, it also provides data, including counterparty-level data, to bank regulators, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the SEC, the Department of Justice, foreign authorities, and others, after receiving a written agreement to keep the data confidential²³. Security-based swaps have the same framework, with registration with the SEC²⁴.

The CFTC's rules require a repository to have a system that publicly disseminates trade and price data in real time²⁵. The rules also set out procedures for authorities to access the data. They cover domestic authorities such as the CFTC, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve Banks, as well as foreign authorities that the CFTC has approved²⁶.

In Europe, under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), ESMA is directly responsible for registering, supervising, and recognizing trade repositories. A repository located in the EU needs ESMA registration, and a repository outside the EU that operates in the EU needs ESMA recognition. Parties to a trade can meet their reporting obligations only through a registered or recognized repository. After registration, ESMA checks compliance with the EMIR requirements through desk-based supervision, investigations, and on-site inspections²⁷.

In the ESMA register (the version retrieved on October 2, 2026), the registered repositories are four: KDPW in Poland, Regis-TR in Luxembourg, LSEG Regulatory Reporting B.V. in the Netherlands, and DTCC Data Repository (Ireland) Plc in Ireland. Each accepts five asset classes: commodities and emission allowances, credit, currency, equity, and interest rates. The register's last-updated date is January 31, 2024. According to the register, the first registration took effect on November 14, 2013, and the reporting obligation began on February 12, 2014²⁸.

What goes wrong when reports are split across repositories

There are multiple trade repositories, split by country and asset class. At the time of the FSB's 2014 report, 25 repositories were operating or planned in 11 jurisdictions²⁹. The FSB's table as of the end of June 2018 lists 22 trade repositories authorized in FSB member jurisdictions. It lists 13 entities with functions similar to a trade repository (including authorities)¹⁸.

Reporting requirements differ by jurisdiction, and so do the practices of the repositories. As a result, data was spread across many places, stored in various formats, and subject to different rules for authorities' access³⁰. According to the FSB's 2015 peer review, competitive pressure and regulatory requirements led to more repositories and to fragmented data. Problems with the format, completeness, and accuracy of the data also limited its usefulness. Because there are many repositories, and the details of reporting requirements differ by repository and jurisdiction, aggregating and comparing data from different sources became very difficult³¹³².

Another obstacle to aggregation is identifiers. Trade and product identifiers were not aligned and the use of the LEI varied, which made it hard for many authorities to aggregate and analyze data accurately, especially across borders³⁴. The FSB's 2014 report made three recommendations: speed up the introduction of the LEI, speed up the creation of the UTI (unique transaction identifier) and the UPI (unique product identifier), and develop guidance to harmonize the data elements that are reported³⁵.

The same report compares three approaches to global aggregation.

The report found the physically centralized and logically centralized approaches much preferable to authorities collecting separately. It did not rank the first two against each other³⁶. The report did not treat the creation of such a mechanism as decided. It lists legal amendments, governance arrangements, data and technology requirements, and cost considerations as steps needed if a decision to build one is made³⁵.

Notes

1. Financial Stability Board, "Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms" (October 25, 2010), Foreword (page iii). It cites the G20 agreement in Pittsburgh. ↩

2. Financial Stability Board, "Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms" (October 2010), section 5.1 "Establishment of trade repositories" (page 44). ↩

3. Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the BIS and Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, "金融市場インフラのための原則" (Principles for financial market infrastructures, provisional Japanese translation by the Bank of Japan), paragraph 1.14 (page 12) (in Japanese). The English original is CPSS-IOSCO, "Principles for financial market infrastructures" (April 2012), which uses the same paragraph numbers. ↩

4. Financial Stability Board, "Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms" (October 2010), Executive Summary, "Reporting to trade repositories" (page 6). ↩

5. Financial Stability Board, "Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms" (October 2010), Recommendations 15 and 18 (page 6). ↩

6. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 156-63, paragraphs 1 and 3 (clearing organizations) and Article 156-64, paragraph 1 (financial instruments business operators, etc.). "店頭デリバティブ取引等の規制に関する内閣府令" (Cabinet Office Order on the Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 6-2. ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 156-63, paragraph 1. ↩

8. "店頭デリバティブ取引等の規制に関する内閣府令" (Cabinet Office Order on the Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 6, paragraph 1 (covered trades) and paragraph 2, items 1 to 4 and 6 (counterparties whose trades are excluded). ↩ ↩²

