Build Number: 4; Document built: Thu 03/29/2012 10:07:07.17
Copyright (c) 1999 - 2012 by International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
Financial Products Markup Language is subject to the FpML® Public License.
FpML® is a registered trademark of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
A copy of this license is available at http://www.fpml.org/license/license.html
The FpML specifications provided are without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, without limitation, warranties that FpML, or the FpML specifications are free of defects, merchantable, fit for a particular purpose or non-infringing. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the specifications is with you. Should any of the FpML specifications prove defective in any respect, you assume the cost of any necessary servicing or repair. Under no circumstances and under no legal theory, whether tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, shall ISDA, any of its members, or any distributor of documents or software containing any of the FpML specifications, or any supplier of any of such parties, be liable to you or any other person for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character including, without limitation, damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses, even if such party shall have been informed of the possibility of such damages.
1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENTATION
1.2.1 Schema Reference
1.2.2 Other Documents in the Specification
1.2.3 Diagram Notation
1.3 WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1.3.1 Architecture Working Group
1.3.2 Business Process Working Group
1.3.3 Regulatory Reporting Working Group
1.3.4 Validation Working Group
1.3.5 IRD Products Working Group
1.3.6 Credit Derivatives Working Group
1.3.7 FX Working Group
1.3.8 Equity Derivatives Working Group
1.3.9 Commodity Derivatives Working Group
1.3.10 Pricing and Risk Working Group
1.3.11 Collateral Working Group
1.4 FpML INTRODUCTION
1.5 REQUESTED FEEDBACK
1.5.1 New Regulatory Reporting Views
1.5.2 Message Framework/Correlation ID
1.5.3 Providing Feedback
1.6 CHANGES IN THIS VERSION
1.6.1 Changes compared to FpML 5.3 WD #3
1.6.2 Changes compared to FpML 5.2 Recommendation
1.6.3 Incompatible changes compared to FpML 5.2
1.7 SCOPE
1.7.1 Architecture Framework
1.7.2 Business Process Scope
1.7.2.1 Generic processes:
1.7.2.1.1 Transparency
1.7.2.2 Generic (Multi-Event) Flows
1.7.3 IRD Scope
1.7.4 Credit Derivatives Scope
1.7.5 FX Scope
1.7.6 Return Swaps Scope
1.7.7 Variance Derivatives Scope
1.7.8 Commodity Derivative Product Scope
1.8 CHARACTER ENCODING AND CHARACTER REPERTOIRE
1.8.1 Character Encoding
1.8.2 Character Repertoire
1.9 TOOLS AND VALIDATION
1.9.1 Schema and Example Validation
2 FpML OVERVIEW
2.1 FpML
2.2 Overview of FpML views
2.3 Overview of the organization of the master schema
2.4 Overview of Document Types
2.5 Using FpML
2.6 The FpML root element
2.7 Annotations
2.7.1 eCore
2.8 Main Components
2.8.1 The DataDocument type
2.8.2 The Trade Component
2.8.2.1 tradeHeader
2.8.2.1.1 Primary Trade Identifier
2.8.2.1.2 Trade Information
2.8.2.2 product
2.8.2.2.1 Product Identification
2.8.3 The Party Component
2.8.4 The Product Component
2.9 More Background on FpML's Design
2.9.1 Rationale for Structured Approach
2.9.2 Component Framework
2.9.3 Coding Schemes
3 BUSINESS PROCESS ARCHITECTURE
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Why Business Messaging?
3.2 The Messaging Framework
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 Issues in FpML 4 Messaging Framework
3.2.3 Design Assumptions
3.2.3.1 Highly Assured Transport
3.2.3.2 No Preservation of Message Sequence
3.2.3.3 Long-Running Processes
3.2.3.4 Observable Completion
3.2.3.5 Consistent Message Correlation
3.2.3.6 Consistent Error Reporting
3.2.3.7 Consistent correction and retraction mechanism
3.2.3.8 Consistent Processes Across Trades and Post-trade Events
3.2.3.9 Transport Characteristics
3.2.3.9.1 Purpose
3.2.3.9.2 Layers
3.2.3.9.3 Reliable Mode
3.2.3.9.4 Bulk Transfer Mode
3.2.4 Transport Independence
3.2.4.1 Business Process
3.2.4.2 Document
3.2.4.3 Messaging
3.2.4.4 Transport
3.2.5 Identification of Purpose
3.2.5.1 By Namespace (not used by FpML)
3.2.5.2 By Element Name (used by FpML 5.x)
3.2.5.3 By Element Type (used by FpML 4.x)
3.2.6 General Pattern of Messages
3.2.7 Naming Conventions
3.2.8 Acknowledgements
3.2.9 Message correlation
3.2.10 Message sequencing
3.2.11 Correlation ID optionality
3.2.12 Other topics
3.2.12.1 onBehalfOf
3.2.12.2 party roles
3.2.12.3 separation of party and account
3.3 Regulatory Reporting Processes
3.4 Business Processes
3.4.1 FpML 5 Business Processes
3.4.2 Transaction life cycle
3.4.3 Generic (Multi-Event) Flows
3.4.3.1 Public Execution Report Flow
3.4.3.1.1 Dodd-Frank Reporting
3.4.3.1.2 Public Execution Report
3.4.3.1.3 Public Execution Report Correction
3.4.3.1.4 Public Execution Retraction
3.4.4 Service Notification
5 CROSS-ASSET PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
5.1 Overall Architecture
5.2 The Strategy Component
5.3 genericProduct
5.4 standardProduct
6 INTEREST RATE DERIVATIVE PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
6.1 Interest Rate Swap
6.2 Forward Rate Agreement
6.3 Option Components
6.3.1 European Exercise
6.3.2 American Exercise
6.3.3 Bermuda Exercise
6.3.4 Cancelable Provision
6.3.5 Extendible Provision
6.3.6 Swaption
6.3.7 Cap / Floor
7 CREDIT DERIVATIVE PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 credit default swap
7.1.2 credit default swap index
7.1.3 mortgage credit default swap
7.1.3.1 Main differences between Mortgage and Corporate CDS
7.1.3.2 The Pay-As-You-Go model
7.1.4 loan credit default swap
7.1.5 credit default swap option
7.2 creditDefaultSwap
7.3 generalTerms
7.3.1 referenceObligation
7.3.1.1 bond and convertibleBond
7.3.1.2 mortgage
7.3.1.3 loan
7.3.2 referenceInformation
7.3.3 indexReferenceInformation
7.3.3.1 Index Tranche
7.3.3.2 Settled Entity Matrix
7.4 feeLeg
7.4.1 Credit default swap
7.4.2 Credit default swap index
7.4.3 Mortgage derivatives
7.5 protectionTerms
