I had envisioned that the “tradeAffirmationDisputed”
message below would have the ability to DK the trade, but it could perhaps be
done as a separate message.
Another model that might work is to
combine the “affirmation” and “confirmation matching”
processes, so that one side can request that a trade (or contract) could be
confirmed, while the other could either affirm it or send a mismatch or
unmatched message.
With all of this I wasn’t setting
out to completely revisit the confirmation model, just to fill a gap in our
messages. I do believe that the confirmation/affirmation model has some
flaws, but it’s kind of like the third rail – who ever touches it
dies... So I had just as soon stay away.
- Brian
From: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:bpwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert
Green
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:32
AM
To: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-BP Re:
[fpml-coord] RE: FpML-AWG Trade Execution messages
Brian,
In
the affirmation process where are you contemplating the DK of an affirmation
request? I'm envisioning:
request affirmation -> affirmed confirmation details or
affirmation request DK
Affirmation
confirmation need not be in direct response to a request for affirmation. It
seems fairly normal one side may be using the trade confirmation message
process while the response may be an affirmation. Has this been
contemplated?
Best
regards,
Bob
______________________________________
Bob Green
Vice President - Systems
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
18301 Bermuda Green Dr,
Tampa FL 33647
|
"Brian Lynn"
<brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
07/20/2007 10:37 AM
|
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
________________________________________________________
DTCC DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify us
immediately and delete the email and any attachments from your system. The
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of
viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.