UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM20-F

OR

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 20172018

OR

For the transition period from            to            

OR

Date of event requiring this shell company report

Commission file number:1-15270

Nomura Horudingusu Kabushiki Kaisha

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Nomura Holdings, Inc.

(Translation of registrant’s name into English)

Takumi Kitamura,81-3-5255-1000,81-3-6746-7850

(Name, Telephone,E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

(Title of Class)

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act:

None

(Title of Class)

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report.

As of March 31, 2017, 3,528,429,4512018, 3,392,937,486 shares of Common Stock were outstanding, including 25,767,34229,187,772 shares represented by 25,767,34229,187,772 American Depositary Shares.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.☒  Yes☐  No

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.     ☐  Yes☒  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.Yes  ☒No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of RegulationS-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).Yes  ☒No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or an emerging growth company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards†standards † provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

† The term “new or revised financial accounting standard” refers to any update issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to its Accounting Standards Codification after April 5, 2012.

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.☐  Item 17☐  Item 18

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    ☐  Yes☒  No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

As used in this annual report, references to the “Company”, “Nomura”, the “Nomura Group”, “we”, “us” and “our” are to Nomura Holdings, Inc. and, except as the context otherwise requires, its consolidated subsidiaries. As part of certain line items in Nomura’s financial statements and information included in this annual report, references to “NHI” are to Nomura Holdings, Inc.

Asusedinthisannualreport,“yen” “yen” or“¥ “¥”meansthelawfulcurrencyofJapan,“dollar” “dollar” or“$ “$”meansthelawfulcurrencyoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica(“U.S.”),and“EUR” “EUR” meansthelawfulcurrencyofthememberstatesoftheEuropeanMonetaryUnion.

Asusedinthisannualreport,“ADS” “ADS” meansanAmericanDepositaryShare,currentlyrepresentingoneshareoftheCompany’scommonstock,and“ADR” “ADR” meansanAmericanDepositaryReceiptevidencingoneormoreADSs.See“Rights “Rights ofADRHolders”underItem10.Bofthisannualreport.

Asusedinthisannualreport,exceptasthecontextotherwiserequires,the“ “Companies Act” means the CompaniesAct” Act of Japan and the “FSA” meanstheCompaniesAct Financial Services Agency ofJapanandthe“FSA”meanstheFinancialServicesAgencyofJapan.

Amountsshowninthisannualreporthavebeenroundedtothenearestindicateddigitunlessotherwisespecified.Intablesandgraphswithroundedfigures,sumsmaynotaddupduetorounding.

PART I

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers

Not applicable.

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

A. Selected Financial Data

The following table presents selected financial information as of and for the years ended March 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 20172018 which is derived from our consolidated financial statements. The consolidated balance sheets for the years ended March 31, 20162017 and 2017,2018, the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years ended March 31, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2017,2018, and notes thereto appear elsewhere in this annual report. These financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP”). Certain reclassifications of previously reported amounts have been made to conform to the current period presentation.

The selected consolidated financial information set forth below should be read in conjunction with Item 5. “OperatingandFinancialReviewandProspects” in this annual report and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in this annual report.

Notes:

Foreign Exchange

Fluctuations in exchange rates between the Japanese Yen and U.S. Dollar will affect the U.S. Dollar equivalent of the Japanese Yen price of our common stocks and ADSs and the U.S. Dollar amounts received on conversion of cash dividends. The following table provides the noon buying rates for Japanese Yen in New York City for cable transfers as certified for customs purposes by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, expressed in Japanese Yen per $1.00.

The noon buying rate for Japanese Yen on June 16, 201715, 2018 was $1.00 = ¥110.84¥110.58

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness.

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds.

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors.

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the risks described below before making an investment decision. If any of the risks described below actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be adversely affected. In that event, the trading prices of our shares could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. In addition to the risks listed below, risks not currently known to us or that we now deem immaterial may also harm us and affect your investment.

Our business may be materially affected by financial markets, economic conditions and market fluctuations in Japan and elsewhere around the world

Our business and revenues may be affected by any adverse changes in the Japanese and global economic environments and financial markets. In addition, not only purely economic factors but also future wars, acts of terrorism, economic or political sanctions, pandemics, forecasts of geopolitical risks and geopolitical events which have actually occurred, natural disasters or other similar events could have an effect on the financial markets and economies of each country. If any adverse events including those discussed above were to occur, a market or economic downturn may last for a long period of time, which could adversely affect our business and can result in us incurring substantial losses. Furthermore, unfavorable demographic trends, such as the long-term trends of population aging and population decline faced by Japan, are expected to continue to put downward pressure on demand in the businesses in which we operate, including, in particular, our retail business. Even in the absence of a prolonged market or economic downturn, changes in market volatility and other changes in the environment may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The following are certain risks related to the financial markets and economic conditions for our specific businesses.

Governmental fiscal and monetary policy changes in Japan, or in any other country or region where we conduct business may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations

We engage in our business globally through domestic and international offices. Governmental fiscal, monetary and other policy changes in Japan, or in any other country or region where we conduct business may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in June 2016, the people ofsince our London office is a regional hub for EMEA, once the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Withdrawal fromleaves the European Union, may affect our business because London office serves asmay be affected and a potential review of our EMEA headquarters. This eventbusiness structure may also result in additional costs when we review structure of business operations and personnel distribution.costs. In addition, in recent years, the Bank of Japan and central banks in many major economies other than the United States, which has terminated quantitative easing and has been raising interest rates, have been pursuing an expansionary monetary policy, including in some cases the introduction of negative interest rates. The prolonged implementationAccordingly, any changes of a negative interest ratethe monetary policy or the further lowering of negative interest rates in one or more countries, as well as further decreases inwhich could potentially be followed by volatility of interest rates or yields of financial assets in the financial markets may negatively affect our ability to provide asset management products to our clients as well as our trading and investment activities.

Our brokerage and asset management revenues may decline

A market downturn could result in a decline in the revenues generated by our brokerage business because of a decline in the volume and value of securities that we broker for our clients. Also, within our asset management business, in most cases, we charge fees and commissions for managing our clients’ portfolios that are based on the market value of their portfolios. A market downturn that reduces the market value of our clients’ portfolios may increase the amount of withdrawals or reduce the amount of new investments in these portfolios, and would reduce the revenue we receive from our asset management business. Also, any changes in our clients’ investment preference on their asset portfolios, including shifting investment assets to stable assets such as deposits and/or passive funds, which bring relatively low commission rates, may reduce our revenue as well.

Our investment banking revenues may decline

Changes in financial or economic conditions would likely affect the number and size of transactions for which we provide securities underwriting, financial advisory and other investment banking services. Our investment banking revenues, which include fees from these services, are directly related to the number and size

of the transactions in which we participate and would therefore decrease if there are financial and market changes unfavorable to our investment banking business and our clients. For example, due in part to the continued slowdown in financing activities resulting primarily from the worsened and prolonged impact of the European sovereign debt crisis in 2011, our Investment Banking net revenue for the years ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013 decreased by 15.9% and 15.0% from the previous years, respectively.

Our electronic trading business revenues may decline

Electronic trading is essential for our business in order to execute trades faster with fewer resources. Utilizing these systems allows us to provide an efficient execution platform andon-line content and tools to our clients via exchanges or other automated trading facilities. Revenue from our electronic trading, which includes trading commissions andbid-offer spreads from these services, are directly correlated with the number and size of the transactions in which we participate and would therefore decrease if there are financial market or economic changes that would cause our clients to trade less frequently or in a smaller amounts. In addition, the use of electronic trading has increased across capital markets products and has put pressure on trading commissions andbid-offer spreads in our industry due to the increased competition of our electronic trading business. Although trade volumes may increase due to the availability of electronic trading, this may not be sufficient to offset margin erosion in our execution business, leading to a potential decline in revenue generated from this business. We continue to invest in developing technologies to provide an efficient trading platform; however, we may fail to maximize returns on these investments due to this increased pressure on lowering margins.

We may incur significant losses from our trading and investment activities

We maintain large trading and investment positions in fixed income, equity and other markets, both for proprietary purposes and for the purpose of facilitating our clients’ trades. Our positions consist of various types of assets, including securities, derivatives transactions with equity, interest rate, currency, credit and other underlyings, as well as loans, reverse repurchase agreements and real estate. Fluctuations in the markets where these assets are traded can adversely affect the value of these assets. To the extent that we own assets, or have long positions, a market downturn could result in losses if the value of these long positions decreases. Furthermore, to the extent that we have not kept assets and sold assets that we do not own,them, or have short positions, an upturn in prices of the assets could expose us to potentially significant losses. Although we seekcontinue to mitigate these position risks with a variety of hedging techniques, these market movements could result in us incurring losses. Wewe may also incur losses if the value of these assets are fluctuated or if the financial system is overly stressed and the markets move in a way we have not anticipated.

Our businesses have been, and may continue to be, affected by changes in market volatility levels. Certain of our trading businesses such as those engaged in trading and arbitrage opportunities depend on market volatility to generate revenues. Lower volatility may lead to a decrease in business opportunities which may affect the results of operations of these businesses. On the other hand, higher volatility, while it can increase trading volumes and spreads, also increases risk as measured byValue-at-Risk (“VaR”) and may expose us to higher risks in connection with our market-making and proprietary businesses. Higher volatility can also cause us to reduce the outstanding positions or size of these businesses in order to avoid increasing our VaR.

Furthermore, we commit capital to take relatively large positions for underwriting or warehousing assets to facilitate certain capital market transactions. We also structure and take positions in pilot funds for developing financial investment products and invest seed money to set up and support financial investment products. We may incur significant losses from these positions in the event of significant market fluctuations.

In addition, if we are the party providing collateral in a transaction, significant declines in the value of the collateral or a requirement to provide additional collateral due to a decline in our creditworthiness (by way of a

lowered credit rating or otherwise) can increase our costs and reduce our profitability. On the other hand, if we are the party receiving collateral from our clients and counterparties, such declines may also affect our

profitability due to decrease in client transactions. Assuming aone-notch andtwo-notch downgrade of our credit ratings on March 31, 2017,2018, absent other changes, we estimate that the aggregate fair value of assets that will be required to post as additional collateral in connection with our derivative contracts would have been approximately ¥20.2¥4.8 billion and ¥47.5¥30.6 billion, respectively.

Holding large and concentrated positions of securities and other assets may expose us to large losses

Holding large and concentrated positions of certain securities can expose us to large losses in our businesses such as market-making, block trading, underwriting, asset securitization, acquiring newly-issued convertible debt securities through third-party allotment or providing business solutions to meet clients’ needs. We have committed substantial amounts of capital to these businesses. This often requires us to take large positions in the securities of a particular issuer or issuers in a particular industry, country or region. We generally have higher exposure to those issuers engaged in financial services businesses, including commercial banks, broker-dealers, clearing houses, exchanges and investment companies. There may also be cases where we hold relatively large amounts of securities by issuers in particular countries or regions due to the business we conduct with our clients or our counterparties. In addition, we may incur substantial losses due to market fluctuations on asset-backed securities such as residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”).

Extended market declines and decreases in market participants can reduce liquidity and lead to material losses

Extended market declines can reduce the level of market activity and the liquidity of the assets traded in those markets in which we operate. Market liquidity may also be affected by decreases in market participants that could occur, for example, if financial institutions scale back market-related businesses due to increasing regulation or other reasons. As a result, it may be difficult for us to sell, hedge or value such assets which we hold. Also, in the event that a market fails in pricing such assets, it will be difficult to estimate their value. If we cannot properly close out or hedge our associated positions in a timely manner or in full, particularly with respect toOver-The-Counter (“OTC”) derivatives, we may incur substantial losses. Further, if the liquidity of a market significantly decreases and the market may become unable to price financial instruments held by us, this could lead to unanticipated losses.

Our hedging strategies may not prevent losses

We use a variety of financial instruments and strategies to hedge our exposure to various types of risk. If our hedging strategies are not effective, we may incur losses. We base many of our hedging strategies on historical trading patterns and correlations. For example, if we hold an asset, we may hedge this position by taking a position in another asset which has, historically, moved in a direction that would offset a change in value of the former asset. However, historical trading patterns and correlations may not continue, as seen in the case of past financial crises, and these hedging strategies may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposure because we are exposed to all types of risk in a variety of market environments.

Our risk management policies and procedures may not be fully effective in managing market risk

Our policies and procedures to identify, monitor and manage risks may not be fully effective. Although some of our methods of managing risk are based upon observed historical behavior of market data, the movement of each data in future financial market may not be the same as was observed in the past. As a result, we may suffer large losses through unexpected future risk exposures. Other risk management methods that we use also rely on our evaluation of information regarding markets, clients or other matters, which is publicly available or otherwise accessible by us. This information may not be accurate, complete,up-to-date or properly evaluated,

and we may be unable to properly assess our risks, and thereby suffer large losses. Furthermore, certain factors, such as market volatility, may render our risk evaluation model unsuitable for a new market environment. In such event, we may become unable to evaluate or otherwise manage our risks adequately.

Market risk may increase other risks that we face

In addition to the potentially adverse effects on our businesses described above, market risk could exacerbate other risks that we face. For example, the risks inherent in financial instruments developed through financial engineering and innovation may be increased by market risk.

Also, if we incur substantial trading losses caused by our exposure to market risk, our need for liquidity could rise sharply while our access to cash may be impaired as a result of market perception of our credit risk.

Furthermore, in a market downturn, our clients and counterparties could incur substantial losses of their own, thereby weakening their financial condition and, as a result, increasing our credit risk exposure to them.

We may have to recognize impairment charges with regard to the amount of goodwill, tangible and intangible assets recognized on our consolidated balance sheets

We have purchased all or a part of the equity interests in, or operations from, certain other companies in order to pursue our business expansion, and expect to continue to do so when and as we deem appropriate. We account for certain of those and similar purchases and acquisitions as a business combination under U.S. GAAP by allocating our acquisition costs to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed and recognizing the remaining amount as goodwill. We also possess tangible and intangible assets other than those stated above.

We may have to recognize impairment charges, as well as other losses associated with subsequent transactions, with regard to the amount of goodwill, tangible and intangible assets and, if recognized, such changes may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. For example, during the years ended March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2015 we recognized goodwill impairment charges of ¥2,840 million and ¥3,188 million, respectively.

Liquidity risk could impair our ability to fund operations and jeopardize our financial condition

Liquidity, or having ready access to cash, is essential to our business. We define liquidity risk as the risk of loss arising from difficulty in securing the necessary funding or from a significantly higher cost of funding than normal levels due to deterioration of our creditworthiness or deterioration in market conditions. In addition to maintaining a readily available cash position, we seek to secure ample liquidity through repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions, long-term borrowings and the issuance of long-term debt securities, diversification of our short-term funding sources such as commercial paper, and by holding a portfolio of highly liquid assets. We bear the risk that we may lose liquidity under certain circumstances, including the following:

We may be unable to access unsecured or secured funding

We continuously access unsecured funding from issuance of securities in the short-term credit markets and debt capital markets as well as bank borrowings to finance ourday-to-day operations, including refinancing. We also enter into repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions to raise secured funding for our trading businesses. An inability to access unsecured or secured funding or funding at significantly higher cost than normal levels could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. For example, lenders could refuse to extend the credit necessary for us to conduct our business based on their assessment of our long-term or short-term financial prospects if:

In addition to the above, our ability to borrow in the debt capital markets could also be adversely impacted by factors that are not specific to us, such as reductions in banks’ lending capacity, a severe disruption of the financial and credit markets, negative views about the general prospects for the investment banking, brokerage or financial services industries, or negative market perceptions of Japan’s financial soundness.

We may be unable to sell assets

If we are unable to raise funds or if our liquidity declines significantly, we will need to liquidate assets or take other actions in order to meet our maturing liabilities. In volatile or uncertain market environments, overall market liquidity may decline. In a time of reduced market liquidity, we may be unable to sell some of our assets, or we may have to sell at depressed prices, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Our ability to sell assets may also be adversely impacted by other market participants seeking to sell similar assets into the market at the same time.

Lowering of our credit ratings could impact our funding

Our funding depends significantly on our credit ratings. Rating agencies may reduce or withdraw their ratings or place us on “credit watch” with negative implications. Future downgrades could increase our funding costs and limit our funding. This, in turn, could adversely affect our result of operations and our financial condition. In addition, other factors which are not specific to us may impact our funding, such as negative market perceptions of Japan’s financial soundness.

Event risk may cause losses in our trading and investment assets as well as market and liquidity risk

Event risk refers to potential losses we may suffer through unpredictable events that cause large unexpected market price movements such as natural orman-made disasters, epidemics, acts of terrorism, armed conflicts or political instability, as well as adverse events specifically affecting our business activities or counterparties. These events include not only significant events such as the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001, U.S. subprime issues since 2007, the global financial and credit crisis in the autumn of 2008, the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011, fiscal problems in the U.S. and European countries which became apparent starting the same year, the political crisis in Ukraine which began in late 2013, the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015, the terrorist attacks in Brussels in March 2016 and the terrorist attacksincreasing tensions on Korean Peninsula following North Korean nuclear tests in London in June 2017, but also more specifically the following types of events that could cause losses in our trading and investment assets:

We may be exposed to losses when third parties that are indebted to us do not perform their obligations

Our counterparties are from time to time indebted to us as a result of transactions or contracts, including loans, commitments to lend, other contingent liabilities and derivative transactions. We may incur material losses when our counterparties default or fail to perform on their obligations to us due to their filing for bankruptcy, a deterioration in their creditworthiness, lack of liquidity, operational failure, an economic or political event, repudiation of the transaction or for other reasons.

Credit risk may also arise from:

Issues related to third party credit risk may include the following:

Defaults by a large financial institution could adversely affect the financial markets generally and us specifically

The commercial soundness of many financial institutions is closely interrelated as a result of credit, trading, clearing or other relationships among the institutions. As a result, concern about the creditworthiness of or a default by, a certain financial institution could lead to significant liquidity problems or losses in, or defaults by, other financial institutions. This may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges, with which we interact on a daily basis. Actual defaults, increases in perceived default risk and other similar events could arise in the future and could have an adverse effect on the financial markets and on us. Our funding operations may be adversely affected if major financial institutions, Japanese or otherwise, fail or experience severe liquidity or solvency problems.

There can be no assurance as to the accuracy of the information about, or the sufficiency of the collateral we use in managing, our credit risk

We regularly review our credit exposure to specific clients or counterparties and to specific countries and regions that we believe may present credit concerns. Default risk, however, may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, such as account-rigging and fraud. We may also fail to receive full information with respect to the risks of a counterparty. In addition, in cases where we have extended credit against collateral, we may fall into a deficiency in value in the collateral if sudden declines in market values reduce the value of our collateral.

Our clients and counterparties may be unable to perform their obligations to us as a result of political or economic conditions

Country, regional and political risks are components of credit risk, as well as market risk. Political or economic pressures in a country or region, including those arising from local market disruptions or currency crises, may adversely affect the ability of clients or counterparties located in that country or region to obtain credit or foreign exchange, and therefore to perform their obligations owed to us.