7.6 Appendix A: Naming differences between FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives Subschema and 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions
8 FX PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
8.1 FX Scope
8.2 Foreign Exchange Spot and Forward
8.2.1 Exchanged Currency
8.2.2 Exchange Rate
8.3 Foreign Exchange Swap
8.3.1 FX Swap Leg
8.4 Foreign Exchange Option
8.4.1 FX Option Exercise
8.4.1.1 American Exercise
8.4.1.2 European Exercise
8.4.2 Premium
8.5 Trade Strategies
9 EQUITY DERIVATIVE OPTIONS PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
9.1 Overall Architecture
9.2 Component Descriptions
9.2.1 Underlyer
9.2.2 Equity Exercise
9.2.2.1 European Exercise
9.2.2.2 American Exercise
9.2.2.3 Bermuda Exercise
9.2.3 Equity Premium
9.2.4 Adjustment of dates in Equity Options
10 RETURN SWAPS PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
10.1 Return Swaps Scope
10.2 Introduction
10.2.1 The structure of the generic Return Swap
10.3 Component Descriptions
10.3.1 The return leg
10.3.1.1 The effective date and the termination date
10.3.1.2 The underlyer
10.3.1.2.1 The equity:
10.3.1.2.2 The index:
10.3.1.2.3 The mutual fund:
10.3.1.2.4 The exchange-traded fund:
10.3.1.2.5 The future contract:
10.3.1.2.6 The convertible bond:
10.3.1.2.7 The commodity:
10.3.1.3 The valuation
10.3.1.4 The notional amount
10.3.1.5 The amount
10.3.1.6 The return
10.3.1.7 The notional adjustment
10.3.2 The interest leg
10.3.2.1 The calculation dates
10.3.2.2 The notional amount
10.3.2.3 The interest amount
10.3.2.4 The interest calculation
10.3.3 The additional payments when involving the principal parties to the trade
10.3.4 The optional early termination
11 VARIANCE PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
11.1 Variance Derivatives Scope
11.2 Overall Architecture
11.2.1 varianceSwapTransactionSupplement
11.2.2 VarianceLeg
11.2.3 varianceOptionTransactionSupplement
12 DIVIDEND PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
12.1 Overall Architecture
12.1.1 dividendSwapTransactionSupplement
12.1.2 dividendLeg
12.1.3 fixedLeg
13 CORRELATION PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
13.1 Overall Architecture
13.1.1 correlationSwap
13.1.2 correlationLeg
14 BOND OPTIONS PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1 bondOption
14.2 Shared Option Components
14.2.1 OptionBase
14.2.2 OptionBaseExtended
14.2.2.1 Premium
14.2.2.2 Exercise
14.2.2.3 The Notional construct
14.2.2.4 The Denomination construct
14.3 The Option on Bond and Convertible Bond
14.3.1 The strike
14.3.2 The convertible bond underlyer
16 COMMODITY DERIVATIVE PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Commodity Underlyer
16.3 commoditySwap
16.3.1 fixedLeg
16.3.2 floatingLeg
16.3.2.1 calculation
16.3.3 Physical Leg
16.3.3.1 Coverage
16.3.3.2 Product Representation
16.3.3.2.1 Gas Physical Leg
16.3.3.2.1.1 gasPhysicalLeg - deliveryPeriods
16.3.3.2.1.2 gasPhysicalLeg - product
16.3.3.2.1.3 gasPhysicalLeg - deliveryQuantity
16.3.3.2.2 Oil Physical Leg
16.3.3.2.2.1 oilPhysicalLeg - product
16.3.3.2.2.2 oilPhysicalLeg - deliveryQuantity
16.3.3.2.3 Electricity Physical Leg
16.3.3.2.3.1 electricityPhysicalLeg - product
16.3.3.2.3.2 electricityPhysicalLeg - deliveryConditions
16.3.3.2.3.3 electricityPhysicalLeg - deliveryQuantity
16.3.3.2.4 Coal Physical Leg
16.3.3.2.4.1 coalPhysicalLeg - product
16.3.3.2.4.2 coalPhysicalLeg - deliveryConditions
16.3.3.2.4.3 coalPhysicalLeg - deliveryQuantity
16.4 commodityOption
16.4.1 CommodityFinancialOption
16.4.2 CommodityPhysicalOption
16.5 commodityForward
16.5.1 fixedLeg
16.5.2 bullionPhysicalLeg
19 CHANGES IN THIS VERSION
19.1 Changes compared to FpML 5.3 WD #3
19.2 Changes compared to FpML 5.2 Recommendation
19.3 Incompatible changes compared to FpML 5.2
20 SCHEMA REFERENCE
21 SCHEMA AND EXAMPLES
23 SCHEME DEFINITIONS
This is the FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft for review by the public and by FpML members and working groups.
The FpML Working Groups encourage reviewing organizations to provide feedback as early as possible. Comments on this document should be sent by filling in the form at the following link: http://www.fpml.org/issues. An archive of the comments is available at http://www.fpml.org/issues/
There are also asset class-specific mailing lists; you can join them at the following link:
A list of current FpML Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at
This document has been produced as part of the FpML 5.3 activity and is part of the Standards Approval Process.
The FpML documentation is organized into a number of subsections.
This section provides an overview of the specification.
These are automatically generated reference documents detailing the contents of the various sections in the FpML schema.
Most diagrams in this specification come from TIBCO's XML Turbo application which is used to batch generate the pictures in the documentation. The notation follows the pattern:
This document was produced by the following working groups:
Voting Members
Non-Voting Members
The Financial Products Markup Language (FpML) is the industry standard enabling e-business activities in the field of financial derivatives and structured products. The development of the standard, controlled by ISDA (the International Swaps and Derivatives Association), will ultimately allow the electronic integration of a range of services, from electronic trading and confirmations to portfolio specification for risk analysis. All types of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives will, over time, be incorporated into the standard.
FpML is an application of XML, an internet standard language for describing data shared between computer applications.
The FpML Reporting Working Group has defined two new views, "Transparency" and "Recordkeeping", to support parties and execution facilities reporting trading activity into Swaps Data Repositories (SDRs), as required by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission's 17 CFR 43 and 45, and similar requirements from the Securities and Exchange Commission in 17 CFR 240. The FpML Standards Committee invites comments on the proposed materials including schemas, examples, and documentation.
