|
Matthew – I’d considered the names you
suggested, they just seemed really unwieldy to me. But perhaps they are
better. On the consistency with the contract
messages, these are intended specifically for reporting block trade executions,
so this is a different problem. From: awg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:awg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
Rawlings Feedback: This needs doing, and
thanks for making a proposal. “TradeModified”
– the problem with the name of the message is that you are not modifying
the trade; you are modifying the report of the trade. Why not call it
“TradeExecutedModified”? The problem I have seen is people using
modifications of the report to modify the trade (economic amendments), in
error. “TradeCancelled”
– this has the same problem that it does not cancel a trade, but cancels
the notification of the trade. Why not call it
“TradeExecutedCancelled”? The problem I have seen is people using
cancels of notification to represent cancels (unwinds, counter-bookings), in
error. How does the
TradeExecuted message differ from TradeAffirmed or ConfirmQuoteAccepted? All
three provide notification of an execution. Why not just have one message to
notify of execution? Why do these have two
parties rather than two trade sides? Presumably this is because this will need
to wait until FpML 5.0? To what extent is this
process consistent with the Contract messages? Most usage of Trade A2A I have
seen has been really messaging of Contracts (resultant from allocations). Matthew
Rawlings +44 791 539 7824 From: At today’s coordination committee meeting I promised
to write up the proposal to add trade execution messages in more detail. I’ve attached a write-up with diagrams, and a
preliminary schema. Note that this write up doesn’t contain anything on
enhancements to the pre-trade process; I’m working on another short
document to discuss the options in that area. Regards, Brian Lynn |