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 the over-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

17

Table of Contents

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 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 is 9-1, Nihonbashi 1-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-8645, Japan, telephone number: +81-3-5255-1000.

B. Business Overview.

Overview

We are one of the leading financial services groups in Japan and have global operations. 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 and Wholesale divisions which are described in further detail below. See also Note 21 “ Segment and geographic information ” 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 Company and increasing satisfaction of stakeholders, including that of 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 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.

18

Table of Contents

Our Business Divisions

Retail

In Retail, 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 159 as of the end of March 2015. We offer investment consultation services to meet the medium- to long-term needs of our clients. The aggregate market value of our client assets increased ¥17.8 trillion to ¥109.5 trillion as of the end of March 2015 from ¥91.7 trillion a year ago. We discuss retail client assets in “ Retail Client Assets ” under Item 5.A of this annual report.

We continue to focus on delivering top-quality solutions including our broad range of products and services through face-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 NAM. NAM is the largest asset management company in Japan in terms of assets under management in investment trusts as of March 31, 2015. 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 offered 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, Investment Banking and certain other non-Retail operations, providing our corporate and institutional clients with timely, high value-added services tailored to their needs.

Global Markets

Global Markets provides research, sales, trading, 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 bonds, credit derivatives, G-10 and emerging markets foreign exchange, asset-backed securities and mortgage-related products, in over-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. These product offerings are underpinned by our global structuring function which tailors ideas and trading strategies for our institutional and corporate client base.

Our global equity-related products include equity securities, ETFs, convertible securities, listed futures & options and OTC equity derivatives. 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. Nomura is also a member of various exchanges around the world, with leading positions on the London and Tokyo stock exchanges.

19

Table of Contents

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 develop and fortify solid 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.

Financial Advisory & Solutions Services. 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 initial public offerings (“IPOs”), 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 and Wholesale 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.

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 and 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 develop and maintain a solid technology platform to ensure that the Nomura Group is able to fulfill the various needs of our clients. Accordingly, we will continue to invest, enhance and adapt a technology platform to ensure it remains suitable for each business segment.

In our Retail Division, we have already implemented a new core system and related systems have also been enhanced. We are also continuously working on improving our internet-based and smartphone platforms.

In our Wholesale Division, we have enhanced our technology platform to provide better risk management and also to increase trading capabilities through platforms allowing direct market access and algorithmic trading. In order to improve support of Wholesale operations, we will continue to increase utilization of our offshore service entities in India.

In our corporate functions in Japan, which support both our Retail and Wholesale Divisions, we implemented new settlement and accounting systems while decommissioning our legacy system in order to improve IT efficiency.

20

Table of Contents

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 are strengthening 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 and non-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 (“M&A”) 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.

21

Table of Contents

Regulation

Japan

Regulation of the Securities Industry and Securities Companies. 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 its subsidiaries including 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 conduct day-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.

Regulation of Other Financial Services. 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.

Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. 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 ( Tokubetsu Kinyu Shouhin Torihiki Gyosha, “Special Financial Instruments Firm”) and on certain parent companies designated by the Prime Minister ( Shitei Oyagaisha, “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 ( Saishu Shitei Oyagaisha, “a Final Designated Parent Company”), we are subject to these requirements. A violation of the FIEA may result in

22

Table of Contents

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.

Regulatory Changes. A bill to amend the FIEA was submitted to the Diet of Japan on March 9, 2012 and was passed on September 6, 2012. A part of the amendment, based on the declaration reached at the G-20 Pittsburg Summit in September 2009 to enhance transparency of the settlement of over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions, requires Financial Instruments Business Operators ( Kinyu Shouhin Torihiki Gyousha in Japanese) to trade certain OTC derivative contracts through an electronic trading platform and to report such OTC derivative contracts to repositories. The amendment is scheduled to become effective on September 1, 2015.

On April 16, 2013, another 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.

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 and 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.) 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. 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 be subject to certain reporting requirements consistent with a mutual agreement between Japanese governmental authorities and the U.S. Treasury Department. Failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations could result in fines, suspension or expulsion, which could materially and adversely affect us.