In WD#2, a number of new products have been added to Transparency view. The changes versus Confirmation view have been modeled on other products in WD#1, but the product representations have not yet been reviewed in detail in the working group. The FpML Reporting Working Group invites feedback on the detailed contents in Transparency view of any product.
The FpML Business Process Working Group has adjusted the multiplicity of the correlation IDs and is seeking feedback on this change. In particular, is there a need for multiple correlation IDs if the correlation ID on original requests is made optional?
Comments on this document should be sent by filling in the form at the following link: http://www.fpml.org/issues.
View PDF for details on schema changes
View SCHEME DEFINITIONS for details on coding schemes changes
The scope of FpML 5.3 includes broadened BusinessProcess/Messaging coverage and additional product support, specifically:
The various Working Groups have developed FpML 5.3 within the FpML Architecture 3.0 Specification defined by the Architecture Working Group. This document defines that standards and principles on which the FpML grammatical definitions are based.
The FpML Architecture 3.0 builds upon the earlier FpML Architecture specifications and the conventions of FpML 1.02b before that. The refinement of the FpML architecture is an evolutionary process bought about by changes in the XML technology upon which it is based and the requirements of the standard as its scope expands.
The FpML Messaging Task Force group was formed to define a new messaging framework that insures consistent processes across trades and post-trade events, observable completion, consistent message correlation, consistent error reporting, consistent correction and retraction.
Most of the FpML 5 business processes are “generic” processes that can apply to new trades and/or any post-trade events. This means that the message name indicates the business process (e.g. confirmation, execution notification, etc.) but not the type of event (e.g. trade, amendment, etc.). The payload of the message indicates the type of the event.
The business processes currently supported include:
All the processes described in this section are applied to the following events:
To support these business processes, a number of messages have been defined. Please see the "Business Process Architecture" section for more information.
In FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft the following Interest Rate Derivative products are covered:
In FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft the following Credit Derivative products are covered:
The Scope of FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft includes redesigned FX product model developed by the Modeling Task Force (MTF) and FX Working Group to make it more consistent with other FpML product representations and to facilitate its further development. As a result of this work many of an original 4.x model’s issues were addressed:
In FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft the following FX products are covered:
FpML provides generic Return Swaps support including "long form" Equity Swap representations, as well as Total Return Swaps. A separate product element called equitySwapTransactionSupplement supports "short form" Equity Swap Transaction Supplement.
Return-type Swaps have 1-to-many Legs, all of which must be derived from the ReturnSwapLeg type. Instances of Legs are returnLeg, interestLeg. Other Leg types may be derived from ReturnSwapLeg at will, to allow for private extensions to support whatever type of Generic Return Swap is desired.
The scope of this FpML representation for return swaps is to capture the following types of swaps that have equity-related underlyers:
The Equity Derivative Working Group extended FpML to cover:
The Commodities Working Group will extend the FpML standard to include trade types and products for the OTC commodities markets, following the structure and coverage of the 2005 ISDA Commodity Definitions. The following are included in version 5-3:
Business Process is including Confirmations, Valuations, Reporting
Producers of FpML documents intended for interchange with other parties must encode such documents using either UTF-8 or UTF-16. Consumers of FpML documents must be able to process documents encoded using UTF-8, as well as documents encoded using UTF-16. For more information, see
Unrestricted FpML elements may use any valid XML characters. For more information, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#charsets
Certain elements and attributes (such as scheme URIs) are defined with more restrictive types, such as xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, or xsd:anyURI. For these types, please see the relevant data type definition in the XML Schema datatypes specification:
FpML is designed based on a number of key principles and conventions. Some of these include:
Although these basic principles have consistently been observed, over the life of the specification there has been some evolution in the details, and as a result there have been some changes in the appearance of FpML. A number of these changes have been introduced to take advantage of the power created by XML schema. The original version of the FpML Architecture is located at FpML Architecture 1.0. The latest version of the FpML architecture principles is described in detail in the FpML Architecture 3.0. That document discusses how to create and extend FpML definitions.
The remainder of this section is intended to describe how the architecture principles were applied in developing FpML, and how to use the resulting spec. Please see the end of this section for a fuller explanation of the motivation for the FpML design approach.
With FpML 5-3 , FpML has been divided into several very closely related schemas to better support different types of business processes. Each of these schemas, called a "view", has a distinct namespace and element and type definitions. However, each view is built from the same source schema, and so shares a number of features, such as element names.
The following features are the SAME across all views:
The following features are DIFFERENT in different views:
In FpML 5-3, the list of supported views includes:
The following diagram shows the relationship of some of these views for Dodd-Frank reporting:
The rationale for the concept of "views" is to provide a consistent representation of key information across many types of business process, while allowing the set of mandatory and optional data to vary between processes. For example, when a firm reporting on an interest rate swap it may not provide information such as: payment date and reset date definitions on the floating side, or the business day adjustments that were used, etc. However, all of these pieces of information are crucial for confirming that swap once it is traded. So for confirmation view we want these pieces of information to be mandatory, while they are optional for pre-trade view.
A present, the concept of views is implemented as follows:
In the reporting view, a firm reporting on an interest rate swap may provide the following elements:
Thus, the FpML for reporting on a 5-year USD-LIBOR-3M swap may look something as follows:
<swap>
<productType>InterestRateSwap</productType>
<assetClass>InterestRates</assetClass>
<swapStream>
<payerPartyReference href="hedge_global"/>
<calculationPeriodDates id="floatingCalcPeriodDates">
<effectiveDate>
<adjustedDate>2009-08-04Z</adjustedDate>
</effectiveDate>
<terminationDate>
<adjustedDate>2021-03-01Z</adjustedDate>
</terminationDate>
</calculationPeriodDates>
<calculationPeriodAmount>
<calculation>
<notionalSchedule>
<notionalStepSchedule>
<initialValue>623161.01</initialValue>
<step>
<stepDate>2009-09-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>617840.01</stepValue>
</step>
<!-- .... intermediate values removed -->
<step>
<stepDate>2021-01-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>9792.01</stepValue>
</step>
<step>
<stepDate>2021-02-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>5486.01</stepValue>
</step>
<currency>USD</currency>
</notionalStepSchedule>
</notionalSchedule>
<floatingRateCalculation>
<floatingRateIndex>USD-LIBOR-BBA</floatingRateIndex>
<indexTenor>
<periodMultiplier>1</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</indexTenor>
<spreadSchedule>
<initialValue>3.40</initialValue>
</spreadSchedule>
</floatingRateCalculation>
<dayCountFraction>ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</calculation>
</calculationPeriodAmount>
</swapStream>
<swapStream>
<receiverPartyReference href="hedge_global"/>
<calculationPeriodAmount>
<calculation>
<notionalSchedule>
<notionalStepSchedule>
<initialValue>623161.01</initialValue>
<step>
<stepDate>2009-09-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>617840.01</stepValue>
</step>
<!-- .... intermediate values removed -->
<step>
<stepDate>2021-01-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>9792.01</stepValue>
</step>
<step>
<stepDate>2021-02-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>5486.01</stepValue>
</step>
<currency>USD</currency>
</notionalStepSchedule>
</notionalSchedule>
<fixedRateSchedule>
<initialValue>0.0711</initialValue>
</fixedRateSchedule>
<dayCountFraction>ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</calculation>
</calculationPeriodAmount>
</swapStream>
</swap>
In confirmation view, a firm confirming a swap would include, in addition to the above, the following elements:
FpML is divided into several sub-schema files, which organize the definitions into smaller and more maintainable building blocks. These building blocks include:
An FpML document can be either of two categories:
The following documents give a general overview of what is covered in FpML Data Documents and FpML Messages:
Before beginning to use FpML, an architect must answer several questions:
If the application requires a new messaging layer, particularly if it will be used between institutions, the FpML messaging layer is recommended. If the application is primarily a data storage and retrieval application, the DataDocument type is available. For example, to store trades in an XML trade archive, and then retrieve them for a display or to generate, say, a confirmation, the DataDocument format will likely be sufficient. To implement a trade matching service between institutions, you should use the messaging layer.
