|
Attendees ========= Subashree
Rajogopal, DTCC Miriam Steinberg, Chatham Sreedhar Segu, DTCC Chuck Kahl, HSBC Dinesh Shastri, BBG Irina Yermakova, ISDA Marc Gratacos, ISDA Ludvig Henriksson, Trioptima Lucio Iida, Blackrock Mike Kopcak, DTCC Stephen White, State Street Martin Sexton London Market Sexton Regrets ====== Mark Taretko, KPMG 1) Review status of actions a) Brian to continue developing XML examples >> Examples now complete for WD#4, as FX was put on
hold. We might want to add one or two examples for entity modeling, but
this will probably be in the LCWD (last call working draft). c) Chris/Miriam to determine if modeling of 1st
calculation period payment responsibility in novations is sufficient, or if it
also needs to be in position reports. >> done, no action required, it is ok as it is. d) Brian to update charter and look into defining
business requirements for entity relationships modeling. >> done and circulated, please return
comments if you have any. 2) Discuss FX and loans in FpML 5 wd #4 (feedback from
Standards Committee meeting). >> Brian discussed a few points from the SC
meeting. 1) loans
and FX will be temporarily omitted from FpML 5 while we look at some
refactoring issues; we should know by the January SC meeting when they will be
published. 2) We
heard from Michael Will who has developed an XML standard for representing
master agreements and CSAs – his model has 1700+ elements. He is
interested in contributing to FpML, but probably on a subset of the information
in his model. 3) Not
discussed at today’s RPTWG meeting, there is a group of industry groups
involved in reporting that will be getting together in the near future to
coordinate efforts. 3) Briefly review updated charter >> please return any comments you may have. 4) Discuss attached entity modeling requirements. >> We reviewed the first part of the document. >> Updated plan was well-received. >> We discussed how to identify agreements, and
decided we should try to seek input from Michael Will on this. >> Miriam – regulators will be interested in
reporting that helps them determined what can be cleared/cannot be cleared –
this will help them decide on assigning a position limit to the
participants, e.g. because the aggregate exposure to that party is too large. >> In interacting with the regulators, we should probably
let them take the lead on directing their needs. >> We discussed some additional possible
identifiers for organizations, including regulatory identifiers, reporting
platform party identifiers, etc. 5) Schedule for upcoming meetings - we will meet weekly through
Dec. 21. We will skip Dec. 28 and probably Jan. 4 (we have a couple of
folks who will be on vacation). We will probably reduce meeting
frequency at some point to every other week sometime in January, depending on
how much new business we have. Next meeting =========== Dec. 14 - continue reviewing the entity requirements document. |