Regulatory Changes. 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, (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

23

Table of Contents

retention requirements for ABS; and (v) a number of executive compensation mandates, including rules to curtail incentive compensation that promotes excessive risk taking. 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 for non-cleared derivatives, reporting and recordkeeping, and internal and external business conduct rules. Some U.S. derivatives rules may be applied extraterritorially and therefore impact some non-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 (the so-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 and non-bank SIFIs; (iv) provide for a broader regulatory oversight of hedge funds; and (v) 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 some non-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. On May 1, 2013, the SEC proposed rules and interpretive guidance addressing cross-border security-based swap activities. On June 25, 2014, the SEC finalized some (but not all) of the 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. Additionally, on April 29, 2015, the SEC proposed rules that would apply certain Dodd-Frank Act requirements to security-based swaps of a non-U.S. person connected with its security-based swap dealing activity that it arranges, negotiates or executes using its personnel or personnel of its agent located in the United States. Once final, these rules will also be applied extraterritorially and impact some non-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 Division of Trading and Markets is also considering a number of changes to equity market structure rules.

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. (including G-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 and bail-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

24

Table of Contents

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 entered into force 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 or bail-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 the bail-in rules, firms will be required to maintain capital resources sufficient to meet the stipulated minimum requirement for eligible liabilities (“MREL”). The MREL requirement will likely overlap with the global capital standards on total loss absorbing capacity (“TLAC”) for Global Systemically Important Banks (“G-SIBS”), which are currently under development by the Financial Stability Board and which are likely to result in enhanced minimum capital and leverage standards for banks within scope.

There are a number of regulatory developments that impact capital requirements for U.K. regulated entities. Most significant of these is Basel III, as adopted into EU law through the fourth Capital Requirements Directive and Capital Requirements Regulation (together, “CRD IV”), which came into force 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 new framework also modifies treatment of bank exposures to central counterparties, resulting in increased capital charges (though still preferential relative to bilateral exposures), as well as qualifying conditions that must be met by central counterparties before institutions may benefit from the preferential treatment. CRD IV introduces the concept of the leverage ratio, although further legislation is required to implement a binding requirement. 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 firms to make increased Pillar 3 disclosures about their corporate governance arrangements. CRD IV also sets out requirements in relation to remuneration policies including limitations on the basic salary to bonus ratio (can be raised to a maximum of 1:2 with the approval of shareholders) for certain staff.

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 and MiFIR. The majority of the new rules will come into force in January 2017. The legislation seeks to introduce wide-reaching changes to markets, including the extension of market transparency rules into non-equities and potentially reducing the size of the OTC derivative market by mandating the clearing of such transactions through central clearing counterparties and exchanges. 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 organisational 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

25

Table of Contents

circumstances. A harmonised regime for granting access to EU professional markets for firms from third countries, based on an equivalence assessment of third country jurisdictions by the Commission, is introduced.

In May 2014, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) launched the consultation process for the implementation of the revised MiFID II and MiFIR by publishing a consultation paper and a discussion paper. MiFID II/MiFIR contains over 100 requirements for ESMA to draft regulatory technical standards (“RTS”) and implementing technical standards (“ITS”) and to provide technical advice to the European Commission to allow it to adopt delegated acts. The main issues covered in the papers are divided into those addressing the structure, transparency and regulation of financial markets, and those aimed at strengthening investor protection. The consultation paper requests comments on the technical advice that ESMA is required to deliver to the European Commission by December 2014 and the discussion paper will provide the basis for a further consultation paper on the draft RTS and ITS which is expected to be issued in late 2014/early 2015. At the U.K. level, the U.K. FCA has also published various commentary on MiFID II, including a Discussion Paper published in March 2015, which discusses the FCA’s approach to those areas of MiFID II for which the U.K. has discretion in relation to implementation.