The financial services industry faces intense competition

Our businesses are intensely competitive, and are expected to remain so. We compete on the basis of a number of factors, including transaction execution capability, our products and services, innovation, reputation and price. We have experienced intense price competition, particularly in brokerage, investment banking and other businesses.

Competition with commercial banks, commercial bank-owned securities subsidiaries andnon-Japanese firms in the Japanese market is increasing

Since the late 1990s, the financial services sector in Japan has undergone deregulation. In accordance with the amendments to the Securities and Exchange Law of Japan (which has been renamed as the Financial

Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan (“FIEA”) since September 30, 2007), effective from December 1, 2004, banks and certain other financial institutions became able to enter into the securities brokerage business. In addition, in accordance with the amendments to the FIEA effective from June 1, 2009, firewalls between commercial banks and securities firms were deregulated. Therefore, asderegulated, and our competitors will be able to cooperate more closely with their affiliated commercial banks, banks and other types of financial services firms can compete with us tobanks. As a greater degree than they could before deregulation in the areas of financing and investment trusts. Among others,result, securities subsidiaries of commercial banks andnon-Japanese firms with increased competitiveness have been affecting our market shares in the sales and trading, investment banking and retail businesses.

Increased consolidation, business alliance and cooperation in the financial services groups industry mean increased competition for us

There has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry. In particular, a number of large commercial banks and other broad-based large financial services groups have established or acquired broker-dealers or have consolidated with other financial institutions. Recently, these large financial services groups have been further developing business linkage within their respective groups in order to provide comprehensive financial services to clients. These financial services groups continue to offer a wide range of products, including loans, deposit-taking, insurance, brokerage, asset management and investment banking services within their group, which may enhance their competitive position compared with us. They also have the ability to supplement their investment banking and brokerage businesses with commercial banking and other financial services revenues in an effort to gain market share. In addition, the financial services industry has seen collaboration beyond the borders of businesses and industries, such as alliances between commercial banks and securities companies outside of framework of existing corporate groups and recent alliances withnon-financial companies including emerging companies. Our competitiveness may be adversely affected if our competitors are able to expand their businesses and improve their profitability through such business alliances.

Our global business strategies may not result in the anticipated outcome due to competition with other financial services firms in international markets and the failure to realize the full benefit of management resource reallocation

We continue to believe there are significant opportunities in the international markets, but there is also significant competition associated with such opportunities. In order to take advantage of these opportunities, we will have to compete successfully with financial services firms based in importantnon-Japanese markets, including the U.S., Europe and Asia. Under such competitive environment, as a means to bolster our international operations, we acquired certain Lehman Brothers operations in Europe, the Middle East and Asia in 2008 and we have invested significant management resources to maintain and develop our operations in these regions and the U.S. After the acquisition, however, market structures have changed drastically due to the scaling back of market-related businesses by European financial institutions and the monetary easing policies by central banks of each country, resulting in decline in whole market liquidity. In light of this challenging business environment, we have endeavored to reallocate our management resources to optimize our global operations and thereby improve our profitability. For example, we made strategic changes to our Wholesale businesses in EMEA and the Americas in 2016 in order to reallocate resources towards our areas of expertise and most profitable business lines. However, failure to realize the full benefits of these efforts may adversely affect our global businesses, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is subject to various operational risks

We classify and define operational risk as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, personnel, and systems or from external events. It excludes strategic risk (the risk of loss as a result of poor strategic business decisions), but includes the risk of breach of legal and regulatory requirements, and the risk of damage to our reputation if caused by an operational risk.

Operational risk is inherent in all our products, activities, processes and systems which therefore can potentially have a direct financial impact on us or an indirect financial impact through a disruption to our business, regulatory sanctions, loss of clients, reputational damage or damage to the health and safety of our

management and employees. While we have established a robust framework to manage and mitigate the impact of operational risks within us, prevention of the following key specific types of key operational risks occurring remains challenging:

Misconduct or fraud by an employee, director or officer, or any third party, could occur, and our reputation in the market and our relationships with clients could be harmed

We face the risk that our employees, directors or officers, or any third party, could engage in misconduct that may adversely affect our business. Misconduct by an employee, director or officer includes conduct such as entering into transactions in excess of authorized limits, acceptance of risks that exceed our limits, or concealment of unauthorized or unsuccessful activities. The misconduct could also involve the improper use or disclosure of our or our clients’non-public information, such as insider trading and the recommendation of trades based on such information, as well as other crimes, which could result in regulatory sanctions, legal liability and serious reputational or financial damage to us.

In August 2012, Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. (“NSC”), a subsidiary of the Company, received a business improvement order from the FSA with respect to flaws recognized in connection with the management of entity-related information for public stock offerings. In response to the order, NSC implemented and completed a series of improvement measures as of December 2012.

Although we have precautions in place to detect and prevent such misconduct in the future, the measures we have implemented or may implement may not be effective in all cases, and we may not always be able to detect or deter misconduct by an employee, director or officer. If any administrative or judicial sanction is issued

against us as a result of such misconduct, we may lose business opportunities for a period of time, even after the sanction is lifted, if and to the extent that our clients, especially public institutions, decide not to engage us for their financial transactions.

Third parties may also engage in fraudulent activities, including devising a fraudulent scheme to induce our investment, loans, guarantee or any other form of financial commitment, both direct and indirect. Because of the broad range of businesses that we engage in and the large number of third parties with whom we deal in ourday-to-day business operations, such fraud or any other misconduct may be difficult to prevent or detect.

We may not be able to recover the financial losses caused by such activities and our reputation may also be damaged by such activities.

A failure to identify and appropriately address conflicts of interest could adversely affect our business

We are a global financial institution that provides a wide range of products and services to a diverse group of clients, including individuals, corporations, other financial institutions and governmental institutions. As such, we face potential conflicts of interest in the ordinary course of our business. Conflicts of interests can arise when our services to a particular client conflict or compete, or are perceived to conflict or compete, with our own interests. In addition, wherenon-public information is not appropriately restricted or shared within the firm, conflicts of interest can also arise where a transaction within the Nomura Group and/or a transaction with another client conflict or compete, or is perceived to conflict or compete, with a transaction with a particular client. While we have extensive internal procedures and controls designed to identify and address conflicts of interest, a failure, or a perceived failure, to identify, disclose and appropriately address such conflicts could adversely affect our reputation and the willingness of current or potential clients to do business with us. In addition, conflicts of interest could give rise to regulatory actions or litigation.

Our business is subject to substantial legal, regulatory and reputational risks

Substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have a material financial effect on us or cause reputational harm to us, which in turn could adversely affect our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Also, material changes in regulations applicable to us or to the markets in which we operate could adversely affect our business.

Our exposure to legal liability is significant

We face significant legal risks in our businesses. These risks include liability under securities or other laws in connection with securities underwriting and offering transactions, liability arising from the purchase or sale of any securities or other financial products, disputes over the terms and conditions of complex trading arrangements or the validity of contracts for our transactions, disputes with our business alliance partners and legal claims concerning our other businesses.

During a prolonged market downturn or upon the occurrence of an event that adversely affects the market, we would expect claims against us to increase. We may also face significant litigation. The cost of defending such litigation may be substantial and our involvement in litigation may damage our reputation. In addition, even legal transactions might be subject to adverse public reaction according to the particular details of such transactions. These risks may be difficult to assess or quantify and their existence and magnitude may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. See Note 20“Commitments,contingenciesandguarantees” in our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report for further information regarding the significant investigations, lawsuits and other legal proceedings that we are currently facing.

Extensive regulation of our businesses limits our activities and may subject us to significant penalties and losses

The financial services industry is subject to extensive regulation. We are subject to increasing regulation by governmental and self-regulatory organizations in Japan and in virtually all other jurisdictions in which we operate, and such governmental and regulatory scrutiny may increase as our operations expand or as laws

change. In addition, while regulatory complexities increase, possibilities of extra-territorial application of a regulation in one jurisdiction to business activities outside of such jurisdiction may also increase. These regulations are broadly designed to ensure the stability of financial systems and the integrity of the financial markets and financial institutions, and to protect clients and other third parties who deal with us, and often limit our activities and/or affect our profitability, through net capital, client protection and market conduct requirements. In addition, on top of traditional finance-related legislation, the scope of laws and regulations applying to, and/or impacting on, our operations may become wider depending on the situation of the wider international political and economic environment or policy approaches taken by governmental authorities in respect of regulatory application or law enforcement. In particular, the number of investigations and proceedings against the financial services industry by governmental and self-regulatory organizations has increased substantially and the consequences of such investigations and proceedings have become more severe in recent years, and we are subject to face the risk of such investigations and proceedings. Although we have policies in place to prevent violations of such laws and regulations, we may not always be able to prevent violations, and we could be fined, prohibited from engaging in some of our business activities, ordered to improve our internal governance procedures or be subject to revocation of our license to conduct business. Our reputation could also suffer from the adverse publicity that any administrative or judicial sanction against us may create, which may negatively affect our business opportunities and ability to secure human resources. As a result of any such sanction, we may lose business opportunities for a period of time, even after the sanction is lifted, if and to the extent that our clients, especially public institutions, decide not to engage us for their financial transactions. In addition, certain market participants may refrain from investing in or entering into transactions with us if we engage in business activities in regions subject to international sanctions, even if our activities do not constitute violations of sanctions laws and regulations.

Tightening of regulations applicable to the financial system and financial industry could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations

If regulations that apply to our businesses are introduced, modified or removed, we could be adversely affected directly or through resulting changes in market conditions. The impact of such developments could make it economically unreasonable for us to continue to conduct all or certain of our businesses, or could cause us to incur significant costs to adjust to such changes.

In particular, various reforms to financial regulatory frameworks, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) in the U.S. and various proposals to strengthen financial regulation in the European Union and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), have been put in place. The exact details of the implementation of these proposals and its impact on us will depend on the final regulations as they become ultimately adopted by various governmental agencies and oversight boards. See Item 4.B “BusinessOverview— Overview—Regulation” in this annual report for more information about such regulations.

New regulations or revisions to existing regulations relating to accounting standards, regulatory capital adequacy ratios, liquidity ratios and leverage ratios applicable to us could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Such new regulations or revisions to existing regulations include theso-called Basel III package formulated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel Committee”), some rules of which are still to be and the finalized and/or implemented. These changesBasel III reforms published in regulations may require us to liquidate financial instruments and other assets, raise additional capital or otherwise restrict our business activities in a manner that could increase our funding costs or could otherwise adversely affect our operating or financing activities or the interests of our shareholders.December 2017. Furthermore, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) and the Basel Committee annually update the list of global systemically important banks

(“G-SIBs”) identified by financial regulators and additional regulatory capital requirements imposed on thoseG-SIBs. Additionally,G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors requested the FSB and the Basel Committee to expand theG-SIB framework to domestic systemically important banks(“D-SIBs”), and in October 2012, the Basel Committee developed and published a set of principles on the assessment methodology and higher loss absorbency requirements forD-SIBs. In December 2015, the FSA identified us as aD-SIB and imposed a surcharge of 0.5% on our required capital ratio after March 2016 over awith3-year transitional period. Thisarrangement. In addition, the FSB published the final standard requiringG-SIBs to maintain a certain level of total loss-absorbing capacity (“TLAC”) upon their failure in November 2015. In response to this publication, in April

2016, the FSA published its policy to develop the TLAC framework in Japan applicable to JapaneseG-SIBs and, in April 2018, revised such policy to apply the TLAC requirements in Japan not only to JapaneseG-SIBs but also to JapaneseD-SIBs that are deemed (i) of particular need for a cross-border resolution arrangement and (ii) of particular systemic significance to Japanese financial system if they fail. According to the revised policy, Nomura will be subject to the TLAC requirements in Japan from March 31, 2021 though Nomura is not identified as a G-SIB as of the date of this annual report. These changes in regulations may resultincrease our funding costs or require us to liquidate financial instruments and other assets, raise additional capital or otherwise restrict our business activities in additional costs and impact on us as described above.a manner that could adversely affect our operating or financing activities or the interests of our shareholders.

Deferred tax assets may be impacted due to a change in business condition or in laws and regulations, resulting in an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition

We recognize deferred tax assets in our consolidated balance sheets as a possible benefit of tax relief in the future. If we experience or forecast future operating losses, if tax laws or enacted tax rates in the relevant tax jurisdictions in which we operate change, or if there is a change in accounting standards in the future, we may reduce the deferred tax assets recognized in our consolidated balance sheets. As a result, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. See Note 15“Incometaxes” in our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report for further information regarding the deferred tax assets that we currently recognize.

Unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by us may adversely affect our business

We keep and manage personal information obtained from clients in connection with our business. In recent years, there have been many reported cases of personal information and records in the possession of corporations and institutions being improperly accessed or disclosed.

Although we exercise care to protect the confidentiality of personal information and take steps to safeguard such information in compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations, were any material unauthorized disclosure of personal information to occur, our business could be adversely affected. For example, we could be subject to administrative fines in case there is any violation of applicable personal data protection laws, rules and regulations or be subject to complaints and lawsuits for damages from clients if they are adversely affected due to the unauthorized disclosure of their personal information (including leakage of such information by an external service provider). In addition, we could incur additional expenses associated with changing our security systems, either voluntarily or in response to administrative guidance or other regulatory initiatives. Any damage to our reputation caused by such unauthorized disclosure could lead to a decline in new clients and/or a loss of existing clients, as well as to increased costs and expenses incurred for public relations campaigns designed to prevent or mitigate damage to our corporate or brand image or reputation.

System failure, and the information leakage and the cost of maintaining sufficient cybersecurity could adversely affect our business

Our businesses rely on secure processing, storage, transmission and reception of personal, confidential and proprietary information on our systems. We may become the target of attempted unauthorized access, computer viruses or malware, and other cyber-attacks designed to access and obtain information on our systems or to disrupt and cause other damage to our services. Although these threats may originate from human error or technological failure, they may also originate from the malice or fraud of internal parties, such as employees, or third parties, including foreignnon-state actors and extremist parties. Additionally, we could also be adversely impacted if any of the third-party vendors, exchanges, clearing houses or other financial institutions to whom we are interconnected are subject to cyber-attacks or other informational security breaches. Such events could cause interruptions to our systems, reputational damage, client dissatisfaction, legal liability, enforcement actions or additional costs, any and all of which could adversely affect our financial condition and operations.

While we continue to devote significant resources to monitor and update our systems and implement information security measures to protect our systems, there can be no assurance that any controls and procedures we have in place will be sufficient to protect us from future security breaches. As cyber threats are continually evolving, our controls and procedures may become inadequate and we may be required to devote additional resources to modify or enhance our systems in the future.

Natural disaster, terrorism, military dispute and infectious disease could adversely affect our business

We have developed a contingency plan for addressing unexpected situations. However, disaster, terrorism, military dispute or infectious disease afflicting our management and employees could exceed the assumptions of our plan, and could adversely affect our business.

The Company is a holding company and depends on payments from subsidiaries

The Company heavily depends on dividends, distributions and other payments from subsidiaries to make payments on the Company’s obligations. Regulatory and other legal restrictions, such as those under the Companies Act, may limit the Company’s ability to transfer funds freely, either to or from the Company’s subsidiaries. In particular, many of the Company’s subsidiaries, including the Company’s broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to laws and regulations, including regulatory capital requirements, that authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds to the parent holding company, or that prohibit such transfers altogether in certain circumstances. For example, NSC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Nomura International plc and Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited, our main broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to regulatory capital requirements that could limit the transfer of funds to the Company. These laws and regulations may hinder the Company’s ability to access funds needed to make payments on the Company’s obligations.

We may not be able to realize gains we expect, and may even suffer losses, on our investments in equity securities andnon-trading debt securities

We hold substantial investments in equity securities andnon-trading debt securities. Under U.S. GAAP, depending on market conditions, we may recognize significant unrealized gains or losses on our investments in equity securities and debt securities, which could have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. Depending on the market conditions, we may also not be able to dispose of these equity securities and debt securities when we would like to do so, as quickly as we may wish or at the desired price.

Equity investments in affiliates and other investees accounted for under the equity method in our consolidated financial statements may decline significantly over a period of time and result in us incurring impairment losses

We have affiliates and investees accounted for under the equity method in our consolidated financial statements and whose shares are publicly traded. Under U.S. GAAP, if there is a decline in the fair value, i.e., the market price, of the shares we hold in such affiliates over a period of time, and we determine that the decline is other-than-temporary, then we recognize an impairment loss for the applicable fiscal period which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may face an outflow of clients’ assets due to losses of cash reserve funds or debt securities we offer

We offer many types of products to meet various needs of our clients with different risk profiles.

Cash reserve funds, such as money market funds and money reserve funds are categorized as low risk financial products. As a result of a sudden rise in interest rates, such cash reserve funds may fall below par value due to losses resulting from price decreases of debt securities in the portfolio, defaults of debt securities in the portfolio or charges of negative interest. If we determine that a stable return cannot be achieved from the investment performance of cash reserve funds, we may accelerate the redemption of, or impose a deposit limit on, such cash reserve funds. For example, Nomura Asset Management Co., Ltd., the Company’s subsidiary, ended its operation of money market funds in late August 2016 and executed an accelerated redemption of such funds in September 2016.

In addition, debt securities that we offer may default or experience delays in the payment of interest and/or principal.

Such losses, early redemption or deposit limit for the products we offer may result in the loss of client confidence and lead to an outflow of client assets from our custody or preclude us from increasing such client assets.

Because of daily price range limitations under Japanese stock exchange rules, you may not be able to sell your shares of the Company’s common stock at a particular price on any particular trading day, or at all

Stock prices on Japanese stock exchanges are determined on a real-time basis by the equilibrium between bids and offers. These exchanges are order-driven markets without specialists or market makers to guide price formation. For the purpose of protecting investors from excessive volatility, these exchanges set daily upward and downward price fluctuation limits for each stock, based on the previous day’s closing price. Although transactions may continue at the upward or downward limit price if the limit price is reached on a particular trading day, no transactions may take place outside these limits. Consequently, an investor wishing to sell at a price above or below the relevant daily limit may not be able to sell his or her shares at such price on a particular trading day, or at all.

Under Japan’s unit share system, holders of the Company’s shares constituting less than one unit are subject to transfer, voting and other restrictions

The Company’s Articles of Incorporation, as permitted under the Companies Act, provide that 100 shares of the Company’s stock constitute one “unit.” The Companies Act imposes significant restrictions and limitations on holdings of shares that constitute less than a whole unit. Holders of shares constituting less than one unit do not have the right to vote or any other rights relating to voting. Under the unit share system, any holders of shares constituting less than a unit may at any time request the Company to purchase their shares. Also, holders of shares constituting less than a unit may request the Company to sell them such number of shares that the Company may have as may be necessary to raise such holder’s share ownership to a whole unit. Shares constituting less than a unit are transferable under the Companies Act, but may not be traded on any Japanese stock exchange.

