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

[matthew.d.rawlings@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

You need to add the following:

- tradeAffirmed
- tradeAffirmedModified / tradeAffirmedCorrected
- tradeAffirmedCancelled / tradeAffirmedWithdrawn
- tradeAffirmationDisputed 
- tradeAffirmationDisputedModified / tradeAfirmationCorrected
- tradeAffirmationDisputedCancelled / tradeAffirmationDisputedWithdrawn


The pattern of <event>, <event>Corrected, <event>Withdrawn
should be fixed consistently within the Architecture document. There is
too much variation already between Cancelled vs Withdrawn and Moddifed
vs Corrected.



Matthew Rawlings 
+44 7917 596 827

"Brian Lynn" <brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bpwg@xxxxxxxx

20/07/2007 15:37

Please respond to
bpwg@xxxxxxxx

To	<bpwg@xxxxxxxx>, <coord@xxxxxxxx>, <awg@xxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: FpML-BP Re: [fpml-coord] RE: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages

I'm a little confused about "Affirmation".  I always thought
that
affirmation was part of a confirmation process, working at the contract
level.  If it's at that trade level, it seems to me that we need to
distinguish between a mere notification and a request for affirmation.

So I would suggest the following, based in large part on Andrew's doc:

If we wish to notify another stakeholder of the execution of the trade,
we
used the following set of notification messages:
- tradeExecutionNotification
- tradeExecutionNotificationCorrected
- tradeExecutionNotificationCancelled

(These names are long and ugly, but I guess everybody can understand what
they mean and not get their knickers in a twist.)

If we wish another party to agree that a trade was executed, we use the
following set of request messages:
- tradeAffirmationRequest(ed)
- tradeAffirmationRequestCorrected
- tradeAffirmationRequestCancelled

To respond to these, the recipient would use one of the following messages
- tradeAffirmed
- tradeAffirmationDisputed (with content indicating the reason/location
of
dispute)

Once an affirmation has been completed, either party could send a
notification of the affirmation (not of the execution, mind, but rather
of
the affirmation)) using the following messages.

- tradeAffirmationNotification
- tradeAffirmationNotificationCorrected
- tradeAffirmationNotificationCancelled

(I'm not sure how the last two messages would be generated in practice,
but
I'm pessimistic enough to assume that they would be required.)



Does this work?

- Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: bpwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:bpwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Jacobs
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:39 PM
To: coord@xxxxxxxx; awg@xxxxxxxx; bpwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-BP Re: [fpml-coord] RE: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages


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


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line
In the body include the line: unsubscribe bpwg youremail@address
To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_bpwgmail/threads.html

---

This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for disclosures relating to UK legal entities.