|
|
In FpML 5.0, there is a different root element for each different message or document type. For example, a message to request that a novation be confirmed begins "<requestNovationConfirmation> ...", while a Data Document begins "<dataDocument> ...". Each different root element defines a structure that corresponds to the business requirements of that message or document.
The following short example illustrates this, using a "Request Quote" message from the pre-trade view:
<requestQuote
fpmlVersion="5-0"
xmlns="http://www.fpml.org/FpML-5-0/pretrade"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.fpml.org/FpML-5-0/pretrade ../fpml-main-5-0.xsd">
<header>
<messageId messageIdScheme="http://www.fpml.org/msg-id">123</messageId>
<sentBy>DEF</sentBy>
<sendTo>ABC</sendTo>
<creationTimestamp>2007-04-02T15:38:00-00:00</creationTimestamp>
</header>
<creditDefaultSwap>
<!-- details omitted -->
</creditDefaultSwap>
</requestQuote>
The simplest FpML document is a "DataDocument" (root='dataDocument'). This is similar to an FpML 3.0 document, and is described in the next section.
The FpML root element contains attributes that specify the FpML version (fpmlVersion='5-0' for FpML 5.0), the schema name and location, the namespace, and related properties. The "version" attribute from previous FpML versions has been renamed to "fpmlVersion" to provide an unambiguous indicator of the beginning of the FpML document that is not reliant on namespaces. Each different view has a different namespace. See the Architecture 2.1 specification for more details on this.
Since version 4.3, the FpML Schema has included a set of eCore annotations. These annotations improve the existing model by providing additional information that W3C Schema is not able to represent.
eCore is part of the Eclipse Modelling Framework. This is the modelling technology Eclipse based on a subset of UML.
eCore annotations add back the model information missing from XML Schema, specifically:
In terms of implementation, the FpML Schema root element includes these additional attributes:
In addition, the ecore annotations specify the specific target of an href attribute:
<xsd:complexType name="AccountReference"> <xsd:annotation> <xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">Reference to an account.</xsd:documentation> </xsd:annotation> <xsd:attribute name="href" type="xsd:IDREF" use="required" ecore:reference="Account"/> </xsd:complexType>
Benefits of eCore annotations include:
More details about eCore annotations are available at: http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/docs/overviews/XMLSchemaToEcoreMapping.pdf
There are a set of elements in FpML that are used across the different message types. These include elements such as trades, portfolios, events and parties.
As mentioned above, the structure of the FpML document depends on the "type" attribute. The simplest FpML document is a "DataDocument", which is similar to an FpML 3.0 document. The DataDocument is used to represent static data. A DataDocument looks like this:
|
|
It contains:
Since the introduction of event in FpML 4.1, the content of "DataDocument" was constraint using "xsd:choice" to reduce the number of permutations between the different elements.
The trade is typically a top-level component within an FpML root element. A trade is an agreement between two parties to enter into a financial contract and the trade component in FpML contains the information necessary to execute and confirm that trade. The trade includes a trade header, economic details (enhanced from version 5.2 to allow non-OTC products to be represented), and other legal, operational, and documentation terms.
|
|
The information within tradeHeader is common across all types of trade regardless of product. In FpML 5.3 this element contains the trade date and party trade identifiers, as well as party-specific trade information.
|
|
In FpML, there is no notion of primary trade or contract identifier. Trade identification is meaningful within the context of a party. That’s why the partyTradeIdentifier structure contains a partyReference element referencing a party. Within the structure, multiple tradeId or versionedTradeId elements can be specified. This is useful for allowing organizations with multiple systems, each one of them generating one or multiple trade identifiers, to be able to record that in the FpML message. Each system is identified by a unique value in the tradeIdScheme attribute.
|
|
<partyTradeIdentifier>
<partyReference href="INVM1"/>
<versionedTradeId>
<tradetId contractIdScheme="http://www.investmentmgm.com/coding-scheme/trade-id">CDI290204</tradetId>
<version>1</version>
</versionedTradetId>
<versionedTradeId>
<tradeId tradeIdScheme=”valuation-system/trade-id”>VS3456332</tradeId>
<version>1</version>
</versionedTradeId>
</partyTradeIdentifier>
In order to be able to process trade identification information, in absense of a central system, participants should decide on how to store the identification information of the trade:
FpML allows a number of pieces of additional information to be recorded about how the trade was executed and for what purposes. This is contained in tradeInformation. The specifics of this type may alter depending on the view.
|
|
Product is an abstract concept in FpML and an actual product element is not used. Instead, one of the FpML products will appear directly under trade. From version 5.2, instead of an OTC product it is possible to represent the basic details of a trade of a multiply-traded instrument such as a security; this is provided to allow reporting on non-OTC trades that result from OTC trading activity, for example physical settlements of OTC options on securities.
All FpML products inherit two optional elements from the Product type: productType and productId.
In order to identify the type of product contained within an FpML message, the Standards Committee encourages the use of structural analysis. Structural analysis is based on checking the presence of some specific elements within the message instead of relying on the value of a specific element such as productType.
The presence of some specific elements helps to define the product category of the transaction that is being sent. For example, the presence of the creditDefaultSwap and referenceInformation elements in a message is critical to categorize the product as single name credit default swap.