As a holder of ADSs, you will have fewer rights than a shareholder has and you will have to act through the depositary to exercise these rights

The rights of shareholders under Japanese law to take actions including voting their shares, receiving dividends and distributions, bringing derivative actions, examining the company’s accounting books and records and exercising appraisal rights are available only to holders of record. Because the depositary, through its custodian agent, is the record holder of the shares underlying the ADSs, only the depositary can exercise those

rights in connection with the deposited shares. The depositary will make efforts to vote the shares underlying your ADSs as instructed by you and will pay you the dividends and distributions collected from the Company. However, in your capacity as an ADS holder, you will not be able to bring a derivative action, examine the Company’s accounting books or records or exercise appraisal rights except through the depositary.

Rights of shareholders under Japanese law may be more limited than under the laws of other jurisdictions

The Companies Act and the Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Regulations of the Board of Directors govern the Company’s corporate affairs. Legal principles relating to such matters as the validity of corporate procedures, directors’ and executive officers’ fiduciary duties and shareholders’ rights may be different from those that would apply to anon-Japanese company. Shareholders’ rights under Japanese law may not be as extensive as shareholders’ rights under the laws of other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions within the U.S. You may have more difficulty in asserting your rights as a shareholder than you would as a shareholder of a corporation organized in another jurisdiction.

The Company’s shareholders of record on a record date may not receive the dividend they anticipate

The customary dividend payout practice of publicly listed companies in Japan may significantly differ from that widely followed or otherwise deemed necessary or fair in foreign markets. The Company’s dividend payout

practice is no exception. The Company ultimately determines whether the Company will make any dividend payment to shareholders of record as of a record date and such determination is made only after such record date. For the foregoing reasons, the Company’s shareholders of record as of a record date may not receive the dividends they anticipate. Furthermore, the Company does not announce any dividend forecasts.

It may not be possible for investors to secure personal jurisdiction within the U.S. over the Company or the Company’s directors or executive officers, or to enforce against the Company or those persons judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the U.S.

The Company is a limited liability, joint-stock corporation incorporated under the laws of Japan. Most of the Company’s directors and executive officers reside in Japan. Many of the Company’s assets and the assets of these persons are located in Japan and elsewhere outside the U.S. It may not be possible, therefore, for U.S. investors to obtain personal jurisdiction over the Company or these persons within the U.S. or to enforce against the Company or these persons judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the U.S. The Company believes that there is doubt as to the enforceability in Japan, in original actions or in actions for enforcement of U.S. court judgments, of liabilities predicated solely upon the federal securities laws of the U.S.

Special Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements

This annual report contains forward-looking statements that are based on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections about our business, our industry and capital markets around the world. These forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may”, “will”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “plan” or similar words. These statements discuss future expectations, identify strategies, contain projections of our results of operations or financial condition, or state other forward-looking information.

Known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors may cause our actual results, performance, achievements or financial position to differ materially from any future results, performance, achievements or financial position expressed or implied by any forward-looking statement contained in this annual report. Such risks, uncertainties and other factors are set forth in this Item 3.D and elsewhere in this annual report.

Item 4. Information on the Company

A. History and Development of the Company.

The Company (previously known as The Nomura Securities Co., Ltd.) was incorporated in Japan on December 25, 1925 under the Commercial Code of Japan when the securities division of The Osaka Nomura Bank, Ltd. became a separate entity specializing in the trading and distribution of debt securities in Japan. The Company was the first Japanese securities company to develop its business internationally with the opening in 1927 of a representative office in New York. In Japan, we broadened the scope of our business when we began trading in equity securities in 1938 and when we organized the first investment trust in Japan in 1941.

Since the end of World War II, we have played a leading role in most major developments in the Japanese securities market. These developments include the resumption of the investment trust business in the 1950s, the introduction of public stock offerings by Japanese companies in the 1960s, the development of theover-the-counter bond market in the 1970s, the introduction of new types of investment trusts such as the medium-term Japanese government bond investment trust in the 1980s, and the growth of the corporate bond and initial public offering markets in the 1990s.

Our expansion overseas accelerated in 1967, when the Company acquired a controlling interest in Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited for the purpose of conducting broker-dealer activities in the Hong Kong capital markets. Subsequently, we established a number of other overseas subsidiaries, including Nomura

Securities International, Inc. in the U.S. in 1969 as a broker-dealer and Nomura International Limited, now Nomura International plc, in the U.K. in 1981, which acts as an underwriter and a broker, as well as other overseas affiliates, branches and representative offices.

On October 1, 2001, we adopted a holding company structure. In connection with this reorganization, the Company changed its name from “The Nomura Securities Co., Ltd.” to “Nomura Holdings, Inc.” The Company continues to be listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges on which it was previously listed. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company assumed the Company’s securities businesses and was named “Nomura Securities Co., Ltd.”

The Company has proactively engaged in establishing a governance framework to ensure transparency in the Company’s management. Among other endeavors, when the Company adopted a holding company structure and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) in 2001, the Company installed Outside Directors. In addition, in June 2003, the Company further strengthened and increased the transparency of the Company’s oversight functions by adopting the Company with Three Board Committees (previously known as the Committee System), a system in which management oversight and business execution functions are clearly separated.

In 2008, to pave the way for future growth, the Company acquired and integrated the operations of Lehman Brothers in Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.

The address of the Company’s registered office is9-1, Nihonbashi1-chome,Chuo-ku, Chuo-ku, Tokyo103-8645, Japan, telephone number:+81-3-5255-1000.

B. Business Overview.

Overview

We are one of the leading financial services groups in Japan and we operate offices in countries and regions worldwide including Japan, the U.S., the U.K., Singapore and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong”) through our subsidiaries.

Our clients include individuals, corporations, financial institutions, governments and governmental agencies.

Our business consists of our Retail, Asset Management, Wholesale and Wholesale divisionsnewly established Merchant Banking which are described in further detail below. See also Note 21 “Segmentandgeographicinformation” in our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report.

Corporate Goals and Principles

The Nomura Group’s management vision is to enhance its corporate value by deepening society’s trust in the firm and increasing satisfaction of stakeholders, including that of our shareholders and clients.

As “Asia’s global investment bank,” Nomura will provide high value-addedvalue-adding solutions to clients globally, and recognizing its wider social responsibility, Nomura will continue to contribute to the economic growth and development of society.

To enhance its corporate value, Nomura places significance on earnings per share (“EPS”) and will seek to maintain sustained improvement of management’s target.

Our Business Divisions

Retail

In our Retail Division, we conduct business activities by delivering a wide range of financial products and high quality investment services mainly for individuals and corporations in Japan primarily through a network of nationwide

branches of Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. (“NSC”). The total number of local branches, including our head office, was 158156 as of the end of March 2017.2018. We offer investment consultation services to meet the medium- tomedium and long-term needs of our clients. We discuss retail client assets in “RetailClientAssets” under Item 5.A of this annual report.

We continue to focus on deliveringtop-quality solutions including our broad range of products and services throughface-to-face meetings, online and call center channels, so that Nomura Group can sustainably be a trusted partner to our clients.

Asset Management

We conduct our asset management business, which consists of the development and management of investment trusts and investment advisory services, primarily through Nomura Asset Management Co., Ltd (“NAM”). NAM is the largest asset management company in Japan in terms of assets under management in investment trusts as of March 31, 2017.2018. In Japan, our challenge is to shift individual financial assets from saving products into investment products to create business opportunities. In order to make these opportunities available, NAM manages various investment trusts, ranging from low risk/low return products to high risk/high return products, and develops new products to respond to various investor needs. Investment trusts are distributed to investors through NSC as well as through financial institutions such as securities companies (including those outside our group), banks and Japan Post Bank Co., Ltd. Investment trusts are also held in defined contribution pension plans. We also provide investment advisory services to public pension funds, private pension funds, governments and their agencies, central banks and institutional investors globally.

Wholesale

Our Wholesale Division consists of Global Markets and Investment Banking, providing our corporate and institutional clients with timely, high value-addedvalue-adding products and services tailored to their needs. In April 2018, we also established our Client Financing and Solutions (CFS) business, in which we have brought together key Global Markets and Investment Banking functions under a unified structure in order to better meet the strong and growing demand from our clients for a broad range of financing, capital and hedging solutions.

Global Markets

Global Markets provides research, sales, trading, agency execution, and market-making of fixed income and equity-related products.

Our global fixed income offerings include, among other products, government securities, interest rate derivatives, investment-grade and high-yield corporate debt securities, credit derivatives,G-10 and emerging markets foreign exchange, asset-backed securities and mortgage-related products, inover-the-counter (“OTC”) and listed markets. We are also primary dealers in the Japanese government securities market as well as in the Asian, European and U.S. markets. TheseIn addition to these product offerings, are underpinned by our global structuring function which tailors ideasand quants functions collaborate with sales and trading to provide tailored trading/investment strategies for our institutional and corporate client base.

Our global equity-related products include equity securities, Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”), convertible securities, listed and OTC equity derivatives, and prime services. In addition, we offer execution services based on cutting-edge electronic trading technology to help clients navigate through the complex market structure and achieve best execution. We are also a member of various exchanges around the world, with leading positions on Tokyo stock exchanges.Stock Exchanges.

These product offerings are underpinned by our global structuring function which provides tailored ideas and trading strategies for our institutional and corporate clients as well as our retail franchise.

Investment Banking

We offer a broad range of investment banking services to a diverse range of corporations, financial institutions, sovereigns, financial sponsors and others. We aim to establish and develop and fortify solidstrong relationships with these clients on a long-term basis by providing them with our extensive resources for each bespoke solution.

Underwriting. We underwrite offerings of a wide range of securities and other financial instruments, which include various types of stocks, convertible and exchangeable securities, investment grade debt, sovereign and emerging market debt, high yield debt, structured securities and other securities in Asia, Europe, U.S. and other major financial markets. We also arrange private placements and engage in other capital raising activities.

FinancialAdvisory &SolutionsServices. We provide financial advisory services on business transactions including mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs, capital structuring, corporate defense activities, leveraged buyouts and risk solutions. Our involvement in reorganizations and other corporate restructurings related to industry consolidation enhances our opportunities to offer clients other advisory and investment banking services.

We capitalize on the linkages between our Retail, Asset Management, Wholesale and WholesaleMerchant Banking Divisions to offer various financial instruments such as equity securities, debt securities, investment trusts and variable annuity insurance products, for the short, medium, and long-term, with different risk levels. We seek to provide proprietary Nomura expertise to clients through various media such as our investment reports and internet-based trading services.

Merchant Banking

We established Merchant Banking Division in January 2018, as a new solution for clients. We have embarked on principal business to primarily provide equity to transactions such as business reorganization and revitalization, business succession as well as management buyout. We will, under proper management of risk, focus on support for improving the enterprise value of portfolio companies, and will contribute to expansion of the private equity market.

Our Research Activities

We have an extensive network of intellectual capital with key research offices in Tokyo, Hong Kong and other major markets in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as in London and New York. Nomura is recognized as a leading content provider with an integrated global approach to providing capital markets research. Our analysts collaborate closely across regions and disciplines to track changes and spot future trends in politics, economics, foreign exchange, interest rates, equities, credit, as well as provide quantitative analysis.

Our Information Technology

We believe that information technology is one of the key success factors for our overall business and intend to developmaintain and maintain aenhance our solid technology platform to ensure that the Nomura Group is able to fulfill and exceed the various needs of our clients. Accordingly, we will continue to invest, enhance and adapt aour technology platform to ensure it remains suitable for each division. As adivision proactively seek and implement innovative financial institution, we have been promoting to implement FinTechtechnology to improve the operations of our business operation.business.

In our Retail Division, we continually invest and enhance our core system and related systems to improve efficiency on business operation. We are also continuously working on improving our internet-based and smartphone platforms.

In our Wholesale Division, we continually invest and enhance our technology platformplatforms to provide better risk management, improved data governance and also to increase trading capabilities through platforms allowing direct market access and algorithmic trading. In order to ensure the support level of Wholesale operations, we will continue to maintain utilization of our offshore service entities in India and enhance our regional support based capabilities.

Our recent focus is cyber security. In order to prevent potential damage as well as take immediate actions in case a security threat occurs, we continue to strengthen measures in four areas, which are system implementation, trainings and drills, organizational emergency plans and information sharing with external institutions. In March 2015, we established a global team specializing in cyber security measures called the Computer Security Incident Response Team (“CSIRT”).

Competition

The financial services industry is intensely competitive and we expect it to continue remain so. We compete globally with other brokers and dealers, investment banking firms, commercial banks, investment advisors and

other financial services firms. We also face competition on regional, product and niche bases from local and specialist firms. A number of factors determine our competitive position against other firms, including:

Our competitive position is also affected by the overall condition of the global financial markets, which are influenced by factors such as:

In Japan, we compete with other Japanese andnon-Japanese securities companies and other financial institutions. Competition has become more intense due to deregulation in the Japanese financial industry since the late 1990s and the increased presence of global securities companies and other financial institutions. In particular, major global firms have increased their presence in securities underwriting, corporate advisory services (particularly, mergers and acquisitions advisory) and secondary securities sales and trading.

There has also been substantial consolidation and convergence among financial institutions, both within Japan and globally and this trend accelerated further in recent years as the credit crisis caused mergers and acquisitions and asset acquisitions in the industry. The growing presence and scale of financial groups which encompass commercial banking, securities brokerage, investment banking and other financial services has led to increased competition. Through their broadened offerings, these firms are able to create good client relationships and leverage their existing client base in the brokerage and investment banking business as well.

In addition to the breadth of their products and services, these firms have the ability to pursue greater market share in investment banking and securities products by reducing margins and relying on their commercial banking, asset management, insurance and other financial services activities. This has resulted in pricing pressure in our investment banking and trading businesses and could result in pricing pressure in other areas of our businesses. We have also competed, and expect to compete, with other financial institutions which commit capital to businesses or transactions for market share in investment banking activities. In particular, corporate clients may seek loans or commitments in connection with investment banking mandates and other assignments.

Moreover, the trend toward consolidation and convergence has significantly increased the capital base and geographic reach of some of our competitors, hastening the globalization of the securities and financial services markets. To accommodate this trend, we will have to compete successfully with financial institutions that are large and well-capitalized, and that may have a stronger local presence and longer operating history outside Japan.

Regulation

Japan

RegulationoftheSecuritiesIndustryandSecuritiesCompanies. Pursuant to the FIEA, the Prime Minister of Japan has the authority to supervise and regulate the securities industry and securities companies, and delegates its authority to the Commissioner of the FSA. The Company, as a holding company of a securities company, as well as subsidiaries such as NSC and Nomura Financial Products & Services, Inc. (“NFPS”), are subject to such supervision and regulation by the FSA. The Commissioner of the FSA delegates certain authority to the Director General of Local Finance Bureaus to inspect local securities companies and branches. Furthermore, the Securities

and Exchange Surveillance Commission, an external agency of the FSA which is independent from the Agency’s other bureaus, is vested with authority to conductday-to-day monitoring of the securities markets and to investigate irregular activities that hinder the fair trading of securities, including inspection of securities companies. Securities companies are also subject to the rules and regulations of the Japanese stock exchanges and the Japan Securities Dealers Association, a self-regulatory organization of the securities industry.

To enhance investor protection, each Japanese securities company is required to segregate client assets and to hold membership in an Investor Protection Fund approved by the government under the FIEA. The Investor Protection Fund is funded through assessments on its securities company members. In the event of failure of a securities company that is a member of the fund, the Investor Protection Fund provides protection of up to ¥10 million per client. The Investor Protection Fund covers claims related to securities deposited by clients with the failed securities company and certain other client claims.

RegulationofOtherFinancialServices. Securities companies are not permitted to conduct banking or other financial services directly, except for those which are registered as money lenders and engaged in money lending business under the Money Lending Business Act or which hold permission to act as bank agents and conduct banking agency activities under the Banking Law. Among the subsidiaries of the Company in Japan, NSC is a securities company that is also registered as a money lender and holds permission to act as a bank agent. Another subsidiary of the Company, The Nomura Trust & Banking holds a banking license and trust business license.

FinancialInstrumentsandExchangeAct. The FIEA widely regulates financial products and services in Japan under the defined terms “financial instruments” and “financial instruments trading business”. It regulates

most aspects of securities transactions and the securities industry, including public offerings, private placements and secondary trading of securities,on-going disclosure by securities issuers, tender offers for securities, organization and operation of securities exchanges and self-regulatory associations, and registration of securities companies. In addition, to enhance fairness and transparency in the financial markets and to protect investors, the FIEA provides for, among other things, penalties for misrepresentations in disclosure documents and unfair trading, strict reporting obligations for large shareholders and corporate information disclosure systems, including annual and quarterly report systems, submission of confirmation certificates concerning the descriptions in securities reports, and internal controls over financial reporting.

The FIEA also provides for corporate group regulations on securities companies the size of which exceeds specified parameters (TokubetsuKinyuShouhinTorihikiGyosha, “Special Financial Instruments Firm”) and on certain parent companies designated by the Prime Minister (ShiteiOyagaisha, “Designated Parent Companies”) and their subsidiaries (together, the “Designated Parent Company Group”). The FIEA aims to regulate and strengthen business management systems, compliance systems and risk management systems to ensure the protection of investors. The FIEA and its related guidelines also provide reporting requirements to the FSA on the Designated Parent Company Group’s business and capital adequacy ratios, enhanced public disclosures as well as restrictions on compensation all of which are designed to reduce excessive risk-taking by executives and employees of a Designated Parent Company Group. We were designated as the Designated Parent Company of NSC in April 2011 and were designated as the Designated Parent Company of NFPS in December 2013. As the Designated Parent Company and the final parent company within a corporate group (SaishuShiteiOyagaisha, “a Final Designated Parent Company”), we are subject to these requirements. A violation of the FIEA may result in various administrative sanctions, including the revocation of registration or license, the suspension of business or an order to discharge any director or executive officer who has failed to comply with the FIEA.

RegulatoryChanges. On April 16, 2013, a bill was submitted to the Diet of Japan to amend the FIEA and the Deposit Insurance Act and was passed on June 12, 2013. A part of the amendment includes establishing “Orderly Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions” to prevent a financial crisis that may spread across financial markets and may seriously impact the real economy. Under the Orderly Resolution Regime, the Financial Crisis Response Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, will take measures such as providing liquidity to ensure the performance of obligations for critical market transactions where it is considered necessary to

prevent severe market disruption. Such measures will be funded by the financial industry, except in special cases where the government will provide financial support. The amendment became effective on March 6, 2014.

Regulatory Changes.In April 2016, the FSA published its policy to develop the TLAC framework in Japan applicable to JapaneseG-SIBs and, in April 2018, revised such policy to apply the TLAC requirements in Japan not only to JapaneseG-SIBs but also to JapaneseD-SIBs that are deemed (i) of particular need for a cross-border resolution arrangement and (ii) of particular systemic significance to Japanese financial system if they fail. According to the revised policy, although Nomura is not identified as aG-SIB as of the date of this annual report, Nomura will be subject to the TLAC requirements in Japan and will be required to meet a minimum TLAC requirement of holding TLAC in an amount at least 16% of our consolidated risk-weighted assets as from March 31, 2021 and at least 18% as from March 31, 2024 as well as at least 6% of the applicable Basel III leverage ratio denominator from March 31, 2021 and at least 6.75% from March 31, 2024.

