- Anil Panchal (GlobeOp Financial Services)
- Sammy Lee (GlobeOp Financial Services)
- Kaizad Bhathena (GlobeOp Financial Services)
- Charles Miller (JPMorgan)
- Lucio Iida (Blackrock)
- Malene McMahon (Swift)
- Nicole Jolliffe (Swift)
- Vinod Jain (Headstrong)
- Eugene Sirota (Goldman Sachs)
- Harry McAllister (BNP Paribas)
- Mike Rouse (BNP Paribas)
- Karel Engelen (ISDA)
- Marc Gratacos (ISDA)
- Irina Yermakova (ISDA)
- Lyteck Lynhiavu (ISDA)
- The group approved the working group charter (updated: it was approved 2/08 by the Standards Committee)
- The group reviewed a first version of the MC1 and MC2 messages modeled in FpML. This generated good discussion and feedback that will be considered in the next revision of the schema:
· Scope clarification
1. Portfolio reconciliation should not be modeled but referenced in message
2. Collateral Recalls can be modeled using MC1
· Syntax (e.g., expand MTA abbreviation)
· Cardinality (optionality) of elements (e.g., MTM, Upfront Margin) may differ from ISDA requirements document (à1 , 2)
· Order of elements may differ from ISDA requirements document (à1, 2)
· CreditSupportAgreement should include the (currently optional) ‘identifier’ element which would reference the contractual agreement (that grants authority to the margin call)
· Decimal representation: (please correct me if I am wrong) the data elements as defined in the current draft schema will allow for decimal values to be captured; It will be up to a rendition engine to render/round for final presentation. (The current ISDA requirements document calls for numbers “with commas & no decimal places”, e.g., 3,000,000.)
1. à Kaizad to circulate raised concerns/points including examples – done (attached MC1 discussion)
2. à Firms to compare data elements from ISDA requirements document with actual notices being exchanged. It would help if firms can share margin call examples with the group.
Next Meeting – Wednesday February 10, 2010 @ 10am NY / 3pm London time (1h30)
- We’ll revisit MC1 based on feedback and tackle ancillary messages related to the Margin Call Process.
- We’ll start looking at an initial set of messages for the Substitution and Interest Payment processes.
Dial-in details and materials (schema and xml examples) will be sent Tuesday
The information contained in either this email and, if applicable, the attachment, are confidential and are intended only for the recipient. The contents of either the email or the attachment may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at isda@xxxxxxxx <mailto:isda@xxxxxxxx> then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies thereof. This communication is part of an ISDA process and is not intended for unauthorized use or distribution.
--- Begin Message ---
- Subject: FW: FpML Collateral WG - MC1 discussion
- Thread-index: Acqk+txBAY5HFlYXRLuVAu2Dok3CfgAAFSlAAAALCeAAAoRuoAAkMCxQAAO8gGAA0X76EA==
- Thread-topic: FpML Collateral WG - MC1 discussion
We received some good feedback below from Kaizad regarding the MC1 message (Issuance of Margin Call).
I encourage everyone to comment by email by replying to this thread (colwg@xxxxxxxx). Based on your feedback we can take another crack at modeling the schema and developing examples for next week.
1) Can other firms confirm the scenarios or can think of other scenarios?
2) & 3) Based on the MC1 data elements (listed ISDA’s electronic-messaging.pdf p.16-17) can you identify which fields we should consider making optional
4) There was general agreement from the group on this approach (and that portfolio reconciliation is out of scope). We’ll see how we can reference existing portfolio messages (supported in FpML) in the margin call message. The concern some firms had was that if the portfolio information was not part of the initial margin call message, it would result in an unnecessary number of dispute messages (requesting clarification on the portfolio).
Please be advised that since I do not have the group ID I am replying to you. If required you could have this added on the minutes of the said call.
On the yesterday discussion of the FpML schema, please find below the points which may require some feedback
1) Currently the “Request Margin Call” message (MC1) schema displays the combine margin call which could be raised by the concern parties. However from our experience there may be a possibility where separate calls are raised by the concern parties (One on the upfront Margin and the other on the MTM). These calls have separate collateral amounts placed irrespectively. In these cases we may require a new schema to handle such calls.
Below table shows 3 scenarios and how the margin requirement could differ:
Example of collateral Call (as per schema)
Example of collateral Call (only on Upfront Margin)
Example of collateral Call (only on MTM)
Total collateral held
2) We would also require verifying if all the fields mentioned on the schema is “mandatory” if so, we may require changing the same. The reason being in some of the cases there may not be any Threshold amounts or MTA or Rounding available and if we keep those fields mandatory it might cause some issue.
3) We may also look at re-arranging the order of the fields for example keeping the “Margin Requirement” at the end of the message etc.
4) As discussed this schema only provide the summarized margin call. It does not have functionality of sending the portfolio associated to the call. We need to look at how to provide linkage between the schema and the portfolio (if sent separately).
Associate Director - OTC
Globeop Financial Services
801/802, 8th Floor, Interface Bldg., No. 11,
Malad (W), Mumbai 400 064,
Phone : (91-22) - 40948636
--- End Message ---