The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”) introduces new requirements to improve transparency and reduce the risks associated with the derivatives market. EMIR was adopted on July 4, 2012 and entered into force on August 16, 2012. EMIR applies to any entity established in the European Union that is a legal counterparty to a derivative contract, even when trading with non-EU firms. It may also have extraterritorial impact in certain circumstances. Many of the EMIR requirements have entered into force throughout 2013 and 2014, although some elements have yet to be implemented. When fully implemented, EMIR will require entities that enter into any form of derivative contract to: report every derivative contract that they enter to a trade repository; implement new risk management standards, including operational processes and margining, for all bilateral over-the-counter derivatives trades that are not cleared by a central counterparty; and clear, through a central counterparty, over-the-counter derivatives that are subject to a mandatory clearing obligation. Nomura is in the process of implementing the various EMIR requirements across work streams in accordance with their respective compliance dates.

On October 20, 2011, the European Commission published draft legislation for the review of the Market Abuse Directive (“MAD II”). The dossier has been split into two parts: the Market Abuse Directive (criminal sanctions for market abuse, which the U.K. has not opted into as it will maintain its existing criminal sanctions regime) and the Market Abuse Regulation. In June 2014 the Market Abuse Regulation and Market Abuse Directive were published in the EU Official Journal. The Market Abuse Regulation shall enter into application in July 2016. Member States have two years to transpose the Market Abuse Directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse into their national law. 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 Market Abuse Directive requires all Member States to provide for harmonised criminal offences of insider dealing and market manipulation, and to impose maximum criminal penalties of not less than 4 and 2 years imprisonment, respectively, for the most serious market abuse offences.

In February 2013, the European Commission published draft legislation for the review of the current EU anti-money laundering rules, in the form of proposals for the Fourth Money Laundering Directive (“MLD4”). Political agreement was reached by EU authorities on MLD4 in May 2015 and it is expected to enter into force during the next few months and to be implemented by EU Member States in 2017. MLD4 aims to update and strengthen the current EU anti-money laundering regime, including by implementing the standards published by the Financial Action Task Force in 2012. MLD4 also shifts the focus of regulatory requirements further towards a risk-based approach, which will require increasingly robust policies and procedures within regulated firms in order to assess and monitor risk effectively. The scope of the anti-money laundering regime is also extended in certain respects and the approach to classifying third country firms will in the future be focused on “blacklisting” of non-equivalent jurisdictions (in contrast with the current focus on positive equivalence).

26

Table of Contents

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) entered into force on July 1, 2011. The AIFMD was required to be implemented by EU member states by July 22, 2013 (subject to a one year transitional period). The AIFMD and its related implementing legislation establishes 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 of non-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 a sub-set of the compliance requirements for EEA managers, focusing mainly on disclosure. It is open to each Member State to introduce additional restrictions for third 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 currently under consideration at the EU level, although further legislation would be required to introduce this. The AIFMD has material impact for Nomura insofar as it manages and markets investment funds within the EEA (which now attracts an enhanced compliance burden). Nomura also acts as depositary of an AIF and is accordingly subject to separate compliance requirements and liability provisions in this capacity.

On April 1, 2013, the U.K. Financial Services Act 2012 was formally enacted (after having received Royal Assent on December 19, 2012). The implementation of the U.K. Financial Services Act 2012 has resulted in the U.K. FSA being replaced by a “twin peaks” approach through the U.K. PRA and U.K. FCA. The U.K. PRA was formed as a subsidiary of the Bank of England and is responsible for the prudential supervision of a number of banks and deposit takers, plus certain large investment firms and insurers. It has a single objective to “promote the safety and soundness of regulated firms.” The U.K. FCA was formed as a separate entity and is responsible for the prudential supervision of firms not supervised by the U.K. PRA and for market conduct matters for all authorized firms. The U.K. FCA has a single strategic objective of “making markets work well.” Nomura’s main operating subsidiaries in the U.K. (Nomura International plc and Nomura Bank International plc) are regulated by both the U.K. PRA and U.K. FCA.