Overseas

Our overseas offices and subsidiaries are also subject to various laws, rules and regulations applicable in the countries where they conduct their operations, including, but not limited to those promulgated and enforced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the U.S. Treasury, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the New York Stock Exchange, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (a private organization with quasi-governmental authority and a regulator for all securities companies doing business in the U.S.), the National Futures Association (a self-regulatory organization for the U.S. derivatives industry) in the U.S.; and by the Prudential Regulation Authority (“

(“U.K. PRA”), the Financial Conduct Authority (“U.K. FCA”), and the London Stock Exchange in the U.K. We are also subject to international money laundering and related regulations in various countries. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 contains measures to prevent, detect and prosecute terrorism and international money laundering by imposing significant compliance and due diligence obligations and creating crimes and penalties. Failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations could result in fines, suspension or expulsion, which could materially and adversely affect us.

RegulatoryChanges. In response to the financial markets crisis, governments and regulatory authorities in various jurisdictions have made and continue to make numerous proposals to reform the regulatory framework for, or impose a tax or levy upon, the financial services industry to enhance its resilience against future crises, contribute to the relevant economy generally or for other purposes. In July 2010, the U.S. enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which is now the subject of a multi-agency rulemaking process. The rulemakings include the following: (i) create a tighter regulatory framework for OTC derivatives to promote transparency and impose conduct rules in that marketplace; (ii) establish a process for designating nonbank financial firms as Systemically Important Financial Institutions (“SIFIs”), subject to increased (and sometimes new) prudential oversight including early remediation, capital standards, resolution authority and new regulatory fees; (iii) prohibit material conflicts of interest between firms that package and sell asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and firms that invest in ABS; (iv) establish risk retention requirements for ABS; (v) establish rules related to the orderly liquidation of certain broker dealers; (vi) create annual stress tests; and (vii) set forth a number of executive compensation mandates, including rules to curtail incentive compensation that promotes excessive risk taking and listing standards for recovery of erroneously awarded compensation. The new regulatory framework for OTC derivatives includes mandates for clearing transactions with designated clearing organizations, exchange trading, new capital requirements, bilateral and variation margin fornon-cleared derivatives, reporting and recordkeeping, and internal and external business conduct rules. Some U.S. derivatives and executive compensation rules may be applied extraterritorially and therefore impact somenon-U.S. Nomura entities.

Other aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act and related rulemakings include provisions that (i) prohibit deposit-taking banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and limit their ability to make investments in hedge funds and private equity funds (theso-called “Volcker Rule”); (ii) empower regulators to liquidate failing nonbank financial companies that are systemically important; (iii) provide for new systemic risk oversight and increased capital requirements for both bank andnon-bank SIFIs; (iv) provide for a broader regulatory oversight of hedge funds; and (v) establish new regulations regarding the role of credit rating agencies, investment advisors and others. To facilitate the transition to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an exemptive order in July 2013 (“Exemptive Order”) that granted market participants temporary conditional relief from certain provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. As the Exemptive Order expired on December 21, 2013 some U.S. derivatives rules are now being applied extraterritorially and are now therefore impacting somenon-U.S. Nomura entities. In addition, Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act gives the SEC regulatory authority over “security-based swaps” which are defined under the act as swaps based on a single security or loan or a narrow-based group or index of securities. Security-based swaps are included within the definition of “security” under the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. The SEC continues to issue final rules and interpretive guidance addressing cross-border security-based swap activities. On June 25, 2014, the SEC initially finalized a portion of its cross-border rules, namely key foundational definitions and registration calculations that will become operative once the SEC sets a timeframe for the security-based swap dealer registration process to begin. Since then, the SEC has issued a series of final rules that will apply certain Dodd-Frank Act requirements to security-based swaps between twonon-U.S. person counterparties when the security-based swaps are arranged, negotiated or executed using personnel or personnel of agents located in the United States.U.S. On February 10, 2016, the SEC issued final rules that require anon-U.S. person that uses personnel or personnel of agents located in the United StatesU.S. in connection with security-based swap dealing activity to include such security-based swaps in its security-based swap dealer registration de minimis calculation. On April 14, 2016 the SEC issued final rules that require anon-U.S. security-based swap dealer to comply with external business conduct standards rules when facing anon-U.S. person counterparty if thenon-U.S. security-based swap dealer uses personnel or

personnel of agents located in the United StatesU.S. to arrange, negotiate or execute the security-based swap. Finally, on July 14, 2016 the SEC issued final rules that subject a security-based swap between anon-U.S. security-based swap dealer and anon-U.S. person counterparty to public dissemination pursuant to SEC rules if thenon-U.S. swap dealer uses personnel or personnel of agents located in the United StatesU.S. to arrange, negotiate or execute the security-based swap. The SEC could issue additional final rules that apply certain Dodd-Frank Act requirements to security-based swaps of twonon-U.S. person counterparties when one or both uses personnel or personnel of agents located in the United StatesU.S. to arrange, negotiate or execute the security-based swap, but no such additional rules have been proposed. Once final and effective, these cross-border rules may impact somenon-U.S. Nomura entities. The exact details of the Dodd-Frank Act implementation and ultimate impact on Nomura’s operations will depend on the form and substance of the final regulations adopted by various governmental agencies and oversight boards. In addition to the rulemakings required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is considering other rulemakings that will impact Nomura’s U.S. entities. While these rules have not been formally proposed, they have been publicly reported in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (“OMB”) “Current Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.” The SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets is considering recommending that the SEC propose an amendment to its net capital rule that would prohibit a broker-dealer that carries customer accounts from having a ratio of total assets to regulatory capital in excess of a certain level. The SEC and the CFTC are also considering a number of changes to market structure rules. The SEC adopted Rule 613 to create a consolidated audit trail (“CAT”) intended to allow regulators to track all activity throughout the U.S. markets in National Markets Systems (“NMS”) securities. Self-regulatory organizations must jointly submit a NMS plan to create and implement the CAT, which will replace existing reporting systems OATS, TRACE and EBS. Nomura is expected to begin reporting by November 15, 2018. However, as of June 1, 2018, the outside vendor chosen by the self-regulatory organization has not completed the necessary work that would enable market participants to come into compliance with the rule. On June 15, 2016 the SEC approved amendments to FINRA Rule 4210, which require FINRA member broker-dealers to set risk limits on each counterparty transacting in specified forward-settling agency mortgage-backed securities (“covered agency transactions”) as of December 15, 2016, and to collect variation margin and/or maintenance margin from certain counterparties transacting in covered agency transactions as of June 25, 2018. A failure to collect required margin in a timely manner (T+1) results in an obligation for the FINRA member broker-dealer to take a capital charge, and ultimately (T+5) to liquidate the customer’s position in order to satisfy the margin deficiency. On April 20, 2018, FINRA filed a rule change with the SEC extending the effective date of the 4210 Margin requirements to March 25, 2019, citing the need to consider potential revisions to 4210 in consultation with market participants and other regulators.

On February 3, 2017, U.S. President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 13772 outlining core principles to regulate the U.S. financial system. The order directed the Secretary of the Treasury to consult with heads of member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and report within 120 days of the date of the order (and periodically thereafter) on the extent to which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements and other government policies promote the core principles. U.S. regulatory agencies may change financial regulations through administrative procedures and rulemakings, supervisory guidance orno-action relief as the result of recommendations by the Treasury Secretary in accordance with the core principles of the executive order. These may have a material impact on Nomura’s business.

The core principles are as follows: (i) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth; (ii) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts; (iii) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry; (iv) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets; (v) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings; (vi) make regulation efficient, effective, and appropriately tailored; and (vii) restore public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework. The Treasury Department divided its review of the financial system into a series of reports. The reports cover the following

subjects: (1) the depository system, covering banks, savings associations, and credit unions of all sizes, types and regulatory charters: (2) capital markets: covering debt, equity, commodities and derivatives markets, central clearing and other operational functions; (3) the asset management and insurance industries, and retail and institutional investment products and vehicles; and (4)non-bank financial institutions, financial technology and financial innovation. The first three reports were issued in June and October 2017. In addition, President Trump issued two Presidential Memoranda to the Secretary of the Treasury. One calls for a review of the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”) established under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, which the Treasury Department released in February 2018, recommending reforms to the OLA and amendments to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to make a bankruptcy proceeding a more effective solution method for large financial institutions. The other calls for Treasury to review the process by which the Financial Stability Oversight Council determines that a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the U.S., subjecting such an entity to supervision by the Federal Reserve and enhanced prudential standards and capital requirements.

On October 26, 2017, the Division of Investment Management and the Division of Trading and Markets of the SEC issued three relatedno-action letters to address certain issues raised by cross-border implementation of the European Union’s Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID II”), which will take effect on January 3, 2018. MiFID II will require the unbundling of execution and research payments made by investment managers to broker-dealers. Under the relief a broker-dealer may, without becoming subject to the Advisers Act, provide research services to an investment manager that is required, either directly or by contractual obligation, to pay for such research services with MiFIDII-compliant research payments. The temporary relief will expire on July 3, 2020, 30 months from MiFID II’s implementation date.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”), which was enacted in 2010, requires foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”) to report to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service information about financial accounts

held by U.S. taxpayers, or by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest. As a result, Nomura will beis subject to certain reporting requirements consistent with a mutual agreement between Japanese governmental authorities and the U.S. Treasury Department.

In addition, the USU.S. Treasury Department proposed new debt-equity rules in April 2016 that wouldwill give the Internal Revenue Service the authority to reclassify certain related-company debt transactionsissued by a domestic corporation to related parties as equity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This could reclassify deductible interest paid on debt from Nomura Holding America Inc. to NHI to non-deductible dividends.

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and asJobs Act into law. Among other things, the legislation includes the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (“BEAT”), effectively a resultminimum tax on large corporations applied by adding back to taxable income certain deductible payments made to related foreign persons. These tax law changes are complex and raise significant interpretive issues and therefore we anticipate future guidance on these rules to address the areas of uncertainty which could also have an adverse impact on the Company’s tax liability.liabilities of our U.S. entities.

On July 19, 2011, the Financial Stability Board published a consultative document to establish a global framework to improve authorities’ capacity to resolve failing SIFIs without systemic disruption and exposing taxpayers to the risk of loss. The proposed measures require Global SIFIs(“G-SIFIs”) to prepare and maintain recovery and resolution plans (“RRPs”) by December 2012. In light of such a global framework, the U.K. Financial Services Authority (“U.K. FSA”) (which has now been replaced by the U.K. PRA and FCA) published a consultation paper on August 9, 2011 containing its proposals for RRPs. The consultation paper covered a requirement for banks and large investment firms in the U.K. (includingG-SIFIs) to prepare and maintain RRPs. In a separate discussion paper, the U.K. FSA explores matters relevant to resolving financial services firms, including the resolution of trading books, enhancing the resolution toolkit andbail-ins. In May 2012, the U.K. FSA published a feedback statement setting out its approach to ensure firms develop appropriate recovery plans

and resolution packs and a further update was issued by the U.K. FSA in February 2013. In December 2013, the U.K. PRA published a policy statement setting out final rules which require banks, building societies and U.K.PRA-regulated investment firms to produce recovery plans (identification of options to recover financial strength in stress situations) and resolution packs (information to support resolution planning by the authorities).

These rules were amended in January 2015 as part of the U.K. implementation of the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (“BRRD”), which was published on June 12, 2014. The BRRD also aims to implement Financial Stability Board recommendations on recovery and resolution regimes for financial institutions and for U.K. purposes it will partially supersede the existing U.K. regime. The BRRD applies to banks and investment firms operating in EU member states, including EU branches and subsidiaries of third country firms. It includes requirements for the preparation of RRPs by institutions and regulators. It also creates various powers for EU regulators to intervene to resolve institutions at risk of failure, including the ability to sell or transfer all or part of an institution (similar to existing U.K. regulatory powers) and the introduction of a debt write down orbail-in tool. Amongst other things, relevant firms are required to include a contractual recognition of thebail-in clause in a wide range ofnon-EU law governed contracts governing liabilities created or materially amended after January 1, 2016 under which the creditor contractually recognizes and agrees that the liability may be subject to use of thebail-in tool. Specific provision is also made to facilitate cross-border crisis management and the recognition of third country recovery and resolution action in relation to third country banking and investment groups. As part of thebail-in rules, firms will be required to maintain capital resources sufficient to meet the stipulated minimum requirement for eligible liabilities (“MREL”). The MREL requirement overlaps with the global capital standards on total loss absorbing capacity (“TLAC”) forG-SIBs issued by the Financial Stability Board on November 9, 2015. The TLAC standard defines a minimum requirement for the instruments and liabilities that should be readily available forbail-in within resolution atG-SIBs, but does not limit authorities’ powers under the applicable resolution law to expose other liabilities to loss throughbail-in or the application of other resolution tools.G-SIBs will be required to meet the TLAC requirement alongside the minimum regulatory requirements set out in the Basel III framework.

On August 18, 2016 the FSB published final guidance on resolution planning arrangements designed to support operational continuity in resolution (“FSB Guidance”) in order to assist authorities and firms subject to resolution planning requirements assess whether such firms have appropriate arrangements in place. On April 28, 2017, the U.K. PRA issued a policy statement to introduce rules implementing the FSB Guidance (“U.K. PRA Rules”). The U.K.PRAU.K. PRA Rules will apply from January 1, 2019 to designated investment firms, certain U.K. banks and building societies. The U.K.PRAU.K. PRA Rules largely reflect the FSB Guidance, but go beyond the FSB Guidance in some respects.

There are a number of regulatory developments that impact capital requirements for U.K. regulated entities. Most significant of these is the Basel III framework, as adopted into EU law through the fourth Capital

Requirements Directive and Capital Requirements Regulation (together, “CRD IV”), which became effective on January 1, 2014. The aim of CRD IV is to strengthen the resilience of the EU banking sector so it is better placed to absorb economic shocks while ensuring that banks continue to finance economic activity and growth. CRD IV sets out requirements for minimum capital requirements for banks and investment firms and also introduced new capital and liquidity buffers.

The framework also modifies treatment of financial institution exposures to central counterparties, resulting in increased capital charges, as well as qualifying conditions that must be met by central counterparties before institutions may benefit from preferential treatment. CRD IV introduces the concept of the leverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”) and liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”). The directive introduces corporate governance requirements with a more rigorous supervision of risks by directors as well as management or supervisory boards. The rules concern the composition of boards, their functioning and their role in risk oversight and strategy in order to improve the effectiveness of risk oversight by boards. The regulation requires financial institutions to make increased Pillar 3 disclosures about their corporate governance arrangements. CRD IV also sets out requirements in relation to remuneration policies imposing a 1:1 ratio on the basic salary relative to bonus for certain staff.

On November 23, 2016, the European Commission published the fifth Capital Requirements Directive (“CRD V”). CRD V is a legislative dossier implementing the remaining parts of Basel III in the EU as well as addressing issues identified in the prudential requirements of CRD IV. The European Commission also introduced amendments to existing legislation in the form of the CRD V Capital Requirements Regulation (“CRR II”), Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (“BRRD II”) and Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (“SRMR”). As dossiers will need to pass through the EU legislative process, which usually takes about 18 months, the rules will enter into force in 2019 at the earliest.

On October 20, 2011, the European Commission published draft legislation for the Directive on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. The legislation has been split into two parts: the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID”) and the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (“MiFIR”). On May 13, 2014, the Council of the European Union announced that it had adopted MiFID II (the revised MiFID) and MiFIR. MiFID II was published in the EU Official Journal on June 12, 2014 and entered into force on July 3, 2014. The majority of the new rules under MiFID II and MiFIR will take effect from January 3, 2018, with Member States required to implement MiFID II through national legislation by July 3, 2017. The legislation seeks to introduce wide-reaching changes to markets, including the extension of market transparency rules intonon-equities and potentially reducing the size of the OTC derivative market by mandating the clearing of standardized OTC transactions through central clearing counterparties and their trading through regulated trading venues. The new framework introduces a market structure which seeks to close certain loopholes and ensures that trading, wherever appropriate, takes place on regulated platforms. It introduces rules on high frequency trading and aims to improve the transparency and oversight of financial markets. The revised MiFID also aims to strengthen the protection of investors by introducing more robust organizational and conduct requirements and by strengthening the role of management bodies. The new framework also increases the role and supervisory powers of regulators and establishes powers to prohibit or restrict the marketing and distribution of certain products in well-defined circumstances. A harmonized regime for granting firms from third countries access to EU professional markets, based on an equivalence assessment of third-country jurisdictions by the Commission, will also be introduced.

Following a range of consultations and technical advice published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), in April 2016 the European Commission adopted a MiFID Delegated Directive (“Directive”). The Directive contains provisions on investor protection, notably on safeguarding of clients’ funds and financial instruments, product governance andmonetary/non-monetary compensation. The Commission also adopted a delegated regulation supplementing MiFID II. This regulation aims at specifying, in particular, the rules relating to exemptions, the organizational requirements for investment firms, and conduct of business obligations in the provision of investment services. In May 2016, the Commission adopted a further delegated regulation supplementing MiFIR. This regulation aims at specifying, in particular, the rules relating to determining liquidity for equity instruments, the rules on the provision of market data on a reasonable

commercial basis, the rules on publication, order execution and transparency obligations for systematic internalisers, and the rules on supervisory measures on product intervention by the ESMA, the European Banking Authority and national authorities, as well as on position management powers by the ESMA. The Commission also has adopted the majority of final technical standards. There is still ongoing work on the technical guidelines.

In the U.K., the U.K. FCA has also published various consultations on MiFID II, including a Discussion Paper in March 2015, which discussed the FCA’s approach to those areas of MiFID II for which the U.K. has discretion in relation to implementation. In March 2015, U.K. HM Treasury published a consultation on the Transposition of the MiFID II. The U.K. FCA published its first consultation paper on MiFID II implementation in December 2015. The paper focused on markets issues. The U.K. FCA published a second consultation in July 2016 on commodities, supervision and senior management issues and a third consultation in September 2016 on a range of business conduct issues including investment research and product governance. In December 2016, the U.K. FCA published a fourth consultation on specialist regimes, tied agents, market data and other miscellaneous changes to the FCA Handbook. In March 2017, the first of two policy statements was published, setting out the U.K. FCA’s near-final rules on most of the topics which were addressed in the first and second consultation

papers. In February 2017, U.K. HM Treasury published responses to the feedback they received on their March 2015 paper. In July 2017, the U.K. FCA published the second policy statement, setting out the final rules on conduct issues, including research, inducements, client categorization, best execution, the appropriateness test, taping, client assets and perimeter guidance.