Product categorization using only the productType element value should be avoided. It should only be used by internal messaging implementations or by service providers. In both cases the code list is well-controlled and commonly understood by all participants.
The party component holds information about a party in involved any of the trades or portfolios included in the document. Parties can perform multiple roles in a trade lifecycle. For example, the principal parties obligated to make payments from time to time during the term of the trade, but may include other parties involved in, or incidental to, the trade, such as parties acting in the role of novation transferor/transferee, broker, calculation agent, etc. In FpML roles are defined in multiple places within a document.
It should be noted that an FpML document is not 'written' from the perspective of one particular party, i.e. it is symmetrical with respect to the principal parties. The particular role that a party plays in the trade, e.g. buyer, seller, stream payer/receiver, fee payer/receiver, is modeled via the use of references from the component where the role is identified (relatedParty structure) to the party component.
|
|
This is a description of the elements:
Example:
...
<party id="SKY">
<partyId partyIdScheme="http://www.sky.org/coding-schem/code-id">SkyLTD</partyId>
<partyName>Sky Limited</partyName>
</party>
...
The product component specifies the financial instrument being traded. This component captures the economic details of the trade. It is modeled as a substitution group; each asset class may create one or more product definitions. Some examples of products that different working groups have defined include:
This section provides some additional background on the design of FpML.
FpML incorporates a significant level of structure, rather than being a 'flat' representation of data. This structuring is achieved through the grouping of related elements describing particular features of a trade into components. Components can both contain, and be contained by, other components.
An alternative approach would have been to collect all the required elements in a single large component representing a product or trade. A flat structure of this kind would capture all the relevant information concisely but would also constrain the model in two important respects, namely, ease of implementation and extensibility.
Grouping related elements into components makes it easier to validate that the model is correct, that it is complete and that it doesn't contain redundancy. This is true, both from the perspective of readability to the human eye, and also from the perspective of processing services. Processing services that do not need all the information in a trade definition can isolate components and be sure that the complete set of elements required, and only the elements required, is available for the particular process in hand.
Components additionally serve as the building blocks for a flexible and extensible model. Generally speaking, the complexity of financial products is a result of combining a few simple ideas in a variety of different ways. The component structure supports a trade content definition that is flexible enough to represent the wide variation of features found in traded financial instruments.
It should be noted that the application of the guiding principles of extensibility and ease of use has resulted in a different approach with regard to the forward rate agreement. Because this product is straightforward, commoditized and unlikely to develop further, the advantage to be gained from the extensive use of components is outweighed by the concision of a single component.
The optimum level of granularity is important to FpML. FpML separates the elements which collectively describe a feature of a product or trade into a separate component with each component serving a particular semantic purpose. Every grouping of elements in FpML is regarded as a component and each component is regarded as a container for the elements that describe that component. In the majority of cases each component will contain a mixture of other components and primitive elements, e.g. a date or string, that collectively describe the features of the component. Components are typically represented in the FpML schema as Complex Types.
Generally speaking, the lower level a component is, the more re-usable it will be. FpML makes use of a number of primitive entity components that describe the basic building blocks of financial products, for example, FpML_Money, FpML_AdjustableDate, FpML_BusinessCenters, FpML_Interval, FpML_BusinessDayAdjustments etc. These primitive components are re-used in different business contexts.
Primitive components are contained in higher level components that describe the features of particular products. For this reason these higher level components will tend not to be re-usable to the same extent. Examples within the definition of swapStream are the components required to construct schedules of dates such as calculationPeriodDates, resetDates and paymentDates. However, it should not be inferred from this that any fundamental distinction is drawn between components in usage or structure.
A necessary feature of a portable data standard is both an agreed set of elements and an agreed set of permissible values (the value domain) for those elements. An FpML document exchanged between two parties would not be mutually understandable if either or both of the parties used internal or proprietary coding schemes to populate elements. For FpML 4.0 the handling of coding schemes was changed from previous versions of FpML, with the introduction of the use of enumerations and the elimination of scheme default attributes from the FpML root element. The following description refers to the updated approach.
One possible means of identifying value domains is to include the domain of permitted values within the schema, using an XML Schema enumeration structure. This mechanism was adopted in FpML 4.0 for element values that satisfy the following criteria:
This leave a number of lists of values not meeting the above criteria that are represented by "schemes". "Schemes" are lists of values that can be changed dynamically without affecting the schema. They include items such as currency codes, party identifiers, business calendar locations, floating rate indexes, etc. For these data elements, the "scheme" is a URI, as identified in an FpML attribute, that designates the universe of acceptable values the element may take. This scheme definition list is typically encoded as an XML document, but does not in general need to be. In cases where the ISDA wishes to designate a default scheme, this is recorded as a default attribute value in the schema. In other cases, the scheme attribute is required.
For further details on the architectural framework behind Schemes, refer to the FpML Architecture Version 1.0 and Version 2.0 documents.
The FpML 4.0 Schema was the first release of the specification to place a messaging framework around the product descriptions to describe the context and use to which the information is expected to be put. This section describes a small set of complex types and elements that comprise a simple message framework that is used as the basis for defining business messages and processes suitable for use in a communications process.
These definitions introduce a new set of ideas that previously could not be used in FpML because of its reliance on DTDs as the formal specification of the grammar. The following sections describe the reasoning behind the features used in the framework as well as a description of several business processes.
Increased efficiency in financial markets can only be achieved through greater automation of transaction processing and use of electronic messaging (e.g. the exchange of information directly between computer systems with as little human interaction as possible). In order to achieve this all the parties involved in such communications must agree on four things, namely:
Representation
There must be a common representation of a transaction, product or other reference data item that is accepted by all the parties.
The core FpML grammar defines a standard vocabulary for derivative based transactions and products that can form the basis of a messaging standard. As new messaging applications are considered the scope of the core grammar will need to expand to encompass the additional types of data referenced in these messages.
Semantics
All the parties must have the same interpretation of the information expressed by the representation.
The work of the validation working group provides a set of rules to ensure that a product definition conforms to the market definition for that product. The FpML rule set will expand and evolve over time as new financial products and message types are added to the grammar.
Business Process
All the parties must follow the same business processes and respond appropriately to any communication they receive.
To support the consistency across different business processes and views, the Messaging Task Force defined a new messaging framework that extended the core grammar. This section describes some business processes and shows how they could be implemented as message exchanges. This section describes some business processes and shows how they could be implemented as message exchanges.
Transport
The parties must agree on the communications transport used to interconnect their businesses.