The U.K. FCA and U.K. PRA currently maintain a regulatory regime for the individual approval and accountability of certain senior management and other significant personnel carrying out “controlled functions” within banks and investment firms. In July 2014, the U.K. FCA and U.K. PRA consulted on proposals for a new “Senior Managers Regime” for senior managers and a related “Certification Regime” for a wider population of employees whose performance has the potential to pose harm to a firm or its customers. The new individual accountability standards in this area have been developed by the FCA in response to recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee on Banking Standards in this area and are expected to enter into force from March 2016 onwards. When implemented these new standards will significantly increase regulatory accountability for senior managers. The rules will also require firms to demarcate responsibilities more precisely, implement new systems and controls for certification and share with the U.K. PRA/U.K.FCA detailed information on their governance structures.

Over the past 2-3 years the U.K. FCA (and its predecessor the U.K. FSA) 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 for Nomura’s U.K. entities where they 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. FSA/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

27

Table of Contents

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. Nomura has made arrangements to implement the changes and to review existing client arrangements where appropriate.

A number of reforms are also either pending or anticipated at the EU and/or U.K. level, which may have a material impact on Nomura and on EU markets generally. At the EU level, these include the Bank Structure Regulation, Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (which are currently being debated by EU authorities) and the Capital Markets Union initiative (together with the related review of the Prospectus Directive and the EU securitization framework. At the U.K. level, the Fair and Effective Markets Review recently completed by the U.K. authorities may also have a material impact on Nomura and on U.K. markets.

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 a non-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, additional paid-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 include non-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.

28

Table of Contents

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 Basel III-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 “ Consolidated Regulatory Capital Requirements ” 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 the G-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 the G-SIBs including the recovery and resolution plan. The FSB also announced the group of G-SIBs will be updated annually and published by the FSB each November. Since November 2011, we have not been designated as a G-SIB. On the other hand, the FSB and the Basel Committee were asked to work on extending the framework for G-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 for D-SIBs. Furthermore, the FSB and the IOSCO have published assessment methodologies for identifying Non-bank Non-insurer Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (NBNI G-SIFIs), for public consultation, as described in “ Consolidated Regulatory Capital Requirements ” under Item 5.B of this annual report.

29

Table of Contents

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 as its designated self-regulatory organization. NSI is subject to the SEC’s Uniform Net Capital Rule (“Rule 15c3-1”) 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 Rule 15c3-1 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 to Rule 15c3-1 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 Rule 15c3-1(a). As of March 31, 2014 and 2015, NSI, NGFP and ILLC were in compliance with relevant regulatory capital related requirements.

In Europe, Nomura Europe Holdings plc (“NEHS”) is regulated on a consolidated basis by the Prudential Regulation Authority in the U.K., which imposes minimum capital adequacy requirements on NEHS. Nomura International plc (“NIP”), the most significant of NEHS’ subsidiaries, acts as a securities brokerage and dealing business. NIP is regulated and has minimum capital adequacy requirements imposed on it on a standalone basis by the Prudential Regulation Authority in the U.K. Nomura Bank International plc (“NBI”), another subsidiary of NEHS, is also regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority in the U.K. on a standalone basis. As of March 31, 2014 and 2015, NEHS, NIP and NBI were in compliance with relevant regulatory capital related requirements.

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 in securities and futures contracts, and advising on securities, futures contracts and corporate finance. With effect from April 22, 2013, NIHK assumed from its fellow subsidiary, Nomura Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd, the roles of exchange participant and options trading exchange participant on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Ltd., futures commission merchant at the Hong Kong Futures Exchange Ltd. and clearing participant on the Hong Kong Securities Clearing Co. Ltd., the SEHK Options Clearing House Ltd. and HKFE Clearing Corporation Ltd. NIHK has a branch located in Taiwan which is also regulated by its local regulators. Activities of NIHK including its branch 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. The regulations require NSL to maintain a minimum capital of SGD15 million. 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, 2014 and 2015, NIHK and NSL were in compliance with relevant regulatory capital related requirements.

30

Table of Contents

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. In enhance its corporate value, Nomura responds flexibly to various changes in the business environment, and emphasizes earnings 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 placing top priority on ensuring that profits are recorded by all business segments in all regions. We are committed to improving our corporate value further through the enhancement of Retail Division by means of business model transformation as well as through increased profitability of our overseas operations based upon further collaboration between Global Markets and Investment Banking.