The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”) became effective on August 16, 2012, and applies to any entity established in the European Union that is a legal counterparty to a derivative contract, even when trading withnon-EU firms. Although the majority of EMIR regulations have already been implemented, there were several important developments during the course of 2016 and 2017. On June 6, 2016, The ESMA and the CFTC established a memorandum of understanding (“MoU”) under EMIR which established the cooperation agreements regarding central clearing counterparties (“CCPs”) that are established in the U.S. and authorized or recognized by the CFTC and which have applied for EU recognition under EMIR.

On June 14, 2016, the ESMA updated its list of recognized third-country CCPs to include the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”), and in September 2016 the ESMA updated its list to also include ICE Clear Europe.

On July 1, 2016, the European Commission published an Implementing Decision in the EU Official Journal which granted equivalence to certain designated contract markets (“DCMs”) in the U.S. that operate under the regulatory oversight of the CFTC. The decision came into force on July 22, 2016. This equivalence decision was particularly relevant to EMIR, as products traded on equivalent third-country markets (in this case DCMs subject to CFTC regulatory oversight) no longer fall under the definition of an OTC derivative and are therefore no longer subject to the EMIR obligations relevant to OTC derivatives (such as inclusion within the calculation of the clearing threshold fornon-financial counterparties). In February 2017, the U.K. FCA made a statement that it expected all firms to be in compliance with the variation margin requirements under EMIR for allin-scope transactions entered into from March 1, 2017.

On January 12, 2016, the Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (“SFTR”), which forms part of the EU’s package of legislation targeted at reforming shadow banking and aims to improve transparency in the securities financing transactions (“SFTs”) market, came into force subject to a range of transitional provisions over a number of years. On March 31, 2017, the ESMA published their final technical standards under SFTR to the European Commission which has three months to decide whether to endorse them. The SFTR implementing measures are expected to enter into force by end of 2017.

On July 3, 2016, the EU Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”) came into force in all EU member states. The new rules on market abuse update and strengthen the existing framework to ensure greater market integrity and investor protection, replacing the existing Market Abuse Directive. The MAR strengthens the existing U.K. market abuse framework by extending its scope to new markets, new platforms and new behaviors. It contains prohibitions of insider dealing and market manipulation, as well as provisions designed to prevent and detect these behaviors, including the obligation to report suspicious orders and transactions. The MAR also introduced Investment Recommendations as a type of client communication requiring disclosures and tracking akin to investment research.

In June 2015, the European Parliament and Council to the EU members issued the final version of the Fourth Money Laundering Directive (“MLD4”). All EU member states, including the U.K., have two years in which to transpose the requirements of the directive into national law which will, where necessary, amend or replace the existing regulations or legislation. In February 2016, the EU Commission, in an effort to bolster the fight against terrorist financing, proposed amendment to the MLD4 that would enable the tracing of terrorists through financial movements and disrupt the sources of revenue for terrorist organizations by targeting their capacity to raise funds. These proposed amendments must still be agreed upon among all 28 Member States, but were included in a final version of the MLD4 issued by the EU Parliament in July 2016. In September 2017, additional legislation was implemented in the U.K. designed to combat financial crime including the Criminal Finances Act. The Act functions as an enhancement and extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and, in

addition to increasing the powers of authorities in investigating tax evasion, is also designed to make failure by a commercial organization to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion a punishable offence.

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) became effective on July 21, 2011. The AIFMD was required to be implemented by Member States by July 22, 2013 (subject to aone-year transitional period). The AIFMD and its related implementing legislation establish a detailed framework for the management and marketing of alternative investment funds (or “AIFs”) within the EEA. As the concept of an “AIF” is broadly defined, the AIFMD captures the majority ofnon-UCITs funds, including hedge funds, private equity, debt and real estate funds.

Under the AIFMD regime, fund managers operating within the EEA are subject to extensive organizational requirements, including mandatory authorization by an EEA regulator, substantial ongoing compliance, conduct of business and disclosure requirements and the obligation to appoint an independent depositary with responsibility for an AIF’s assets. A separate regulatory regime applies to depositaries, which must also be authorized for this purpose. Additional restrictions and disclosure obligations apply to managers of private equity firms which acquire material holdings in EEA companies.Non-EEA fund managers seeking to target EEA investors are also subject, at a minimum, to asub-set of the compliance requirements for EEA managers, focusing mainly on disclosure. It is open to each Member State to introduce additional restrictions forthird-country managers and some jurisdictions remain very restrictive in this respect. The possibility of a passporting regime for third-country managers is, however, provided for in the AIFMD and is still under consideration at the EU level, following positive feedback from the ESMA on a number of jurisdictions such as Canada, Guernsey, Japan, Jersey and Switzerland (further legislation would be required to introduce such a third-country passport). The AIFMD has material impact for Nomura insofar as certain group entities manage and/or market investment funds within the EEA (which attracts an enhanced compliance burden). Nomura also acts as depositary or “depo lite” to AIFs and is accordingly subject to separate compliance requirements and liability provisions in this capacity.

On March 7, 2017, the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (“SMCR”) reached itsone-year implementation anniversary, and. additional rules regarding regulatory references and broadening the application of conduct rules to all staff also came into force on the same day. On May 12, 2017, the U.K. PRA and U.K. FCA announced the final amendments to the SMCR which will come into force on July 3, 2017. Amongst the key changes announced was a new power for U.K Regulators (the U.K. FCA and the U.K. PRA) to apply individual rules of conduct to allnon-executive directors, irrespective of whether they perform a senior manager role or another controlled function, and clarification that this rule applies to a director (whether executive ornon-executive) when they are acting as a member of the board, of the board’s committees or other governing body. In addition, a further rule, the ‘Duty of Responsibility’ for senior managers, came into force on May 3, 2017. Under this ‘Duty of Responsibility’,’ the U.K. FCA and U.K. PRA will now be able to take enforcement action against senior managers if they are responsible for the management of any activities within their firm where their firm contravenes a regulatory requirement and the senior managers do not take ‘reasonably expected steps’ to avoid such a contravention from ‘occurring or continuing’.’

Over the past two to three years, the U.K. FCA has worked towards introducing a number of changes to the U.K. regulatory regime for the protection of client assets (“CASS”). These requirements are relevant to Nomura’s U.K. entities that hold client money and other assets on behalf of their clients (other than in the course of deposit-taking activity). The reforms made to the CASS regime have been driven in large part by concerns of the U.K. FCA regarding the shortcomings of the previous rules that were highlighted in the U.K. case law surrounding the collapse of Lehman Brothers International (Europe). The U.K. FCA commenced its review of the CASS regime in 2012 and published final rules in 2014, the last of which came into force on June 1, 2015. The reforms aim to improve the speed and efficiency with which client assets may be distributed following the insolvency of the holding firm and to minimize negative market impact. This has resulted in extensive changes to the rules, designed to strengthen the legal and operational requirements of holding firms for effective segregation of client money and to enhance controls over institutions with which client money is deposited and third parties

to whom client money is transferred. The conditions attached to exclusions from the client money rules have also been clarified and enhanced. In addition, various changes have also been made to the rules to give effect to EMIR requirements regarding client money held in the course of derivatives clearing activity. The net effect of these various changes is generally to increase the operational and compliance burden on firms that hold client money and assets.

On July 29, 2016, the U.K. FCA released Consultation Paper 16/19: Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II Implementation (“CP 16/19”). CP16/19 provides for incremental changes to CASS. Many of the changes introduced by MiFID II are already part of the U.K. FCA rules. Although CASS will implement MiFID II using language closely mirroring that of MiFID II, such language will be adapted where appropriate to conform with U.K. law and practice.. On November 9, 2015, the Financial Reporting Council published its Standard for audit firms on Providing Assurance on Client Assets to the U.K. FCA. The Reasonable Assurance Standard was implemented on January 1, 2016, and has helped to ensure that the strengthened CASS regime is underpinned by sound assurances.

Since 2012, the European Commission has been working on the EU Data Protection Reform to establish a modern and harmonized data protection framework across the EU to replace the existing Directive. On May 4, 2016, the official texts of the new Regulation were published in the EU Official Journal in all the official languages and it came into force on May 25, 2016. However, theThe Regulation will not be effectivetook effect across the EU member states untilon May 25, 2018. The Regulation includes a number of important changes to existing data protection legislation including new obligations on data processors, restrictions on the transfer of personal data outside the EEA and the introduction of new concepts such as “accountability” (and related record-keeping), the “right to be forgotten” and a requirement for data breach notifications to the relevant Regulators. Enforcement of the Regulation will be carried out by both national regulators (for the U.K., the Information Commissioner) and the Commission, and the regulators will also now have the new power to impose greater fines for any breaches of the data protection requirements of up to 4% of a firm’s global turnover.

The EU Benchmark Regulation entered into force on June 30, 2016 and will apply in the U.K. from January 1, 2018. Global regulators have imposed fines on firms following attempted manipulation of the LIBOR, gold and foreign exchange benchmarks, and have taken action against individuals for misconduct related to benchmarks. The objectives of the EU Benchmark Regulation include, but are not limited: (i) improving governance and controls over the benchmarking process to ensure that administrators avoid/manage conflicts of interest, (ii) improving the quality of input data and methodologies used by benchmark administrators, (iii) ensuring that contributors to benchmarks and the data they provide are subject to adequate controls, and (iv) protecting consumers and investors through greater transparency and adequate rights of redress.

In the U.K., as a follow up to the Fair and Effective Markets Review (established by the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities (“FICC”) Markets Standards Board (“FMSB”) was established in 2015 as a private sector response to the conduct problems revealed in global wholesale FICC markets after the financial crisis. The function of the FMSB is to help raise standards of conduct in global wholesale markets by producing voluntary Standards and other guidance in areas of uncertainty that are

developed by the membership and designed to illustrate best practices to all market participants. These Standards are intended to reduce the continuing uncertainty about acceptable practices in opaque and unregulated areas, which is a hazard for FMSB members, as well as other market participants. The Standards published to date cover the new issue process, binary options for the commodities markets and reference price transactions for the fixed income markets. The published Standards do not have legal or regulatory force and do not replace existing legislation; rather, they are intended to supplement the rules already in place. The Standards are implemented by way of FMSB member firms making an adherence statement on an annual basis.

FollowingThe U.K. is due to formally leave the European Union at the end of March 2019 following the Brexit referendum held in June 2016 in which 51.9%and triggering of votes were cast in favor of leaving the EU, the U.K. Prime Minister triggered Article 50 of the Treaty ofon the Functioning of the European Union to start the formal exit process on March 29, 2017, meaning that the U.K. is on a course to leave the EU by the end of March 2019. The terms of withdrawal and agreements outlining any new relationships between the U.K. and the EU will be negotiated during this two year period.2017. In the meantime, the U.K. remains a full member of the

EU, although its influence over rule-making is significantly reduced. Furthermore,The U.K. and EU are currently in a negotiating process on the triggeringterms of Article 50 means thatexit and future relationship agreement. In December 2017, political agreement was reached on Phase 1 issues covering the exit bill, the rights of citizens and the Irish border, although some details still need to be finalized. Subsequently, in March 2018 a status quo transition period was agreed meaning the U.K. will leavecontinue to be an EU member on current terms, without input into the rule-making process, until December 2020. Both the Phase 1 issues and agreement on transition are provisional and will need to be formally signed off by both sides, which is expected in late 2018. Separately, the U.K. Government has proposed domestic legislation, the EU after two years even if no deal is reached, but this period can be extended with(Withdrawal) Bill, to repeal the unanimous agreementEuropean Communities Act 1972 that gives primacy to aspects of all parties.EU law and transposes currentEU-derived law into U.K. legislation to provide continuity. The U.K. financial services sector currently relies on access to the EU single market to conduct business across borders within the EU. HoweverBoth sides have emphasized the need for continued good access, but the terms of the future relationship will not start to become clear until detailed talks start in late 2018. On May 25, 2018, Nomura Financial Products Europe GmbH, a Nomura subsidiary domiciled in Germany, has been granted a securities trading license by the German regulator (“BaFin”). Nomura’s plans are well advanced and the license represents a major step towards ensuring that all current client and counterparty relationships, and access to Nomura products and services, will continue without disruption after the U.K. government has said that it will not seek to remain part ofleaves the single market after Brexit. It is not yet clear whether an agreement can be reached through other means in order to maintain a similar level access for U.K.-based firms and so the precise impact of Brexit on financial services cannot yet be judged. Firms such as Nomura are currently working on their contingency plans in order to ensure that they are able to provide continued service to clients both regionally and globally.EU.

Regulatory Capital Rules

Japan

The FIEA requires that all Financial Instruments Firms (Category I) (“Financial Instruments Firms I”), a category that includes NSC and NFPS, ensure that their capital adequacy ratios do not fall below 120% on anon-consolidated basis. The FIEA also requires Financial Instruments Firms I to file monthly reports regarding their capital adequacy ratios with the Commissioner of the FSA or the Director-General of the appropriate Local Finance Bureau, and also to disclose their capital adequacy ratios to the public on a quarterly basis. In addition, if the capital adequacy ratio of a Financial Instruments Firm I falls below 140%, it must file a daily report with the authorities. The FIEA provides for actions which the Prime Minister, through the Commissioner of the FSA or the Director-General of the appropriate Local Finance Bureau, may take if any Financial Instruments Firm I fails to meet the capital adequacy requirement. More specifically, if the capital adequacy ratio of any Financial Instruments Firms I falls below 120%, the Commissioner of the FSA or the Director-General of the appropriate Local Finance Bureau may order the Financial Instruments Firm I to change its business conduct, to deposit its property in trust, or may issue any other supervisory order that such authorities deem necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the general public or investors. If the capital adequacy ratio of a Financial Instruments Firm I falls below 100%, the authorities may take further action, including the issuance of orders to temporarily suspend its business and the revocation of its registration as a Financial Instruments Firm I under the FIEA.

Under the FIEA and regulations thereunder, the “capital adequacy ratio” means the ratio of adjusted capital to a quantified total of business risks. Adjusted capital is defined as net worth less illiquid assets. Net worth mainly consists of stated capital, additionalpaid-in capital, retained earnings, reserves for securities transactions, certain allowances for doubtful current accounts, net unrealized gains/losses in the market value of investment securities, and subordinated debt. Illiquid assets generally includenon-current assets, certain deposits and advances and prepaid expenses. Business risks are divided into three categories: (i) market risks (i.e., risks of asset value changes due to decline in market values and other reasons), (ii) counterparty risks (i.e., risks of delinquency of counterparties and other reasons) and (iii) basic risks (i.e., risks in carrying out daily business activities, such as administrative problems with securities transactions and clerical mistakes), each quantified in the manner specified in a rule promulgated under the FIEA.

The FSA reviewed the FIEA and regulations thereunder in line with Basel 2.5 framework and the revised regulations for Basel 2.5 were implemented at the end of December 2011. Market risks increased significantly as a result of the Basel 2.5 rule implementation.

We closely monitor the capital adequacy ratio of NSC and NFPS on a continuous basis. Since the introduction of the capital adequacy requirement in Japan in 1989, we have at all times been in compliance with all appropriate requirements. We believe that we will continue to be in compliance with all applicable capital adequacy requirements for the foreseeable future.

As discussed above, the FSA amended the FIEA and introduced new rules on consolidated regulation and supervision of securities companies on a consolidated basis on April 1, 2011 to improve the stability and transparency of Japan’s financial system and ensure the protection of investors. Following introduction of these rules, NSC was designated as a Special Financial Instruments Firm, following which we have been designated as a Final Designated Parent Company. As such, we are required to calculate consolidated regulatory capital adequacy ratio according to the FSA’s “Establishment of standards on sufficiency of capital stock of a final designated parent company and its subsidiary entities, etc. compared to the assets held thereby” (2010 FSA Regulatory Notice No. 130; “Capital Adequacy Notice on Final Designated Parent Company”). Accordingly, since our designation as a Final Designated Parent Company in April 2011, we now calculate our Basel rule-based consolidated regulatory capital adequacy ratio according to the Capital Adequacy Notice on Final Designated Parent Company.

The FSA also amended the FIEA to include reporting on consolidated regulatory capital for the Final Designated Parent Companies, effective April 1, 2011. We are subject to this reporting requirements as well as the capital adequacy requirements described above.

The Capital Adequacy Notice on Final Designated Parent Company has been revised to be in line with Basel 2.5 and Basel III, and we have calculated a BaselIII-based consolidated capital adequacy ratio since the end of March 2013. Basel 2.5 includes significant changes in the method of calculating market risk and Basel III includes redefinition of capital items for the purpose of requiring higher levels of capital and expansion of the scope of credit risk-weighted assets calculation.

If our capital ratios fall to the minimum level required by the FSA, our business activities may be impacted. However, these ratios are currently at well capitalized levels. We have met all capital adequacy requirements to which we are subject and have consistently operated in excess of the FSA’s capital adequacy requirements. Subject to future developments in regulatory capital regulations and standards, there has been no significant change in our capital ratios which management believes would have material impact on our operations.

The Basel Committee has issued a series of announcements regarding a broader program to strengthen the regulatory capital framework in light of weaknesses revealed by the financial crises, as described in “ConsolidatedRegulatoryCapitalRequirements” under Item 5.B of this annual report. The Capital Adequacy Notice on Final Designated Parent Company is expected to incorporate the series of rules and standards in line with the schedule proposed by the Basel Committee.

At theG-20 summit in November 2011, the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) and the Basel Committee announced the list of global systemically important banks(“G-SIBs”) and the additional requirements to theG-SIBs including the recovery and resolution plan. The FSB also announced the group ofG-SIBs will be updated annually and published by the FSB each November. Since November 2011, we have not been designated as aG-SIB. On the other hand, the FSB and the Basel Committee were asked to work on extending the framework forG-SIBs to domestic systemically important banks(“D-SIBs”) and the Basel Committee developed and published a set of principles on the assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement forD-SIBs. In December 2015, the FSA identified us as aD-SIB and required additional capital charge of 0.5% after March 2016, with3-year transitional arrangement.

Overseas

In the U.S., Nomura Securities International, Inc. (“NSI”) is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and as a futures commission merchant with the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (“CFTC”). NSI is also regulated by self-regulatory organizations, such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group. NSI is subject to the SEC’s Uniform Net Capital Rule (“Rule15c3-1”) and other related rules, which require net capital, as defined under the alternative method, of not less than the greater of $1,000,000 or 2% of aggregate debit items arising from client transactions. NSI is also subject to CFTC Regulation 1.17 which requires the maintenance of net capital of 8% of the total risk margin requirement, as defined, for all positions carried in client accounts and nonclient accounts or $1,000,000, whichever is greater. NSI is required to maintain net capital in accordance with the SEC, CFTC, or other various exchange requirements, whichever is greater. Another U.S. subsidiary, Nomura Global Financial Products Inc. (“NGFP”) is registered as an OTC Derivatives Dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NGFP is subject to Rule15c3-1 and applies Appendix F. NGFP is required to maintain net capital of $20,000,000 in accordance with the SEC. Another U.S. subsidiary, Instinet, LLC (“ILLC”) is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and is a member of FINRA. Further, ILLC is an introducing broker registered with the CFTC and a member of the National Futures Association and various other exchanges. ILLC is subject toRule15c3-1 which requires the maintenance of minimum net capital, as defined under the alternative method, equal to the greater of $1,000,000, 2% of aggregate debit items arising from client transactions, or the CFTC minimum requirement. Under CFTC rules, ILLC is subject to the greater of the following when determining its minimum net capital requirement: $45,000 minimum net capital required as a CFTC introducing broker; the amount of adjusted net capital required by a futures association of which it is a member; and the amount of net capital required by Rule15c3-1(a). As of March 31, 20162017 and 2017,2018, NSI, NGFP and ILLC were in compliance with relevant regulatory capital related requirements.