FpML does not endorse any particular messaging transport for communication. The choice of transport is left to the implementer although in practice we expect only a few to be found suitable.
Disagreement over the first three of these features will mean that FpML users will potentially have to implement, maintain and support different software systems for each FpML aware service or application that they use. Supporting multiple communications transports is typically not that difficult although it does incur additional operations costs.
FpML 5 introduces a new messaging framework to address limitations in the version 4 framework.
This new framework does the following:
it consistently implements a set of general principles to make it easier to use the messages to implement real business processes
it adjusts the representation of parties, accounts, and roles to clarify the purpose of messages and the roles of the parties within a message.
The following section describes the new messaging framework.
Following are some of the issues in the FpML messaging framework that the version 5 framework seeks to correct:
Incomplete message set – in many cases not all messages required to implement a business process are defined in the FpML 4 message set. In particular, many requests lack acknowledgements, exception responses, correction capabilities, and in some cases normal responses. Many generic business processes (such as confirmation) have different levels of completeness depending on the specific event that is being covered.
Inconsistent message correlation – different implementations use different features of the FpML 4 framework to link successive messages together, making them incompatible.
Unclear processes – it is not always clear how the version 4 messages are to be combined together to fully implement a business process. For example, which message should be used to acknowledge or respond to a request isn’t always defined. While this could in theory be addressed through documentation, because the message set is incomplete, this is difficult to do.
In order to create the messages and business processes described in this document some design assumptions had to be made, principally:
Throughout this document we have assumed that message exchanges will be carried by a passing of messages over a highly assured transport, such is provided by a messaging queuing system. This form of transport is commonly used today in the finance industry (e.g. AMQP, Apache QPid, FIX engines, MQSeries, MSMQ, RabbitMQ, SwiftNet Interact 'Store and Forward', etc.).
One important consequence of this decision is that error cases related to non-delivery do not have to be considered (e.g. once accepted a guaranteed messaging queuing system WILL ALWAYS deliver a message) although the 'freshness' of the message may need to be considered (e.g. has the message been stuck in a queue waiting to be delivered for a long period of time). Similarly message queuing system can normally eliminate duplicate messages so these are not considered either.
There is no requirement for message sequence to be preserved over the message transport. Message sequence must not be expected to be repeatable nor predictable.
In practise enterprise message buses cannot be expected to halt the enterprise to preserve sequence. Hence this is not a requirement of FpML.
Some of the business processes are 'long-running' in that once initiated they may remain active for a considerable time before completing (e.g. a request to confirm a trade may take many hours as it is dependent on the time of arrival of the matching trade). During this time the process may generate periodic notifications to the originator of the request and/or other parties. Such notifications will appear in the message stream set to a participant intermixed between other response messages.
An implication of such 'long-running' transactions is that the 'service provider' will contain a complex 'state'. The service should make suitable provisions to persistently record its state so that in the event of a software or hardware failure it can recover transparently without its clients having to resend any information.
Principle: All requests should result in an "observable completion", that is a clear (observable by the requester) response.
Implementation: For each request or notification message there should be at least one defined acknowledgement message. In the case where the response to the request might be delayed pending additional information, the recipient of the request should acknowledge the request. [Should we set a guideline here? E.g. acknowledge if resulting action is likely not to occur within 10 seconds?]
Principle: There should be a single, well-defined way to link successive messages (such as corrections or retractions of requests or notifications). This should not rely on message or transport level information, but rather use business-level information.
Implementation: Add an explicit correlation identifier, defined as business object identifier, and a sequence number to link successive messages.
Principle: There should be a standard way of reporting error or exception status for each type of request.
Implementation: Ensure that there is an exception message for each message workflow.
Principle: There should be a consistent way to correct messages containing an error, and to retract (withdraw, cancel) messages when the information is no longer valid or the action is no longer required.
Implementation: Correctable messages will contain an "isCorrection" indicator to indicate whether the message corrects a previous message. Retractable messages should have a corresponding message ending with "Retracted".
Principle: Business processes should work consistently across trading events and post-trade events where possible, so the same messages should be available for each type of event.
Implementation: Most messages will be designed to be able to handle multiple types of events, such as new trades and post-trade events. This allows consistent coverage of a number of post-trade events with a number of business processes.
Implementers attempting to construct software based on these protocols using a non queuing transport (e.g. WebServices, DCOM, CORBA) will need to implement a reliable message layer to encapsulate the current message sequences (e.g. a get/put message interface using sequence numbers to detect lost or duplicated messages and positive/negative acknowledgments). The W3C site contains links to proposals for such extensions for use with WebServices.
The definition of the FpML business processes assumes the use of reliable messaging, meaning high predictability. Generally, increasing reliability increases latency. The assumption of reliable messaging is provided to make it easier to design standard business processes and messages. If the transport characteristics were not defined, the business process definition would be ambiguous.
The protocol that is used for exchanging FpML messages is defined in being in three main layers:
Specifically, the transport characteristics that FpML assumes in order to implement most of its business process definition are defined by:
In some processes such as Portfolio Reconciliation or Position Report, FpML assumes the following transport characteristics:
In general, four layers of specification are contained in a XML Standard. A multi-layer approach allows implementers to choose the most appropriate technology for a given situation. It allows development and modifications within one layer without affecting or requiring changes to the others..
From the top down, the four layers are:
This layer specifies the way in which any business process is defined, such that is understood and executable by people and applications. A business process can be defined as a set of interrelated tasks linked to an activity that spans functional boundaries. Business processes have starting points and ending points, and they are repeatable. Examples of business processes in the derivatives domain are the affirmation process, the confirmation process, and the matching process.
The FpML Specification models business processes in UML sequence diagrams.
This layer corresponds to the FpML document definitions. It provides a set of abstractions specific to financial derivatives but also a set of elements which are not context specific (such as “Party” and “Price”).
The Messaging layer addresses the need to record session and communication settings for message transport in order to enable coordination between parties in a business transaction.
The FpML Schema explicitly models ‘delivery’ related information as part of the message itself. Some transports (i.e. SOAP, ebXML, etc.) allow such information to be placed in the ‘envelope’ that surrounds the message during delivery.
Including a standard header within FpML messages increases consistency by providing a single format for delivering information regardless of the physical transport, ensures that it will be persisted if the message is archived, and allows more flexible use of features such as digital signatures.
The Transport Layer provides a point to point connection so that one server can send messages to another server and they will arrive uncorrupted and in the correct order.
The FpML Message Architecture defines a message structure that is independent of the underlying transport protocol, such as SMTP, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Standardized Messaging Middleware, HTTP, etc.
