Trading infrastructure generated less than one-quarter of OTC Markets’ Q2 revenue

The trading systems carrying the OTC Markets name generated less than one-quarter of the company’s gross revenue in the second quarter of 2026. OTC Link produced $8.211 million, while market-data licensing and corporate services together produced $26.544 million. On the company’s disclosed figures, data and issuer-facing services supplied 76.4 per cent of gross revenue and OTC Link supplied 23.6 per cent.[1]

That mix changes how the business should be understood. OTC Markets Group operates regulated alternative trading systems and a broker-dealer network, but its economics in the quarter were dominated by selling information and services to market users and issuers. Describing it simply as a trading venue misses the larger revenue engine; describing it only as a data company misses the infrastructure through which its information and issuer tiers gain relevance.[1]

Reconstructing the quarter

The company reported gross revenue of $34.755 million for the three months ended June 30, 2026. The components were $8.211 million from OTC Link, $13.153 million from market-data licensing and $13.391 million from corporate services. Adding the latter two produces $26.544 million. Dividing that sum by gross revenue yields 76.37 per cent. OTC Link’s $8.211 million represents the remaining 23.63 per cent.[1]

Those are gross-revenue shares, not shares of net revenue or operating profit. OTC Markets also reported net revenue of $33.743 million and revenue less transaction-based expenses of $30.565 million. The three denominators answer different questions. Gross revenue measures customer billings before specified deductions; net revenue reflects certain pass-through treatment; revenue less transaction-based expenses further removes costs tied to activity. A defensible segment comparison must state which one is being used.[1]

The company did not publish segment operating profit in the release. It is therefore not possible from this source to say that data and corporate services generated 76.4 per cent of profit. High recurring or subscription-like revenue can carry attractive margins, but costs for technology, regulation, sales and support are shared. Revenue mix is observable; profit attribution would require a fuller cost allocation.[1]

The venue grew fastest

The small revenue share does not mean OTC Link was stagnant. Its revenue increased 27 per cent from the prior-year quarter, faster than market-data licensing at 7 per cent and corporate services at 14 per cent. Transaction-based revenue from OTC Link ECN, OTC Link NQB and MOON ATS rose 47 per cent, which the company attributed to higher share volume. Usage-based revenue from OTC Link ATS increased 6 per cent, mainly because of more messages.[1]

Operating indicators reinforced the expansion. OTC Markets reported 144 unique OTC Link subscribers at June 30, seven more than a year earlier. Average daily trades on OTC Link ECN and OTC Link NQB were approximately 95,000, compared with about 63,000 in the prior-year quarter. MOON ATS averaged roughly 69,000 trades and 7.8 million shares per session.[1]

The important distinction is between growth rate and economic weight. OTC Link was the fastest-growing disclosed business line, yet its smaller starting base meant data licensing and corporate services still accounted for more than three-quarters of gross revenue. Headlines that focus only on the 47 per cent transaction-revenue increase can therefore leave readers with an exaggerated impression of how much of the company depends directly on executed trades.[1]

Information and issuer tiers as the larger engine

Market-data licensing revenue reached $13.153 million. The company said growth reflected price increases for certain licences and subscriber growth. That combination matters because a data business can expand through both quantity and price, with different implications for customers. Subscriber growth suggests wider use; price increases can lift revenue even without equivalent growth in underlying market activity.[1]

Corporate services generated slightly more, at $13.391 million. OTC Markets attributed growth to OTCID and to a higher average number of companies on OTCQX and OTCQB. At quarter-end it reported 585 OTCQX companies, 1,101 OTCQB companies and 1,037 OTCID companies. These issuer tiers are economically connected to disclosure, market visibility and access to the company’s ecosystem, not merely to the number of trades completed.[1]

The result is a two-sided model. Broker-dealers and investors use quotation, execution and data products; issuers pay for market designations and services; data users license the resulting information. Each side can reinforce the others. More issuers can make the data set more valuable, while broader distribution and trading access can make an issuer tier more attractive. The revenue mix shows that monetisation occurs substantially outside the execution fee.[1]

A regulatory cost signal

The company reported operating expenses of $20.077 million, up 9 per cent. It attributed part of the increase to a 54 per cent rise in professional and consulting fees and an 11 per cent increase in IT infrastructure and information-services costs. The professional-fee increase included higher regulatory and clearing costs associated with heavier ATS volume, as well as accruals related to a regulatory matter.[1]

That disclosure prevents a simplistic conclusion that volume growth drops directly to profit. Trading activity can bring message, clearing, surveillance, infrastructure and regulatory costs. OTC Markets still reported operating income of $10.488 million and an operating margin of 31.1 per cent, up from the prior-year period, but the cost note shows why revenue growth by business line cannot be treated as equal-quality incremental earnings.[1]

It also highlights the economic interdependence of the segments. The infrastructure business may be a minority of revenue while supplying the regulated market context that supports data and issuer services. Costs incurred to run ATSs can therefore protect or strengthen revenue streams accounted for elsewhere. A purely stand-alone reading of OTC Link would miss that strategic role.[1]

What this means for brokers

Broker clients evaluating OTC Markets should distinguish the company’s direct trading charges from the wider cost of market access, data and connectivity. The quarterly mix indicates that the group’s pricing power and investment capacity depend heavily on information licensing and corporate services. Changes in those businesses may matter as much as transaction volume when assessing future fee policy or platform development.[1]

The mix also offers resilience. Data subscriptions and issuer services may be less immediately sensitive to daily trading volume than transaction revenue, although they are not immune to market cycles, issuer attrition or competitive pressure. Conversely, a surge in trading can accelerate OTC Link revenue while adding regulatory and infrastructure expense. The portfolio smooths some risks but creates cross-dependencies.[1]

The calculation would change with a different reporting period, and one quarter should not be treated as a permanent business model. It would also change if segment definitions or pass-through accounting changed. A full-year reconstruction and several years of consistent segment data would show whether the 76.4 per cent share is stable, cyclical or moving as new products mature.[1]

The company’s proposed work around digital assets and tokenised securities may test the model further. New custody, trading and data connections could produce revenue in more than one line. The relevant question will not be only whether digital-asset activity increases trades, but where OTC Markets records the resulting access, licence, issuer and transaction economics.[1]

The evidence supports a precise conclusion rather than a provocative one. OTC Markets is a regulated trading-infrastructure operator, but in the second quarter of 2026 the majority of its gross revenue came from market-data licensing and corporate services. The venue remained strategically central and grew quickly; it was not the largest revenue pool. Readers assessing the company, or brokers negotiating with it, should use the business-line denominator rather than assuming the brand name describes the income statement.[1]

Report an error or submit an update