In Europe, Nomura Europe Holdings plc (“NEHS”) is subject to consolidated regulatory supervision by the Prudential Regulation Authority (“U.K. PRA”). The regulatory consolidation is produced in accordance with the requirements established under the Capital Requirements Directive and the Capital Requirements Regulation which came into effect on January 1, 2014. Nomura International plc (“NIP”), the most significant of NEHS’ subsidiaries, acts as a securities brokerage and dealing business. NIP is regulated by the U.K. PRA and has minimum capital adequacy requirements imposed on it on a standalone basis. In addition, Nomura Bank International plc (“NBI”), another subsidiary of NEHS, is also regulated by the U.K. PRA on a standalone basis. As of March 31, 20162017 and 2017,2018, NEHS, NIP and NBI were in compliance with relevant regulatory capital related requirements. On May 25, 2018, Nomura Financial Products Europe GmbH, a Nomura subsidiary domiciled in Germany, has been granted a securities trading license by the German regulator (“BaFin”).

In Asia, Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited (“NIHK”) and Nomura Singapore Ltd (“NSL”) are regulated by their local respective regulatory authorities. NIHK is licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong to carry out regulated activities including dealing and clearing in securities and futures contracts, advising on securities, futures contracts and corporate finance and wealth finance management. Activities of NIHK, including its branch in Taiwan, are subject to the Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) Rules which require it, at all times, to maintain liquid capital at a level not less than its required liquid capital. Liquid capital is the amount by which liquid assets exceed ranking liabilities. Required liquid capital is calculated in accordance with provisions laid down in the Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) Rules. NSL is a merchant bank with an Asian Currency Unit (“ACU”) license governed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”). NSL carries out its ACU regulated activities including, among others, securities brokerage and dealing business. NSL is regulated and has minimum capital adequacy requirements imposed on it on a standalone basis by the MAS in Singapore. As of March 31, 20162017 and 2017,2018, NIHK and NSL were in compliance with relevant regulatory capital related requirements.

In addition, certain of our other subsidiaries are subject to various securities and banking regulations, and the capital adequacy requirements established by the regulatory and exchange authorities of the countries in which those subsidiaries operate. We believe that each such subsidiary is, and will in the foreseeable future be, in compliance with these requirements in all material respects.

Management Challenges and Strategies

The Nomura Group’s management vision is to enhance its corporate value by deepening society’s trust in the firm and increasing the satisfaction of stakeholders, including shareholders and clients. As “Asia’s global investment bank,” Nomura will provide high value-added solutions to clients globally, and recognizing its wider social responsibility, Nomura will continue to contribute to economic growth and development of society. In order to enhance its corporate value, Nomura responds flexibly to various changes in the business environment, and emphasizes earnings per shareEarnings Per Share (“EPS”) as a management index to achieve stable profit growth, and will seek to maintain sustained improvement in this index.

In order to achieve our management objectives, we are primarily focusing on ensuring that profits are recorded by all divisions and regions. We arehave committed ourselves to continuing business model transformation in Japan as well as aiming to improve profitability of our internationaloverseas operations under Vision C&C slogan, so that we will be able to build a solid foundation to generate profits even inunder severe market environments.

We will ensure a flexible and robust response to changes in the global operating environment related to international financial regulations and progress in various innovations;digital initiatives; and make efforts to monitor the international political situation which is changing rapidly, so that we will be able to maintain a robust financial position and to use management resources effectively by improving capital efficiency among others.efficiency.

The challenges and strategies in each division are as follows:

In Retail Division, under the basic philosophy of “placing our clients at the heart of everything we have been workingdo,” we provided consulting services to transform our business model in order to “expand our businessfurther become a “financial institution that is needed by increasing clients’ trust and improving clients’ satisfaction” and to “become financial institution a lot of people need.” We are aiming to improve clients’ satisfaction and expand our businessmany people” by responding to clients’ diversifying needs.needs and wishes. We continue to support elderly clients with their family in Japan experiencing a rapidly aging and shrinking population, and expand the client base including next-generation clients for their asset management. We also focus on providing a broad range of value-adding solutions to clients with value-added solutionsincluding discretionary investments not only throughface-to-face consulting services, but also through seminars and online and call center channels so that we will win greater trust from account holders as well as new clients.with the aim of earning clients’ trust.

We intendaim to increase assets under management and expand our client base in (i) our investment trust business, by providing clients with a diverse range of investment opportunities to meet investors’ various needs, and (ii) our investment advisory business, by providing value-addedvalue-adding investment services to our clients on a global basis. As a distinctive investment manager based in Asia with the ability to provide a broad range of products and services, we aim to gain the strong trust of investors worldwide by making continuous efforts to improve investment performance and to meet clients’ various needs.

In addition to the needs of our clients becoming increasingly more sophisticated, the Wholesale Division also faces challenges presented by the technological revolution, that may result in market changes which fundamentally affect the form of our traditional business. In order to keep step with such changes as well as to ensure our ability to provide our clients with added value, we will continue to seek the enhancement of our connectivity across Global Markets, Investment Banking and other Divisions around the globe as part of our sustained efforts to provide highly sought-after products and services to the markets.

Global Markets has been focusing on delivering differentiated and competitive products and solutions to our clients by leveraging our global capabilities in trading, research, and global distribution. We aim to provide uninterrupted liquidity to our clients across asset classes and markets, and strive to offerbest-in-class market access and execution services. Additionally, Global Markets will gear up for the digital transformation of our business.

In Investment Banking, while we continuehave seen a recent reemergence of geopolitical risk, our clients have continued their efforts to globalize their businesses. In order to be able to meet their needs, we have continued to enhance our structure to further provide cross-border M&A capabilities and supported our clients’ capital raising activities both in Japan and in other international regions. Going forward, we will continue to provide our clients with cutting edge services and products across M&A, capital raising and solutions.

The Merchant Banking Division will primarily provide equity as a new solution for business reorganizations and revitalizations, business succession as well as management buyouts. In Nomura Group, Retail Division has been making efforts to support our clients with financing in both domestic and overseas markets amidbolster its consulting services, while the globalization of our clients’ business activities. We also continue to provide solution business services including interest and currency hedging associated with our M&A and financing services.

In ourgroup’s Wholesale Division has been offering creative solutions leveraging its strengths in Investment Banking and Global Markets. In order to provide quality servicesrespond to meetclients’ growing need for a wider range of solutions, the needsMerchant Banking Division will, under proper management of our clients, we deployrisk, focus on support for improving the firm’s resourcesenterprise value of portfolio companies, and will contribute to areasexpansion of competitive advantage. We continue to reinforce the connectivity between Global Markets, Investment Banking, as well as among divisions and regions, to holistically meet capital markets needs of our clients. We will strive to continuously improve our

the period covered by any such report, the issuer is required to disclose certain information related to such activity in the applicable periodic report. Disclosure is generally required even for activities not prohibited by applicable law.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, certainnon-U.S. affiliates of the Company engaged in the following activities with entities that are or may be owned or controlled by the Government of Iran:

In addition, NRI entered into several contracts with an investment and development company and a governmental organization, both of which isare owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, pursuant to which NRI agreed to perform benchmark investigations, conduct comparative analyses and provide other consulting services to facilitate development projects. Performance under these contracts is ongoing. During the period covered by this report, these contracts and related activities generated gross revenues of $1,743,500 and estimated net¥8,579,814. Due to costs of providing services, there were no profits of $261,525. attributable to these contracts.

Further, NRI entered into a contractcontracts with another entity pursuant to which NRI receives certain services related to the work that NRI is performing for the aforementioned investment and development company and performance under this contract is also ongoing. This contractgovernmental organization. These contracts did not, on itstheir own, generate any revenues or profits for NRI. After consultation with NRI and on the basis of information publicly available to us, we believe that this other entity is a private entity that is not owned or controlled by the Government of Iran.

NRI also entered into a contract with an entity pursuant to which NRI receives certain services related to the exploration of business opportunities in Iran in the cardiovascular treatment field, and performance under this contract is ongoing. After consultation with NRI and on the basis of information publicly available to us, we believe that this entity is a private entity that is not owned or controlled by the Government of Iran. There were no revenues or profits arising directly from this contract.

Sanctions relief regarding Iran was implemented in 2016 in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) reached by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), Germany, the EU, and Iran to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is used for peaceful purposes. Despite the JCPOA, certain activities, including transactions involving targeted Iran-related persons and entities and transactions that implicate U.S. jurisdiction, remain subject to sanctions. However, on May 8, 2018, President Trump announced his decision to cease the United States’ participation in the JCPOA and tore-impose the U.S. nuclear-related sanctions targeting Iran that were lifted under the JCPOA. In conjunction with this announcement, President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (“NSPM”) directing the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare immediately for there-imposition of all of the U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA, to be accomplished as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than 180 days from the date of the NSPM. As a result, new business that is contrary to there-imposed sanctions will be sanctionable immediately uponre-imposition, and business thatpre-dates May 8, 2018 will be subject to wind-down periods of 90 days or 180 days, as applicable, following which parties will be exposed to the risk of sanctions or an enforcement action under U.S. law.

ToIn light of the extent permitted under applicable law, regulations, and sanctions relief (such as the JPOA-related sanctions relief), we intendabove, NRI intends to continue to engage indiscontinue the activities described above and may engage in similar activities in future periods.above.

C. Organizational Structure.

The following table lists the Company and its significant subsidiaries and their respective countries of incorporation. Indentation indicates the principal parent of each subsidiary. Proportions of ownership interest include indirect ownership.

D. Property, Plants and Equipment.

Our Properties

As of March 31, 2017,2018, our principal head office is located in Tokyo, Japan and occupies 967,689972,052 square feet of office space. Our other major offices in Japan are our Osaka branch office, which occupies 125,184 square feet, our Nagoya branch office, which occupies 82,914 square feet, and the head office of NAM in Tokyo, which occupies 176,098176,453 square feet.

As of March 31, 2017,2018, our major offices outside Japan are the head offices of NIP located in London, which occupies 456,564455,907 square feet, the New York head office of Nomura Securities International, Inc., which occupies 158,468159,211 square feet, and the offices of Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited located in Hong Kong which occupies 146,389 square feet. We lease most of our overseas office space.

As of March 31, 2017,2018, the major office of Nomura Services India Private Limited, our specialized service company in India, occupies 413,517 square feet.

As of March 31, 2017,2018, the aggregate book value of the land and buildings we owned was ¥173¥166 billion, and the aggregate book value of equipment we owned, including communications and data processing facilities, was ¥39¥45 billion.

Item 4A. Unresolved Staff Comments

We are a large accelerated filer as defined in Rule12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. There are no written comments which have been provided by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding our periodic reports under that Act not less than 180 days before the end of the fiscal year ended March 31, 20172018 and which remain unresolved as of the date of the filing of this annual report with the Commission.

Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

A. Operating Results.

You should read the following discussion of our operating and financial review and prospects together with Item 3.A “Selected Financial Data” of this annual report and our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of factors, including, but not limited to, those under Item 3.D “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this annual report.

Business Environment

Japan

The Japanese economy expanded at a modest pace.showed firm growth. Japan’s real gross domestic product (“GDP”) grew by a relatively rapidly in January-March 2016, at ahighquarter-on-quarter annualized rate of 1.9% in January-March 2017, and increased momentum thereafter, with growth of 2.4% in both April-June and July-September, before slowing to growth of 1.6% in October-December. Exports were firm, reflecting growth in the global economy, a cyclical recovery in capital expenditure particularly in the U.S. and Europe, an increase in labor-saving demand in China, and a rise in demand for semiconductors for new smartphone models, the internet of things (IoT), and continued to grow thereafter, by 2.2% in April-June, 1.2% in July-September, and 1.2% in October-December. We see the easing of concerns about price hikes for food and other items as one of the reasons why consumer spending carried on rising. Exports fromartificial intelligence. In Japan, also embarked on a clear upward trend in July-September 2016 as global manufacturing activity picked up. Capital expenditure improved too, and the Bank of Japan’s March 2017 Short-Term Economic Survey of Enterprises in Japan (“Tankan”) indicated that Japanese companies’ capital expenditure plans for fiscal 2017 were bullish. However, the Japanese government implemented an economic

stimulus package totaling around ¥28.1trn in August 2016grew in response to both considerable ongoing uncertainty aboutdemand for labor-saving technology aimed at tackling the labor shortage, and construction demand ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games and in response to rising numbers

of overseas visitors to Japan. Public works investment included in the government’s 2016 economic outlookstimulus package also underpinned demand in January-June 2016the first half of fiscal 2017. While growth in employment was firm, wages growth was generally weak, and concerns aboutthis combined with unfavorable summer weather resulted in sluggish growth in consumer spending. At the start of the year, cyclical growth in exports and capital expenditure slowed, and the impact of heavy snowfall on the decision taken by the United Kingdom (“UK”)transport network weighed heavily on consumer spending as did a rise in fresh food prices. Rising expectations of a referendum heldshift to normalized monetary policy amid a gradual rise in June 2016 to leave the European Union (“EU”). In addition, Donald Trump was inaugurated as U.S. President in January 2017, but it is still not clear what the new administration’s policies are on Japan. However, at summit talks between leaders of the two countries in February 2017 the Japanese deputy prime ministerglobal wage growth and inflation, and concerns over the U.S. vice president agreedadministration’s increasingly protectionist stance, triggered a correction in equities, also dampening corporate and household sentiment.

Corporate earnings appear to work on creatinghave risen for a newsecond consecutive year owing to continued domestic and overseas economic dialogue. In September 2016 the Bank of Japan publishedgrowth, and a “comprehensive assessment” of its monetary policy since 2013, in which it said that its monetary easing policies to date had helped to put an end to deflation and noted the possibility that excessively low interest rates might have unwanted side-effects. The Bank of Japan then introduced its policy of “quantitative and qualitative easing with yield curve control”, switching the target of its monetary policy to interest rates while still mentioning “quantity”, and making clear its intention to achieve its 2% price stability target over the long term.

Theweaker yen was stronger versus the U.S. dollar in the fiscal year ended in March 31, 2017 than incompared with the fiscal year ended in March 31, 2016,2016. Profits rose in most sectors, and this caused corporate earnings to struggle in some sectors, particularly exporting sectors. However, profits grew in sectors benefiting from the rebound in international commodity prices, including crude oil prices, and in some domestic demand-related sectors. This appears to have beenwe estimate that overall recurring profit growth at Japanese companies exceeded 10% for the first time in two years that Japanese corporate profits rose overall. Major contributionsfour years. The largest contribution to this profit growth came from sectorsthe electronics/precision sector, which benefited from strong demand for semiconductor production equipment (“SPE”), due to growing demand for flash memory and automotive semiconductors on the shift toward electrified cars and autonomous driving, and FA systems and other industrial applications. Major contributions to profit growth are also expected from the chemicals, trading companies, automobiles, and machinery sectors. The chemicals sector benefited from a rise in basic materials prices, reflecting growth in the global economy; in the trading companies sector earnings performed well in resource fields owing to stable, high resource prices, and were also solid innon-resource areas, such as trading companiestransportation & construction systems and chemicals, housing & real estate, and telecommunications. The trading companies and chemicals sectors saw profits rebound, after deterioratinglifestyle/consumer-related businesses; in the previous fiscal year, partlyautomobiles sector sales of hybrid vehicles rose substantially owing to a shift away from diesel in response to the recovery in international commodity prices; the housing & real estate sector saw a gradual recovery in demand in response to low interest rates;Europe amid environmental concerns; and in the telecommunications sector cost reductions and the expansion ofnon-telecommunications businesses supported earnings. Meanwhile, the autos, utilities, machinery, and transportation sectors all made substantial negative contributions to overall profit growth. The autos sector was hit hard because the yen was stronger versus the U.S. dollar than in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016; the utilities sector was affected by delays in restarting nuclear power stations and by electricity rate cuts triggered by the full deregulation of the electricity retail market; the machinery sector, was hit by production cutbacksFA and delays in reducing costs in commercial aircraft business,robotics-related businesses performed well owing to labor shortages and also by additional costs at ship & offshore structure businesses;increased demand for more advanced industrial technology, and in the transportation sector the marine transport subsector looks likely to swing to losses as containership rates deteriorate further in response to excess supply.construction and mining equipment demand recovered. As of April 7, 2017,6, 2018, we estimate that recurring profits at major Japanese companies (those in the Russell/Nomura Large Cap Index), rose 1%by 16.2%year-on-year, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, thus improving sharply from the 1% decline1.4% rise recorded in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016.2017. Reflecting an impact from tax reforms in the U.S., return on equity (“ROE”) was 10.3% for the year ended March 31, 2017, which was higher than the most recent peak of 10.1% recorded in the year ended March 31, 2006.

OnForeign exchange markets were strongly influenced by overseas political events. At the end of March 2017, the Japanese stock market, the view that monetary tightening in the U.S. looked likely to be slower than market participants had been expecting led to growing concerns that a strengthening of the yenYen was trading at around ¥111 versus the U.S. dollar would leadDollar. At the beginning of fiscal 2017, amid concerns over the risk of an ultra-right candidate in favor of leaving the euro being elected in the French presidential elections in May, coupled with military provocation by North Korea, the Japanese Yen strengthened to¥108.00-108.50 against the U.S. currency, as investors purchased the Japanese Yen as a last resort as the Japanese Yen interest rates are the least likely to fall. However, market concerns proved groundless, resulting in a recovery to around ¥114 in the dollar/yen exchange rate in the first 10 days of May. Thereafter, the U.S. Dollar weakened against the Japanese Yen consistently with every increase in uncertainty over the U.S. administration’s policy management. Furthermore, in early September, military provocation by North Korea coincided with a major hurricane in the U.S., resulting in the dollar/yen rate hitting107.00-107.50 at one point, its lowest level since the beginning of the year. Concerns over geopolitical risk receded thereafter, and against that backdrop the dollar/yen exchange rate gained upward momentum, to recover to the ¥114 level in the latter half of October, after which it traded in a narrow range of¥111-114 through the end of December. In the beginning of 2018, however, the U.S. Dollar weakened substantially amid concerns over a deterioration in U.S. fiscal conditions, and in February amid global share price declines investors bought the Japanese Yen as a last resort. As of the end of March 2018, thedollar-yen rate had reached around ¥106. Theeuro-yen rate started fiscal 2017 at ¥118, and before the French presidential election had fallen to around ¥115. Once the election was over, investor money returned to European equities and bonds, which had previously been sold in response to political risk, and against that backdrop the euro strengthened consistently against the Japanese Yen through September, as a result of which the euro/yen exchange rate reached ¥134. However, ECB members notably started to voice concerns over the euro’s rapid rise, and this limited upside in the euro/yen rate from October onwards, keeping it in a range of¥132-136 through January. In February, sharp falls in global equities prompted position adjustments on forex markets. The euro, which had been the subject of increased net buying, fell particularly against the Japanese Yen, and by the end of March 2018, the euro/yen exchange rate was at around the ¥130 level.