The receiver of a message needs to be able to determine the function that the message is invoking. In XML there are three different techniques that can be used for indicating the purpose of a message.
The FpML 5.0 message framework is based on element naming (option 2 - By Element Name). Below is a short explanation of the three techniques:
The receiver can look at the namespace from which the element definitions have been drawn and determine from it the function requested.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<FpML version="4-0"
xmlns="http://www.fpml.org/2002/FpML-4-0-TradeConfirmationRequest">
<header>
... Message header
</header>
... Business data
</FpML>
Using namespaces it would be possible to create a highly extensible framework for FpML but it could lead to documents having to have every FpML element prefixed with a suitable namespace abbreviation although it may be possible to mitigate this by having the 'core' sub-schemas use no namespaces in their definition and take on the namespace of the one they are including into.
There may be further issues with related XML standards such as XPath as the namespace of the same included elements may not be consistent between documents.
The receiver can look at the name associated with an element within the message (the root and one of the first level children) to determine the function requested.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<requestConfirmation fpmlVersion="5-0" xmlns="http://www.fpml.org/FpML-5/confirmation">
<header>
... Message header
</header>
<trade>
... Business data
</trade>
...
</requestConfirmation>
In this model the root element is a global element of a type derived from the base FpML Document type, typically a message type.
The receiver can look at the type associated with an element within the message (e.g. the root or a child).
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<FpML version="4-0" xmlns="http://www.fpml.org/2002/FpML-4-0" xsi:type="TradeConfirmationRequest">
<header>
... Message header
</header>
... Business data
</FpML>
An XML schema based instance may use type substitution to replace the content model of any element with another providing that the replacement is derived from the original. Given a framework that provides the appropriate extension points any number of new types can be derived within the name or different namespaces as necessary.
In addition through inheritance the message types can be associated with an appropriate message header content model.
Messages are divided into a series of business processes. For example, consent negotiation (getting permission to do something) is a business process. For each business process, in general the following messages will be available:
process request or notification message – to initiate the process. (In some cases the process may be initiated by a notification message rather than a request message).
process acknowledgment message – to acknowledge that the request or notification was received.
process exception message – to report that a request or notification cannot be processed.
process request/notification retracted message – to withdraw the original request or notification.
possibly, process-specific response messages
In some cases, some of these messages may be intentionally omitted, but in these cases the rationale for omitting the messages will be provided. For example, acknowledgement messages may be omitted where it is expected that all responses will be immediate, and retraction messages may be omitted if there is no need to allow requests to be withdrawn, because the original request would be fulfilled before the retraction could be sent.
For the consent negotiation process, for example, the messages include:
requestConsent – initiating request
consentAcknowledgement - acknowledgement
consentException - exception
requestConsentRetracted – retraction of the request
consentGranted - response
consentRefused – response
Messages follow this naming convention:
requestXxx
xxxAcknowledgement
xxxException
requestXxxRetracted
xxx[Status] or xxx[Response]
Providing each request with a more immediate and guaranteed response allows a more synchronous style of design, such as this:
Here the requester waits for the response before terminating its execution. This would allows easier specification of timeouts related to request processing although as we shall see later has implications for gathering the results of long running processes, such as matching.
The initiator of a business process should allocate a unique correlation identifier for each process instance it begins and any subsequent message related to the same process should contain the same identifier. A qualified scheme based value ensures that participants cannot accidentally re-use an identifier previous generated by another firm.
|
|
For example, when used within a trade execution advice it might appear as follows:
...
<tradeExecutionAdvice>
<messageHeader>
</messageHeader>
<isCorrection>false</isCorrection>
<correlationId correlationIdScheme="http…">BQ/1234 </correlationnId>
<sequenceNumber>657</sequenceNumber>
<onBehalfOf>
<partReference href="PARTYA"/>
</onBehalfOf>
<execution>
<trade>
… Lots more here
</trade>
</execution>
<party id="PARTYA">…</party>
<party id="PARTYB">…</party>
</tradeExecutionAdvice>
...
Any response or follow up to this message should contain the same 'correlationId' definition. This regime allows us to make some other messaging clarifications, namely:
Every message will have a unique message identifier.
The ‘inReplyTo’ element of a response message (or exception) correlates with the ‘messageId’ of the associated request.
The conversationId has been removed.
Retransmission of a message for technical reasons (e.g. the last transmission of the request was not acknowledged or rejected) does not change the message identifier.
Replication of a message for business reasons (e.g. sending data that has been previously acknowledged) generates a new message identifier.
The response to a retransmitted request message should be identical to the original request. (1)
At the start of a long running process the initiating participant must create a unique one-time identifier for each process instance and distribute it to the other messaging party.
Every subsequent message sent by the requester must contain the process identifier.
Messages may contain reference to other business process instances providing their role is clear and unambiguous (e.g. an order MAY reference a previous quotation).
(1) This allows the transport to respond to retransmissions by sending a copy of the earlier cached response, no business process is necessary. This is a standard technique in ONC RPC and WebServices.
In a long running operation it is important to process all of the messages in the correct order. Each message’s ‘messageId’ is element is guaranteed to contain a unique value but the order of messages cannot be inferred by comparing two such identifiers.
The characteristics required by FpML’s transport characteristics states that two messages sent simultaneously, or within a short time of each other, may arrive in any order. Since message order cannot be determined from the message identifiers some other information needs to be added to them message to provide this.
In the SWIFT CUG implementation of the contract notification messages the trade version is used to derive the ordering. Whilst this is a workable solution for the CUG it does not solve the problem generally and some messages must artificially increase the contract version number to maintain order even though no change has actually occurred to the underlying contract.
The simplest solution is to define a type for sequence numbers and use it within messages to provide an orderable value.
|
|
It is important to note that although sequence numbers should be consistently increasing in value they do not have to form a gapless sequence. (2)
When combined with the unordered delivery transport characteristics a message processing application can be presented with a series of messages in a jumbled order.
An optimistic message processor should attempt to process the messages in the order they are delivered and unwind actions (or raise exceptions) when conflict is detected.
A pessimistic message processor should record the messages but delay their processing for a short period. This provides a time window during which any earlier messages received out of order can be re-sequenced before processing begins.
It is also important to note that sequence numbers must be qualified with respect to the message sender and the responding part may need to produce messages containing them. For example in the matching processes the messages containing the result should reference the same ‘correlationId’ used in the original request but should use a ‘sequenceNumber’ provided by the matcher rather than the requester.
For example the series of messages for a trade confirmation (including a correction) followed by the resulting match might be identified as follows:
|
|
(2) There may be messages within the same business process sent to other participants or internal changes to the business object that affect the sequence number.