As Asia’s global investment bank, we will continue to take appropriate measures toward phased introduction of Basel regulations (global standards on capital requirements and liquidity) as well as forthcoming changes in the operating environment. With regulations related to the market, such as derivatives transactions, slated to come into effect primarily in the west, we will ensure a flexible response by staying attentive to the impact of the overall regulatory framework on the financial market and the competitive landscape.

The challenges and strategies in each division are as follows:

In Retail Division, with our enhanced consulting-based business, we are aiming to increase client satisfaction by listening to clients plans, understanding and meeting their diversified demands and needs. We continue to focus on delivering top-quality solutions including our broad range of products and services through face-to-face meetings, online and call center channels, so that Nomura Group can sustainably be a trusted partner to our clients.

In our investment trust business, we will provide clients with a diverse range of investment opportunities to meet investors’ various needs. In our investment advisory business, we will provide value-added investment services to our domestic and international institutional clients. We intend to increase assets under management and expand our client base for these two core businesses. 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.

Global Markets has been focusing on delivering differentiated products and solutions to our clients by leveraging the Nomura Group’s capabilities in trading, research, and global distribution. Through our integrated Fixed Income and Equities platform, we aim to provide further competitive and comprehensive services and solutions to our clients.

In Investment Banking, we continue to enhance our global structure to further provide cross-border M&A and financing services in both domestic and overseas markets as well as to provide solution business services associated with said M&A and financing amid the globalization of our clients’ business activities.

31

Table of Contents

In the Wholesale Division, cooperation across business areas and regions is becoming more important to provide quality services which meet the needs of our clients. Positioning the Asia Pacific region as our strategic base, we plan to execute a number of business initiatives to broaden our footprint in anticipation of medium to long term global economic growth.

Risk Management and Compliance, etc.

In order to ensure financial soundness and increasing corporate value, the risk management systems require further developments in response to increasing global business. Nomura Group has the Risk Appetite Statement in which risks that we are willing to accept are articulated. We will continue to make efforts to develop a system where the top management directly engages in proactive risk management for precise decision making.

With regard to compliance, we will continue to focus on improving the management structure to comply with local laws and regulations in the countries where the Nomura Group operates. In addition to complying with laws and regulations, we will continuously review and improve our internal compliance system and rules for the purpose of promoting an environment of high ethical standards among all of our executive management and employees. In this way, we will meet the expectations of society and clients toward the Nomura Group and contribute to the further development of financial and capital markets.

The improvement measures announced on June 29, 2012 regarding the recommendations of administrative penalties imposed on our subsidiary, Nomura Securities Co. Ltd. in 2012 in connection with public stock offerings have been fully implemented. By thoroughly implementing the improvement measures and making them function effectively, we aim to prevent recurrence and to regain trust; we will further enhance and reinforce our internal control system, starting with prevention of improprieties in the provision of information to customers and the recommendation of trading as a matter of course, and have each and every one of our executive officers and employees uphold ethics as a professional engaged in the capital markets, while keeping the memory of the incident from fading.

Through the efforts described above, we are working to achieve our management targets and to maximize corporate value by strengthening the earnings power of the entire Group. We will advance collaboration across regions and among the three divisions, and devote our efforts to the stability of financial and capital markets and to our further expansion and development as a Group.

32

Table of Contents

33

Table of Contents

D. Property, Plants and Equipment.

Our Properties

As of March 31, 2015, our principal head office is located in Tokyo, Japan and occupies 991,561 square feet of office space. Our other major offices in Japan are our Osaka branch office, which occupies 125,217 square feet, our Nagoya branch office, which occupies 82,914 square feet, and the head office of NAM in Tokyo, which occupies 157,231 square feet.

As of March 31, 2015, our major offices outside Japan are the head offices of NIP located in London, which occupies 458,626 square feet, the New York head office of Nomura Securities International, Inc., which occupies 187,864 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, 2015, the major office of Nomura Services India Private Limited, our specialized service company in India, occupies 476,271 square feet.

As of March 31, 2015, the aggregate book value of the land and buildings we owned, including capital leases was ¥196 billion, and the aggregate book value of equipment we owned, including communications and data processing facilities, was ¥46 billion.