Overseas

The global economy continued to see a steady recovery in both emerging and industrialized nations alike. There has been a sustained recovery in the global economy since the sharp contraction triggered by the 2008 global financial crisis and inflation too has been largely muted. While the world’s major central banks have largely maintained an accommodative financial environment, they have started to take steps to move policy gradually towards tightening. In the U.S., the FRB (Federal Reserve Board) has continued to raise interest rates since 2015 against a backdrop of a strong domestic economy and improvement in global economic sentiment. Central banks in Japan and Europe, meanwhile, have maintained their large-scale quantitative easing programs, but the ECB (European Central Bank) has been providing greater clarity about halting its asset purchase program in 2018. In emerging economies, a feared sharp slowdown in economic growth in China following the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China failed to materialize, and stable growth has continued. In India, the economy has returned to a high growth trajectory following a slowdown in corporate earnings.the first half of 2017. In addition, when thoseBrazil, Russia, and some otherresource-rich/oil-producing nations, firm resource prices helped ensure growth in favor of the UK leaving the EU won a majorityreal GDP in the referendum held in the UK in June 2016, this fueled concerns about the economic outlook in Europe. 2017.

In response, the Nikkei Stock Average fell sharply, dipping temporarily below 15,000. However, Japanese equities were firm after expectations of economic stimulus measures in Japan rose to the surface following victory by the ruling coalition in the Japanese Upper House election in July 2016, the Bank of Japan raised the value of its annual ETF (exchange-traded fund) purchases to around ¥6 trillion, and a growing number of U.S. economic indicators pointed to U.S. economic strength. Republican Party candidate Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election in November 2016. Immediately after the outcome of the election became clear, Japanese equity prices saw a sharp temporary fall on concerns about the U.S. political outlook. However, equity markets rose around the world, particularly in the U.S., on high hopes regarding President Trump’s economic policies,the FRB continued to raise interest rates at a gradual pace amid steady growth in both the domestic and specificallyoverseas economies. The target range for the prospect of an increase in infrastructure investment and other forms of government spending. On the foreign exchange markets the yen weakened to more than ¥118 versus the U.S. dollar at one point, and Japanese equities similarly turned upward and subsequently remained firm, with the Nikkei Stock Average rising to around the 19,500 level byfederal funds rate (policy interest rate) wasmid-December1.5-1.75% 2016. From the beginning of 2017, the weakening of the yen versus the U.S. dollar came to a halt, reflecting the view that market participants would take await-and-see stance on policies of the new U.S. administration, and Japanese equity prices saw limited

upside, although the Bank of Japan supported equity prices by buying ETFs. The key Tokyo Stock Price Index (the “TOPIX”) rose 12.3% over the fiscal year, from 1,347.20 at the end of March 2018, up 0.75bp from0.75-1.00% at the end of March 2017. In October 2017, the FRB also started to shrink its balance sheet by decreasing its reinvestment of principal payments received from securities. Due in part to the FRB’s detailed explanation in advance of how it would shrink its balance sheet to financial market participants, there was no sharp rise in long-term interest rates through December 2017.

The U.S. Congress agreed to a large-scale expansion of fiscal spending, including passing a10-year $1.5 trillion tax package in December 2017 and approving atwo-year $300 billion increase in government spending in February 2018. While measures such as the reduction in the U.S. corporation tax was welcomed by equity market investors, long-term interest rates rose sharply from the start of 2018 and share prices fell on concerns over expansion of the U.S.’s fiscal deficit and the issuance of more government debt securities.

Real GDP growth of 2.3% in 2017 marked faster growth than the 1.5% registered in 2016. Inflation rose 2.4%year-on-year in March 2018, unchanged from the 2.4% reading in March 2017. Corporate earnings based on national income statistics rose 4.4%year-on-year in 2017, a return to growth after a decline of 2.1% in 2016. U.S. share prices continued to rise through January 2018 due to the strength of the domestic and overseas economies and the cut in the corporation tax rate, but fell sharply in February following a rise in long-term interest rates, and share prices have thereafter remained highly volatile due to uncertainty over the Trump administration’s trade policies. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 16.6% to 24,103 at the end of March 2018, from 20,663 at the end of March 2017. The yield on10-year U.S. Treasuries was 2.74% at the end of March 2018, up 35bp from 2.39% at the end of March 2017.

The European economy was solid in 2017. With the Chinese economy improving and the U.S. economy firm, growth in eurozone exports picked up and capital expenditure was buoyant, with real GDP growth of 2.5% marking the strongest growth since the 3.0% registered in 2007. Against the backdrop of a strong eurozone economy, the ECB said that downside risks to inflation had receded and in October 2017, it announced that it would start tapering its monetary easing program by halving its monthly asset purchases from January 2018. However, the ECB displayed a more conservative stance on raising interest rates in the near term in view of lackluster wage growth in the eurozone and a lack of underlying inflationary pressure. The yield on German10-year government bonds rose to only around 0.5% at the end of March 2018, from0.3-0.4% at the end of March 2017, with these low yields due in part to the ECB’s cautious stance on raising interest rates in the near term. The U.K. economy also performed well in 2017 and U.K. real GDP growth of 1.8% exceeded the Bank of England’s (BOE) forecasts made in the wake of the referendum on leaving the EU in June 2016. In order to counter faster-than-expected inflation in the U.K., the BOE raised its policy interest rate for the first time in around 10 years in November 2017.

In Asia, real GDP growth came in at 6.9%year-on-year in China in 2017, which represented a modest acceleration from 6.7% growth in 2016. This growth owed to the recovery in real estate prices spreading to China’s interior cities, as well as increased infrastructure investment delivered via public-private partnership. Growth in capital expenditure had been slowing but has now bottomed. In 2018, we expect further efforts to strengthen controls on local government debt and restructure debt at state-owned companies, but government support for strategic new industries and firm consumer spending should lend support to the economy. In India, the economy has recovered from temporary economic disruption stemming from the withdrawal of high-denomination banknotes in November 2016 and the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) in July 2017. The government is also making progress with structural reforms, including strengthening infrastructure investment, resolving the issue ofnon-performing loans at financial institutions, and easing regulations governing inward direct investment. In Indonesia, business conditions continued to improve against the backdrop of greater deregulation, and we expect government initiatives, including spending on infrastructure, to promote further investment. In the Philippines, we expect strong economic growth to continue on the back of robust domestic demand.

Executive Summary

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, the global economy continued to see solid recovery, both in advanced and developing economies. In the U.S., acceleration in the real GDP growth rate continued from 2016. The U.S. Congress approved a major tax cut worth $1.5 trillion over 10 years and agreed to increase spending by $300 billion over two years, undertaking a massive fiscal expansion. Reflecting solid economic growth in the U.S. and elsewhere, the FRB has continued to raise interest rates at a moderate pace. In Europe, including the U.K., the underlying economy was favorable, buoyed by improving Chinese economic conditions and solid growth in the U.S. economy, both of which supported renewed acceleration in exports, and by firm capital expenditure. In Asiaex-Japan, growth in the Chinese economy picked up speed on a recovery in real estate prices and higher infrastructure spending by public-private partnerships. In other countries in Asia, improvement in the business environment on infrastructure spending and deregulation has supported solid economic conditions.

Meanwhile, the Japanese economy expanded at a favorable pace. Exports were steady owing to cyclical recovery in capital expenditure in the U.S. and Europe, growth in automation demand from Chinese production facilities, and global growth in demand for semiconductor-related products. In Japan, higher automation demand and construction demand contributed to an expansion in capital expenditure. While employment increased steadily, growth in wages was weak overall, and consumer spending stagnated, dampened in part by adverse weather conditions. Corporate earnings were firm and Japanese equities, along with equities on major stock markets worldwide, showed a solid performance. In the second half of the fiscal year, market volatility increased on expectations for accelerated interest rate hikes in the U.S. and on concerns about trade friction between the U.S. and China. The Tokyo Stock Price Index (“TOPIX”) rose from 1,512.60 at the end of March 2017. Meanwhile,2017 to 1,716.30 at the end of March 2018, and the Nikkei Stock Average rose 12.8% over the fiscal year, from 16,758.67 at the end of March 2016 to 18,909.26 at the end of March 2017.

2017 to 21,454.30 at the end of March 2018. While the Japanese Yen was trading at aroundYields¥111-112 versus the U.S. Dollar at the end of March 2017, the dollar/yen exchange rate fluctuated sharply in both directions owing to geopolitical risks, including North Korea’s military provocations. The Japanese Yen strengthened sharply after the start of 2018 on concerns about a worsening in U.S. government finances, ending up at around106-107 at the end of March 2018. The yield on Japanese government debt securities followedfluctuated in a downward trend through July 31, 2016 and an upward trend thereafter.narrow range owing to the Bank of Japan’s yield curve control policy. The yield on newly issued10-year Japanese government debt securities which fell sharply after the Bank of Japan introduced a negative interest rate policy in January 2016, was in negative territory from the middle of February and fell further into negative territory in June 2016 after the UK voted in a referendum to leave the EU, briefly touching-0.3% in July. However, the yield on newly issued Japanese government debt securities then rose above-0.1% as expectations grew that the Bank of Japan would revise excessive easing policies after its announcement at the conclusion of the BOJ policy board meeting at the end of July that it would carry out a comprehensive assessment of the effects of its policies to date. As previously discussed, the BOJ released the results of its comprehensive assessment in September 2016 and simultaneously launched its policy of “quantitative and qualitative easing with yield curve control”, under which it buys long-term Japanese government debt securities to ensure that the yield on10-year Japanese government debt securities is around zero. The yield on newly issued Japanese government debt securities was 0.065%0.045% at the end of March 2017, and was mostly within the0.0-0.1% range in January-March 2017, after returning to positive territory in tandem with the sharp rise in U.S. long-term interest rates stoked by expectations for large-scale fiscal policies after Mr. Trump was elected in the U.S. presidential election in November, counter to most projections.

In foreign exchange markets, the dollar/yen exchange rate fluctuated sharply in both directions, strongly influenced by political events in the UK and the U.S.. At the end of March 2016 the yen was trading at¥112-113 versus the U.S. dollar. At the start of fiscal 2016, the dollar/yen exchange rate maintained the strong yen trend dating back to January 2016. Investors sold dollars and bought yen as deep-rooted concerns remained over a slowdown in the global economy, and particularly the Chinese economy, and expectations of further U.S. rate hikes weakened, and furthermore because of wariness about political risk, such as the impending referendum in the UK on leaving the EU in June 2016. The yen briefly strengthened to trade at less than ¥100 versus the U.S. dollar immediately after the UK voted to leave the EU. Uncertainty about the outcome of the November U.S. presidential election then weighed on the dollar/yen exchange rate, which traded in the range of¥100-105 for a sustained period. After the November 2016 presidential election in the U.S., optimism about the prospects for the global economy grew, and the dollar/yen exchange rate rose to as high as¥118-119 bymid-December as U.S. interest rates rose. The sharp weakening in the yen was aided also by the widening of the gap between U.S. and Japanese interest rates as yields on10-year Japanese government debt securities remained at around zero under the yield curve control policy introduced by the Bank of Japan after its September 2016 policy board meeting. Then, as market expectations for the new U.S. administration weakened from the beginning of 2017 and investors became concerned about the presidential elections in France scheduled forApril-May, the yen strengthened again versus the dollar and the dollar/yen exchange rate fell back to¥111-112 at the end of March. Meanwhile, the euro/yen exchange rate started fiscal 2016 at¥128-129 but fell sharply in the wake of the Brexit vote and traded in the¥111-117 range in July-October. While interest rates rose around the world after the U.S. presidential election in November 2016, Japanese interest rates were effectively fixed, so the gap between Japanese and European interest rates widened. The euro/yen exchange rate rose to¥122-123 by December. After this, however, the euro weakened again versus the yen in response to concerns about the French presidential election and other geopolitical risks, as well as in response to moves in global interest rates, and by the end of March 2017 the euro/yen exchange rate had fallen back to¥118-119.

Overseas

The global economy continued to see a moderate recovery in growth, although the situation varied from region to region. The U.S. raised interest rates in December 2016 and March 2017 in response to a solid domestic economy and improvement in economic sentiment in China and other countries around the world. Japan and Europe continued with large-scale quantitative easing, but with economic sentiment improving and inflation

rising in Europe, discussions about a strategy to put an end to this easing also became prominent in the markets. China maintained stable growth on the whole, supported by increased public investment and the effect of policies such as tax breaks on car purchases. Economic conditions remained difficult for Brazil, Russia, and some otherresource-rich/oil-producing nations, but with a bottoming in crude oil and other resource prices, currency weakness abated and signs of economic stabilization appeared, including declines in inflation.

In the U.S., the FRB (Federal Reserve Board) was unable to raise interest rates for the second time until December 2016, about a year after its first rate hike, after financial market volatility increased sharply in January 2016 and the UK voted in the June 2016 referendum to leave the EU. The FRB decided to raise rates for the third time, in March 2017, after determining that downside risk to its economic outlook had receded in response to the improvement in the Chinese economy, stability on commodity markets, and the rise in equity prices and improvement in consumer sentiment following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election. Fiscal policy did not change much in 2016, but with the advent of the Trump administration expectations grew for tax reductions, an increase in public works, and higher defense spending. Real GDP growth weakened in January-June 2016 and picked up in July-December 2016, but over 2016 as a whole it slowed to +1.6%year-on-year, from +2.6% in 2015. Corporate earnings in July-December 2016 were higher than in the previous year as the U.S. currency stopped rising and crude oil prices rose. U.S. equity markets were flat through October 2016 but started to rise from November on expectations thatpro-business policies would be rolled out with the victory of Donald Trump in the presidential election. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 16.8% to 20,663.22 at the end of March 2017, from 17,685.09 at the end of March 2016. The yield on10-year U.S. Treasuries was about 2.39% at the end of March 2017, up from about 1.77% at the end of March 2016.

In Europe, the result of the UK referendum on June 23, 2016 ran counter to expectations with the people choosing to leave the EU. In response,risk-off trades took hold around the world on June 24 and equity prices declined. The Bank of England lowered its policy interest rate to 0.25% in August 2016 and decided to carry out quantitative easing policies through the end of January 2017, in response to concerns about downside risks to the economy. Meanwhile, the underlying economy in Europe, including in the UK, remained favorable. The DAX German stock index at the end of March 2017 was 23.6% higher than at the end of March 2016, after Eurozone real GDP grew 1.7%year-on-year in 2016 on strong domestic demand, capex rose, after being held back during the 2012 European debt crisis, and the German government increased spending related to refugees in response to an influx of refugees from the Middle East. The European Central Bank announced in December 2016 that it planned to reduce monthly asset purchases under its quantitative easing program from April 2017, in aso-called tapering, in response to the ebbing of deflationary risk. In response, the yield on German10-year government bonds rose to0.3-0.4% by the end of March 2017, up from0.1-0.2% at the end of March 2016, as market expectations for the ECB to conduct further monetary easing faded and Eurozone inflation came in line with the ECB target, at 2%year-on-year in February 2017.

In Asia, real GDP growth came in at 6.7%year-on-year in China in 2016. This represented a slowdown from 7.3% growth in 2014 and 6.9% growth in 2015 but was nevertheless stable. Domestic construction activity picked up from January-June 2016, contributing to a stable economy, as real estate prices recovered and regional government fund raising improved. Buoyancy in industrial production was supported by a turn to inventory accumulation in the corporate sector in July-December 2016. Earnings improved in the corporate sector, mainly at state-owned companies, supported partly by higher raw material prices after authorities started efforts in May to eliminate excess production capacity in the steel and coal industries. In Asiaex-China, exports picked up as demand in the US and China recovered, and domestic demand was buoyed by economic stimulus measures. India recovered from a temporary disruption in the economy caused by the withdrawal of high-denomination banknotes in November 2016, and continued to restructure, including efforts to strengthen infrastructure, resolve the nonperforming loan problem weighing on the financial sector, reform the tax system, and deregulate foreign direct investment. Indonesia plans to expand investment in infrastructure on the back of improvement in fiscal conditions resulting from a tax amnesty program and the scrapping of fuel subsidies. In the Philippines, we expect the economy to benefit from robust domestic demand, a healthy fiscal situation, and a lowdebt-to-GDP ratio.

Executive Summary

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, the global economy continued to see a moderate recovery in growth, although the situation varied from region to region. In the US, the real Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) growth rate weakened in the first half of 2016 and although it picked up in the second half of the year, over 2016 as a whole growth slowed compared with the previous year. However, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) has raised interest rates twice since December 2016, based on its view that downside risk to its economic outlook has receded. In Europe, including the UK, the underlying economy was favorable as a result of growth in capital expenditure and fiscal spending. In Asiaex-China, exports picked up as demand in the US and China recovered, and domestic demand was buoyed by economic stimulus measures.

The Japanese economy meanwhile expanded at a modest pace. Exports from Japan also embarked on a clear upward trend in July-September 2016 as global manufacturing activity picked up. Capital expenditure improved too. Following Donald Trump’s inauguration as U.S. President in January 2017, at summit talks between the US and Japan in February 2017 the Japanese deputy prime minister and the U.S. vice president agreed to work on creating a new economic dialogue. The Tokyo Stock Price Index (the “TOPIX”) rose from 1,347.20 at the end of March 2016 to 1,512.60 at the end of March 2017, and the Nikkei Stock Average rose from 16,758.67 at the end of March 2016 to 18,909.26 at the end of March 2017. At the end of March 2016 the yen was trading at¥112-113 versus the U.S. dollar, but the dollar/yen exchange rate fluctuated sharply in both directions, strongly influenced by political events, such as the UK referendum and the U.S. presidential election, and fell back to¥111-112 at the end of March 2017. The yield on Japanese government debt securities followed a downward trend through July 31, 2016, following the introduction of a negative interest rate policy by the Bank of Japan. Thereafter expectations that the Bank of Japan would revise excessive easing policies coupled with the rise in U.S. long-term interest rates resulted in a return to an upward trend, and the yield on newly issued10-year Japanese government debt securities was 0.065% at the end of March 2017.2018.

From a regulatory perspective, in addition to the implementationsimplementation of Basel III requirements relating to capital ratio, liquidity ratio, and leverage ratio, Nomura washas been identified as one of the domestic systemically important banks. As part of the global tightening of the financial regulations, wide-ranging reforms will be further introduced.a Domestic Systemically Important Bank. Nomura will continue to monitor these issues closely and take necessary measures in responding to any such changes.wide-ranging reforms as part of the global tightening of financial regulations. Also, as the uncertainty surrounding Brexit persists, Nomura plans and implements proper initiatives for addressing changes in the global business environment, including the enforcement of MiFID II in EMEA.