9. "店頭デリバティブ取引等の規制に関する内閣府令" (Cabinet Office Order on the Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 10, paragraphs 2 and 4. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act), Article 156-65, paragraph 1. ↩

10. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 156-65, paragraphs 2 and 3. ↩ ↩² ↩³

11. "店頭デリバティブ取引等の規制に関する内閣府令" (Cabinet Office Order on the Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 11, paragraphs 1 to 3 (deadlines for submission) and paragraph 5 (measures to make data viewable). ↩ ↩²

12. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 156-66, paragraph 1. ↩

13. "店頭デリバティブ取引等の規制に関する内閣府令" (Cabinet Office Order on the Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 11-2, paragraphs 1 and 2. ↩ ↩²

14. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 156-70 (duty of confidentiality) and Article 156-75 (prohibition of discriminatory treatment). ↩

15. "店頭デリバティブ取引等の規制に関する内閣府令" (Cabinet Office Order on the Regulation of Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 3, paragraph 1 (clearing organizations) and Article 7, paragraph 1 (financial instruments business operators, etc.). ↩

16. "金融商品取引法" (Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, in Japanese; English translation: Japanese Law Translation), Article 156-67, paragraph 1 (requirements for designation) and paragraph 2 (announcement in the Official Gazette). ↩ ↩²

17. Financial Services Agency, "取引情報蓄積機関" (Trade repositories, our translation; as of January 6, 2015) (in Japanese). This is the version that the Financial Services Agency's page listing licensed, permitted, and registered businesses carried on October 2, 2026. ↩

18. Financial Stability Board, "OTC Derivatives Market Reforms Thirteenth Progress Report on Implementation" (November 2018), Appendix B, Table I (end of June 2018; pages 21–22), and footnote 12 (page 4). ↩ ↩²

19. "金融市場インフラのための原則" (Principles for financial market infrastructures, provisional Japanese translation by the Bank of Japan), explanatory note 3.24.2 to Principle 24 (pages 172–173) (in Japanese). ↩

20. Financial Stability Board, "Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms" (October 2010), Recommendation 16 (pages 6 and 46). ↩

21. Financial Stability Board, "Thematic Review on OTC Derivatives Trade Reporting Peer Review Report" (November 4, 2015), Executive Summary (page 5). ↩

22. 7 U.S.C. § 24a(a)(1)(A) and (B). ↩

23. 7 U.S.C. § 24a(c)(1) to (4), (6), and (7), and (d). ↩

24. 15 U.S.C. § 78m(n)(1) and (5). ↩

25. 17 CFR § 49.15(a) and (b). ↩

26. 17 CFR § 49.17(a) and (b). ↩

27. European Securities and Markets Authority, "Trade repositories" page, the introduction and the sections "Registration and extension of registration" and "Supervision". ↩

28. European Securities and Markets Authority, "List of trade repositories registered in accordance with EMIR" (retrieved on October 2, 2026), sheet EMIR_TR, the Status column (rows marked Registered) and the sheet's explanatory text. ↩

29. Financial Stability Board, "Feasibility study on approaches to aggregate OTC derivatives data" (September 19, 2014), Executive Summary (page 1). ↩

30. Financial Stability Board, "Feasibility study on approaches to aggregate OTC derivatives data" (September 19, 2014), Introduction (page 3). ↩

31. Financial Stability Board, "Thematic Review on OTC Derivatives Trade Reporting Peer Review Report" (November 4, 2015), page 11. ↩

32. Financial Stability Board, "Thematic Review on OTC Derivatives Trade Reporting Peer Review Report" (November 4, 2015), Executive Summary (page 5). ↩

33. Financial Stability Board, "Thematic Review on OTC Derivatives Trade Reporting Peer Review Report" (November 4, 2015), Executive Summary (page 4). ↩

34. Financial Stability Board, "Thematic Review on OTC Derivatives Trade Reporting Peer Review Report" (November 4, 2015), Finding 12 (page 7). ↩

35. Financial Stability Board, "Feasibility study on approaches to aggregate OTC derivatives data" (September 19, 2014), Executive Summary (pages 2–3). ↩ ↩²

36. Financial Stability Board, "Feasibility study on approaches to aggregate OTC derivatives data" (September 19, 2014), Executive Summary (page 1). ↩