FpML-IM-Custodian meeting tomorrow September 5

All,

The next im-custodian working group meeting is tomorrow, September 5 at 11:00 a.m. NY time.

Agenda

-----------

- Contract Novated issue http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=473

- Allocations

- AOB

Let me know if there anything else that you’d like to discuss.

US: 888 481 3032

Non US: 617 801 9600

Code: 28413758

Kind regards,

Marc

From: im-custodian@xxxxxxxx [mailto:im-custodian@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:09 PM
To: im-custodian@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Karel Engelen
Subject: FpML-IM-Custodian minutes August 22

Apologies for sending this late. I thought I had already sent them.

Participants

Robert Stowsky (BrookPath Partners)

Andrew Jacobs (BGI)

Lucio Iida (BGI)

Malene McMahon (SWIFT)

Francoise Massin (SWIFT)

David Campbell (CheckFree)

Norman Papazian (State Street)

Ivan Djurkin (BGI)

Steve Goswell (BGI)

Bob Green (DTCC)

Mike Burg (Mellon)

Vinod Jain (Wipro)

Marc Gratacos (ISDA)

Regrets

Karel Engelen (ISDA)

Marie-Paule Dumont (SWIFT)

Discussion

Party Id

Vinod sent a question to the group mailing list regarding the use of party Id.

Marc

Can we discuss the below ,

The current schema do not allow for Broker DTC ID if the trade is settled through DTCC.

Whether the above point is a valid requirement for other cistodians

During the meeting it was clarified that since FpML version 4.2, the schema allows specifying multiple party ids for the same party. So besides the BIC code, one of the party id elements may contain the DTCC party id. Bob Green said that DTCC has a standard scheme value to identify a DTCC identifier so that value can be used to qualify the party identifier being DTCC’s.

Allocations

Robert described the requirements from the client he is representing. The main point is that his client wants to be able to send a notification at the block level with the different allocations. This is the format of notification they use. He distributed some examples to the group.

There seems to be a difference between the US and Europe regarding allocations. Europe seems to treat and process allocation as distinct trades. Some US firms use the block trade and process that object for notifications.

Mike Burg said that he’d like to discuss this format of notification within the ISITC community.

There was some discussion on the current contract notification messages:

· The contract notification messages are assumed to send contracts at the allocation level. That’s why there is no allocation node within contract.

· Currently, there are no messages to send notifications at the block level.

· The distinction between trade and contract is not clear. Some participants were confused by the use of contract vs. trade.

Based on the discussion, the group agreed to define some requirements around notifications of allocations before discussing any changes to the existing messages.

Action: Robert will send a list of requirements regarding allocations.

Please, let me know if I missed anything or anyone.

Kind Regards,

-Marc

+13472846531

************************************************************************************************************************** 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 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. **************************************************************************************************************************