FpML-BP Re: [fpml-coord] RE: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages

["Andrew Jacobs" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like the use of 'corrected' rather than 'modified' but I 
think for consistency the initial message should have the 
same prefix as the corrected and retracted ones.

We also need to differentiate between messages exchanged 
between participants in the negotiation of a trade 
operation and those subsequently sent to non-participants 
who have an interest in the outcome. I've attached a 
section from the updated messaging architecture document I 
was working on for affirmation as an example.

In the current processed many of the final messages in the 
final confirmation phase of the negotiation are 
notifications rather than responses so that they can be 
distributed to others. I think this is wrong and they 
should just be reponses and a different message type used 
for the notification. This change makes the role of the 
receiver clearer it also means that the notifications 
could contain additional information, like the 'on behalf' 
of indicator.

Andrew

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:31:01 -0400 "Brian Lynn" 
<brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It might be better if we used more explicit words than 
> "Modified" and
> "Cancelled" ...  taking part of Andrew's suggestion, how 
> about the
> following?
>
> TradeExecuted
> TradeExecutionCorrected
> TradeExecutionRetracted
>
> (TradeExecutedCorrected or TradeExecutedModified seems 
> very unwieldy to me.)
>
>
> - Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: awg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:awg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Anthony B. Coates
> (Miley Watts)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:15 PM
> To: awg@xxxxxxxx; coord@xxxxxxxx; bpwg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages
>
> I agree with Matthew that the scope implied by the names 
> seemed rather  
> larger than the actual scope of the messages, and that 
> can make things  
> misleading.
>
> Cheers, Tony.
>
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:01:36 +0100, Brian Lynn  
> <brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:10 PM
> > To: awg@xxxxxxxx; coord@xxxxxxxx; bpwg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages
> >
> >
> > 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: awg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:awg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> > Brian Lynn
> > Sent: 09 July 2007 19:04
> > To: coord@xxxxxxxx; bpwg@xxxxxxxx; awg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony B. Coates
> Senior Partner
> Miley Watts LLP
> Experts In Data
> UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700
> Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
> Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 
> 15022 XML),  
> UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL.
> http://www.mileywatts.com/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank 
> subject line
> In the body include the line: unsubscribe awg 
> youremail@address
> To view archives: 
> http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_awgmail/threads.html
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank 
> subject line
> In the body include the line: unsubscribe coord 
> youremail@address
> To view archives: 
> http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_coordmail/threads.html

Attachment: Affirmation Example.doc
Description: MS-Word document