While our environment is changing drastically, based on our basic philosophy of “placing our clients at the heart of everything we do,” we have continued to transform our domestic business model of Retail Division. Also, we delivered strategic changes in EMEADivision, and the Americas andhave worked on improving the profitability of our international operations. In our RetailAlso, with the establishment of Merchant Banking Division discretionary investment assets underin January 2018, as a new solution for clients, we have embarked on principal business to primarily provide equity to transactions such as business reorganization and revitalization, business succession as well as management grew steadily.Our asset Management Division booked ongoing inflows and assets under management climbed to a record high. In our Wholesale Division, the cost base dropped and Fixed Income revenues grew driven by a strong performance in the Rates business.buyout.

As a result of these efforts, we generated net revenue of ¥1,403.2¥1,497.0 billion for the year ended March 31, 2017,2018, a 0.5%6.7% increase from the previous fiscal year.Non-interest expenses decreasedincreased by 12.2%8.2% to ¥1,080.4¥1,168.8 billion, income before income taxes was ¥322.8¥328.2 billion, and net income attributable to the shareholders of Nomura Holdings, Inc. was ¥239.6¥219.3 billion. Return on equity (“ROE”) was 8.7%7.9%. Diluted EPS⁽¹⁾ for the year ended March 31, 20172018 was ¥65.65, an increase¥61.88, a decrease from ¥35.52¥65.65 for the year ended March 31, 2016.2017.

We have decided to pay a dividend of ¥11 per share to shareholders of record as of March 31, 2017.2018. As a result, the total annual dividend was ¥20 per share.

In our Retail Division, net revenue for the year ended March 31, 2017 decreased2018 increased by 14.0%10.3% from the previous fiscal year to ¥374.4¥412.9 billion.Non-interest expenses decreasedincreased by 2.7%3.4% to ¥299.6¥309.8 billion. As a result,

income before income taxes decreasedincreased by 41.4%37.9% to ¥74.8¥103.1 billion. Under the basic philosophy of “placing our clients at the heart of everything we do,” we have been working to transform our business model in order to “expand our business by increasing clients’ trust and improving clients’ satisfaction” and to “become a financial institution a lot of people need.” Although we saw slowdown in sales of stocks, investment trusts and insurance due to uncertain market environments, we continued to provideprovided consulting services to become “the most trusted partner” by respondingunderstanding and meeting their diversified demands and needs. This fiscal year, we made substantial organizational changes where we can provide better services and interactive solutions to clients’ diversifying needs and delivering ideal solutions.clients. As a result, client assets of the investment trust and discretionary investment assets under management grew, and we have made steady progress on revenue stabilization. The amountthe number of clients’ assets under management alsoconsulting businesses such as inheritance and business succession plans increased from the previous fiscal year and reached a near-record level.steadily.

In our Asset Management Division, net revenue for the year ended March 31, 20172018 increased by 4.2%28.1% from the previous fiscal year to ¥99.4¥127.3 billion.Non-interest expenses decreasedincreased by 2.8%7.1% to ¥57.1¥61.2 billion. As a result, income before income taxes increased by 15.5%56.3% to ¥42.3¥66.2 billion. In ourthe investment trust business, in spite of cash outflow from money marketwe delivered a strong performance mainly led by ETFs and funds funds developed in response to regional financial institutions’ demands and ETFs contributeddistributed via banks contributing to the increase in assets under management. In ourthe investment advisory business, cashwe saw continued asset inflow from large domestic public pensions, continued. Outside of Japan, cash inflow into high yield related products mainly contributed to increasing assets under management.partially offset by outflow overseas. As a result, assets under management increased from the end of the previous fiscal year.year as of Mach 31, 2018. In this fiscal year, dividends from the strategic partnerwe delivered gains related to American Century Investments also contributed to income.Investments.

In our Wholesale Division, net revenue for the year ended March 31, 2017 increased2018 decreased by 2.6%3.2% from the previous fiscal year to ¥739.3¥715.3 billion.Non-interest expenses decreasedincreased by 18.0%6.4% to ¥577.8 billion, primarily due to decreases in compensation and benefits in connection with the restructuring of our Wholesale Division operations within EMEA and the Americas.¥614.7 billion. As a result, income before income taxes increaseddecreased by 948.0%37.7% to ¥161.4¥100.6 billion. In Global Markets, recognized an increase in net revenuethe year ended March 2018 was a challenging year for the industry, marked by low client volumes amid low volatility that prevailed for most of the year. In this environment, Global Markets delivered a robust performance but moderate decline compared with the previous fiscal year,year. Strong performance in Equities was led by turnaround of international performance particularlya booming global equity market, offsetting slowdown in Fixed Income offsetting the slowdown in Equites due to low marketclients’ activity. Regionally,Performance within Global Markets was also adversely impacted by losses in Americas and EMEA hadconnection with a strong performance, while Japan and AEJ were roughly flat.specific margin loan. For Investment Banking, we ranked No.1globally our core business expanded resulting in therevenues increasing year on year. In Japan, Equity Capital Marketour participation in multiple high-profile M&A mandates and our continued provision of cutting edge products to our underwriting clients have resulted in year on year revenue growth. Additionally, our firm has achieved 1st place M&A and ECM (the finance business, such as equity and equity-related offerings) league table under a challenging environment with significant decreasing equity issuance volumes in Japan. We served as joint global coordinator and joint bookrunner for a number of financings. Outside of Japan, net revenue grew compared to the previous fiscal year withrankings. In international regions, the Americas achieving itsand Asia have achieved their highest recorded revenues since the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. Additionally, we enhanced cross-regional and cross-divisional collaboration, which resulted2010, supported by participation in a number of notable M&A transactions and itsthe provision of related financing or Solutions deals includingand execution of numerous interest rate, FX and currency hedging across all regions.

Results of Operations

Overview

The following table provides selected consolidated statements of income information for the years ended March 31, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2017.2018.

Net revenue increased by 7% from ¥1,403,197 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥1,496,969 million for the year ended March 31, 2018. This increase is primarily driven by higher contribution fromCommissions andAsset management and portfolio service fees in Retail and Asset Management.Commissions increased by 14% from ¥327,129 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥373,313 million for the year ended March 31, 2018 primarily due to an increase in commissions received from the distribution of investment trusts and brokerage commissions received from equity and equity-related products.Fees from investment banking increased by 10% from ¥92,580 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥101,663 million for the year ended March 31, 2018 primarily due to increase in revenue from M&A and our solution business associated with fund raising.Asset management and portfolio service fees increased by 13% from ¥216,479 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥245,616 million for the year ended March 31, 2018 primarily due to an increase in assets under management driven by positive net inflows into ETFs and investment trusts for discretionary investments.Net gain on trading decreased by 7% from ¥475,587 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥442,885 million for the year ended March 31, 2018, primarily driven by slower performance in our Fixed Income business and losses recognized in connection with a specific margin loan transaction.Net gain on trading also included total losses of ¥0.5 billion attributable to changes in Nomura’s own creditworthiness with respect to derivative liabilities primarily due to a tightening of Nomura’s credit spreads during the fiscal year.Gain (loss)on private equity investments were ¥1,371 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 and ¥(869) million for the year ended March 31.Other increased by 44% from ¥153,626 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥221,192 million for the year ended March 31, 2018, primarily driven by gains from the liquidation of an investment in a foreign entity and gains from the sale of our controlling financial interest in Asahi Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

Net revenue increased by 1% from ¥1,395,681 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥1,403,197 million for the year ended March 31, 2017. TheThis increase is primarily due to high performance in Global Markets in the American and European regions.Commissions decreased by 24% from ¥431,959 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥327,129 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 primarily due to a decrease in commissions received from the distribution of investment trusts and brokerage commissions received from equity and equity-related products.Feesfrominvestmentbanking decreased by 22% from ¥118,333 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥92,580 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 primarily due to decrease in revenue from ECM.Assetmanagementandportfolioservicefees decreased by 5% from ¥229,006 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥216,479 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 primarily due to a decrease in assets under management early in the fiscal year.Netgainontrading increased by 34% from ¥354,031 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥475,587 million for the year ended March 31, 2017, primarily driven by high performance in our Fixed Income business.Netgainontrading also included total losses of ¥20.8 billion attributable to changes in Nomura’s own creditworthiness with respect to derivative liabilities primarily due to a tightening of Nomura’s credit spreads during the fiscal year.Gainonprivateequityinvestments decreased by 90% from ¥13,761 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥1,371 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 primarily due to lack of gains from the sale of our investment in Mitsui Life Insurance during the previous fiscal year.Other decreased by 2% from ¥156,460 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥153,626 million for the year ended March 31, 2017.

As a result of early adoption of Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”)2016-01,“Recognitionandmeasurementoffinancialassetsandfinancialliabilities” as of April 2016, unrealized changes in the fair value of financial liabilities elected for the fair value option due to Nomura’s own creditworthiness are now presented

through other comprehensive income rather than earnings. As a result, losses of ¥12,147 million which would otherwise have been recognized through earnings were recognized through other comprehensive income during the year ended March 31, 2017. See Note 1“Summaryofaccountingpolicies” in our consolidated financial statements included within this annual report for further information about the early adoption of ASU2016-01.

Netrevenue decreased by 13% from ¥1,604,176 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥1,395,681 million for the year ended March 31, 2016. TheThis decrease is primarily due to slower performance in our Fixed Income business as a result of the challenging trading environment and the impact of settlement of legal proceedings with Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (“MPS”).Commissions decreased by 5% from ¥453,401 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥431,959 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 primarily due to a decrease in commissions received from the distribution of investment trusts in Japan.Feesfrominvestmentbanking increased by 24% from ¥95,083 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥118,333 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 primarily due to revenue from M&A, ECM and our solution businesses associated with fund raising.Assetmanagementandportfolioservicefees increased by 13% from ¥203,387 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥229,006 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 primarily due to an increase in assets under management driven by positive net inflows into ETFs and investment trusts for discretionary investments.Netgainontrading decreased by 33% from ¥531,337 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥354,031 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, primarily driven by slower performance in our Fixed Income business and the impact of settlement of legal proceedings with MPS.Netgainontrading also included total gains of ¥28.3 billion attributable to changes in Nomura’s own creditworthiness with respect to derivative liabilities and financial liabilities for which the fair value option has been elected. This net gain was primarily due to the widening of Nomura’s credit spreads during the period.Gainonprivateequityinvestments increased by 150% from ¥5,502 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥13,761 million for the year ended March 31, 2016.Other decreased by 11% from ¥175,702 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥156,460 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, primarily due to unrealized losses from our investment in Ashikaga Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Ashikaga Holdings”) and a decrease in net income from other affiliated companies.

Netinterestrevenue was ¥110,354 million for the year ended March 31, 2015, ¥112,635 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, and ¥128,717 million for the year ended March 31, 2017.2017 and ¥110,486 million for the year ended March 31, 2018. Netinterestrevenue is a function of the level and mix of total assets and liabilities, which includes trading assets and financing and

lending transactions, and the level, term structure and volatility of interest rates.Netinterestrevenue is an integral component of trading activity. In assessing the profitability of our overall business and of our Global Markets business in particular, we viewnetinterestrevenue andnon-interestrevenues in aggregate. For the year ended March 31, 2018, interest revenue, including a dividend from our investment in American Century Investments increased by 33%, and interest expense increased by 52% from the year ended March 31, 2017. As a result, Net interest revenue for the year ended March 31, 2018 decreased by ¥18,231 million from the year ended March 31, 2017. For the year ended March 31, 2017, interest revenue, including thea dividend from American Century Investments, was largely unchanged and interest expense decreased by 5% from the year ended March 31, 2016. As a result,Netinterestrevenue for the year ended March 31, 2017 increased by ¥16,082 million from the year ended March 31, 2016. For the year ended March 31, 2016, interest revenue increased by 1%, primarily due to an increase

Gain (loss) on investments in dividend income and interest income on reverse repurchase agreements and interest expense was largely unchanged with the year ended March 31, 2015. As a result,Netinterestrevenue for the year ended March 31, 2016 increased by ¥2,281 million from the year ended March 31, 2015.

Gain(loss)oninvestmentsinequitysecurities was ¥29,410 million for the year ended March 31, 2015, ¥(20,504) million for the year ended March 31, 2016, and ¥7,708 million for the year ended March 31, 2017.2017 and ¥2,683 million for the year ended March 31, 2018. This includes both realized and unrealized gains and losses on investments in equity securities held for operating purposes which are our investments in unaffiliated companies, which we hold on a long-term basis in order to promote existing and potential business relationships.

Non-interest expenses for the year ended March 31, 2018 increased by 8% from ¥1,080,402 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥1,168,811 million primarily due to an increase in compensation and benefits in connection with deferred compensation and provisions of slightly over ¥30.0 billion in connection with legacy transactions in the Americas.

Non-interestexpenses for the year ended March 31, 2017 decreased by 12% from ¥1,230,523 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥1,080,402 million primarily due to a decrease in compensation and benefits in connection with the restructuring of our Wholesale Division operations within EMEA and the Americas.

Non-interestexpenses for the year ended March 31, 2016 decreased by 2% from ¥1,257,417 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥1,230,523 million primarily due to a decrease in compensation and benefits and commissions and floor brokerage expenses which were partially offset by employee termination costs recognized in connection with the restructuring of our Wholesale Division operations within EMEA and the Americas in March 2016.

Non-interestexpenses for the year ended March 31, 2015 increased by 5% from ¥1,195,456 million for the year ended March 31, 2014 to ¥1,257,417 million primarily due to an increase in fees paid by our Asset Management Division as a result of an increase in assets under management, increases in other various expenses as a result of the new Asian subsidiary acquired during the year ended March 31, 2015, and the impact of exchange rate fluctuations, especially depreciation of the Japanese Yen, on expenses incurred by our overseas businesses.

Incomebeforeincometaxes was ¥346,759 million for the year ended March 31, 2015, ¥165,158 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, and ¥322,795 million for the year ended March 31, 2017.2017 and ¥328,158 million for the year ended March 31, 2018.

We are subject to a number of different taxes in Japan and have adopted the consolidated tax filing system permitted under Japanese tax law. The consolidated tax filing system only imposes a national tax. Nomura’s domestic effective statutory tax rate was approximately 36% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, approximately 33% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, approximately 31% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 and approximately 31% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.2018. Our foreign subsidiaries are subject to the income taxes of the countries in which they operate, which are generally lower than those in Japan. The Company’s effective statutory tax rate in any one year is therefore dependent on our geographic mix of profits and losses and also on the specific tax treatment applicable in each location.

Income tax expense for the year ended March 31, 2018 was ¥103,866 million, representing an effective tax rate of 31.7%. The significant factors causing the difference between the effective tax rate of 31.7% and the effective statutory tax rate of 31% was the effect of changes in foreign tax laws which increased the effective tax rate by 23.5%, partially offset by changes in deferred tax valuation allowances, which decreased the effective tax rate by 22.8%.

Income taxexpense for the year ended March 31, 2017 was ¥80,229 million, representing an effective tax rate of 24.9%. The significant factors causing the difference between the effective tax rate of 24.9% and the

effective statutory tax rate of 31% were changes in deferred tax valuation allowance which decreased the effective tax rate by 10.8% but partially offset bynon-deductible expenses which increased the effective tax rate by 2.9%.

Incometaxexpense for the year ended March 31, 2016 was ¥22,596 million, representing an effective tax rate of 13.7%. The significant factors causing the difference between the effective tax rate of 13.7% and the effective statutory tax rate of 33% were changes in deferred tax valuation allowanceallowances which increased the effective tax rate by 36.1% but partially offset by Tax benefittax benefits recognized on the devaluation of investment in subsidiaries and affiliates which decreased the effective tax rate by 54.8%.

Incometaxexpense for the year ended March 31, 2015 was ¥120,780 million, representing an effective tax rate of 34.8%. The significant factors causing the difference between the effective tax rate of 34.8% and the effective statutory tax rate of 36% werenon-deductible expenses which increased the effective tax rate by 5.9%, changes in deferred tax valuation allowance which increased the effective tax rate by 5.1% but partially offset bynon-taxable revenue which decreased the effective tax rate by 4.7%.

NetincomeattributabletoNHIshareholders was ¥224,785 million for the year ended March 31, 2015, ¥131,550 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, and ¥239,617 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 respectively.and ¥219,343 million for the year ended March 31, 2018. Our return on equity for the year ended March 31, 2014, 20152016, 2017 and 20162018 was 8.6%4.9%, 4.9%8.7% and 8.7%7.9%, respectively.

Results by Business Segment

Our operating management and management reporting are prepared based on our Retail, Asset Management and Wholesale Divisions and we disclose business segment information in accordance with this structure. GainRealized gain on investments in equity securities held for operating purposes, our share of equity in the earnings (losses) of affiliates, corporate items and

other financial adjustments (including operating result of Merchant Banking Division) are included as “Other” operating results outside of business segments in our segment information. Unrealized gain (loss) on investments in equity securities held for operating purposes is classified as a reconciling item outside of our segment information. The following segment information should be read in conjunction with Item 4.B “BusinessOverview” “Business Overview”of this annual report and Note 21 “Segment“Segment andgeographicinformation” information” in our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report. The reconciliation of our segment results of operations and consolidated financial statements is provided in Note 21 “Segmentandgeographicinformation” in our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report.

Retail

In our Retail Division, our sales activities focus on providing consultation services and investment proposals to clients for which we receive commissions and fees. Additionally, we receive fees from asset management companies in connection with administration services we provide in connection with investment trust certificates that we distribute. We also receive agent commissions from insurance companies for the insurance products we sell as an agent.

Operating Results of Retail

Net revenue increased by 10% from ¥374,434 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥412,908 million for the year ended March 31, 2018 as a result of an increase in retail investors’ transactions of stocks and investment trusts under the strong market condition.

Net revenue decreased by 14% from ¥435,634 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥374,434 million for the year ended March 31, 2017, primarily due to a lack of activity by retail investors because of market uncertainty.

NetrevenueNon-interest expenses decreasedincreased by 9%3% from ¥476,505¥299,642 million for the year ended March 31, 20152017 to ¥435,634¥309,771 million for the year ended March 31, 2016,2018, primarily due to the market turmoil from August 2015 which led to a slowdownan increase in sales of stocks and investment trusts.system-related expenses.

Non-interestexpenses decreased by 3% from ¥308,003 million for the year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥299,642 million for the year ended March 31, 2017, primarily due to decreases in compensation and benefits.

Non-interestexpenses decreased by 2% from ¥314,675 million for the year ended March 31, 2015 to ¥308,003 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, primarily due to decreases in compensation and benefits and information technology-related expenses.

Incomebeforeincometaxes was ¥161,830 million for the year ended March 31, 2015, ¥127,631 million for the year ended March 31, 2016, and ¥74,792 million for the year ended March 31, 2017.

Retail Client Assets

The following table presents amounts and details regarding the composition of Retail client assets as of March 31, 20162017 and 2017.2018. Retail client assets consist of clients’ assets held in our custody and assets relating to variable annuity insurance products.