Starting from FpML 5.2, the correlation ID is optional in requests. This is intended to more flexibly support a variety of processing models. The original request may omit the correlation ID if the recipient will quickly respond to requests with its own correlation ID. Subsequently requester will need to use the recipient's correlation IDs if it needs to correct or retract a request. The FpML messaging architecture recommends that services support the correlation ID in the original requests, because otherwise requesters cannot correct or retract requests until they receive a reply from the service.
The FpML neutral view principle when combined with some of the notifications for post-trade processes and a common third party such as a custodian results in situations where the third party can not easily tell which side of the trade he is supposed to be processing.
For example, parties A and B negotiate a trade and then send a contract execution notification to their common custodian C. The custodian may be able to figure out which side of the trade to process by means of the message sender’s identity but as a single sender identity might be used by several legally separate trading divisions within the same company group determining the correct party might require extensive organisational reference data. This approach would also fail for internal book-to-book deals where both sides would originate from the same sender.
What is needed is an explicit indication of the party for whom the trade should be processed included in every message. In the case of book-to-book trades this information should use account references to further qualify the party. For example:
<someRequest> <header> … Basic message details </header> … <onBehalfOf> <partyReference href="JPM"/> <accountReference href="PORTFOLIO1"/> </onBehalfOf> … Request specification here </someRequest>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 4.x tradeSide structure has been replaced by a simpler implementation adding a new relatedParty element. The role element within the relatedParty defines the list of roles as code list. This allows to customize the roles easier than using the tradeSide structure.
|
|
|
|
<someRequest>
...
<partyTradeInformation>
<partyReference href="party3"/>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party4"/>
<role>orderer</role>
</relatedParty>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party4"/>
<role>introducer</role>
</relatedParty>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party3"/>
<role>executor</role>
</relatedParty>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party4"/>
<role>confirmer</role>
</relatedParty>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party6"/>
<role>creditor</role>
</relatedParty>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party5"/>
<role>settler</role>
</relatedParty>
<relatedParty>
<partyReference href="party6"/>
<role>accountant</role>
</relatedParty>
</partyTradeInformation>
...
</someRequest>
Currently accounts are specified within a party definition and the relationship between the two objects depends on the elements present. To simplify the structure and make the relationships clearer the account structure should be moved outside of Party and given a mandatory reference to its beneficiary and an optional reference to its servicer (this is the reverse of the 4.x accounts model).
|
|
FpML 5.2 and 5.3 introduce new features to better support regulatory reporting requirements. The following table shows which FpML business processes support which types of regulatory reporting requirements.
| FpML Views | |||||
| Message Type | Confirmation | Reporting | Transparency | Record Keeping | |
| Real Time | X | ||||
| PET | X | ||||
| Confirmation | X | ||||
| Life Cycle | Price Formation | X | X | X | |
| Intrinsic | Non Price Formation | X | X | ||
| Daily State | X | ||||
| Valuation | X | TBD |
The different message types have no dependencies except for valuation messages to SDRs that require prior reports to be submitted.
Before looking at the current message processes and their associated messages it is worth looking at the overall sequence of business processes for trades.
The first thing to note is that there are two sets of processes; the first set manages the transaction itself during its ‘cradle to grave’ life cycle while the second are repeatable management tasks that may occur several times over the life time of the transaction.
Looking at the states in the life cycle part of the process model there the first thing to note is that there are multiple routes to the creation of trade.
The original model for FpML (and not actually supported in the specification) is the traditional model of direct inter-dealer negotiation (e.g. by phone, over SwapsWire, etc.) followed by an affirmation of the resulting transaction.
Alternatively trades could be created using a more market based approach in which quotes and orders are communicated through an exchange in which more than one market maker may be offering prices for the same quote or order. The terminology of quote, indications of interest, orders and execution is more closely coupled with this market approach.
In the direct negotiation approach the identities of the participants of fully disclosed and this allows pre-agreed exploitation of other party’s credit rating to obtain better prices (within agreed limits). In the market approach pre-order interactions may be anonymous to guarantee best prices are obtained for all market participants.
Messages related to trade negotiation and affirmation need to be capable of recording that these additional parties are being used but in later trade processing stages such ‘give-up’ trades are decomposed in a set of related back-to-back trades.
All the processes described in this section are applied to the following events:
In addition, the "clearing" event can be used in the clearing business processes.
|
|
All events use the same messages to support the processes. The additionalEvent element is an extension point to customize FpML and add additional events.
FpML has developed messages to support reporting by reporting parties and execution facilities into swaps data repositories, to support the regulatory reporting requirements mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The following diagram shows how the different entities in the reporting process may use the FpML public reporting messages (in red) to report on trade execution to the public via SDRs or third party messaging services.
The public execution report message is provided for reporting parties and agents (such as execution platforms) to report on the execution of trades to the public, via Swaps Data Repositories or third party messaging services. The public execution report contains a simplified version of the product model covering only the commonly used terms that affect pricing.
|
|
The public execution report may contain mistakes. The PublicExecutionReport type allows corrections (provided it is still possible to do so), by sending a corrected execution report correlated to a prior report with "isCorrection" element set to "true".
The execution report can be retracted (provided it is still possible to do so) by correlating execution retracted message to the execution report.
|
|
There are service notification messages that allow a service to report information on status and other alerts to users. Supported variations include:
There are several special, cross-asset products in FpML.
This component defines a special kind of product that allows the structuring of trade by combining any number of products within a strategy. A trade can be of a strategy rather than of a base product; this strategy can then in turn contain other products, such as multiple options. For example, you could define a strategy consisting of an FX call and an FX put to create a straddle or strangle, and then create a trade of that strategy.
This component also defines the simple strategies of strike spread and calendar spread for Equity Options
The Strategy component makes use of a composition pattern since strategy itself is a product. This means that strategies can themselves contain strategies.
In a strategy, in addition to sub-products, there may be a "premiumProductReference" reference element. Thisreferences a product (for example a bullet payment) within the strategy that can be considered a premium for the whole strategy.
|
|
The Generic product provides a placeholder representation with a few key identifying details to allow reporting of products that aren't otherwise able to be represented in FpML.
|
genericProduct specifies the structure of the generic product. |
The Standard product provides a way to report on products that are fully represented by a standardized set of reference data, and therefore do not need a complete representation for activity or position reporting. For trades on standard products, typically only the size and price needs to be represented in addition to the product identifier..
|
|
standardProduct - specifies the structure of a standard product.
In Transparency view, a swap component contains two instances of the swapStream component. A swapStream contains the elements required to define an individual swap leg.
|
|
Within an FpML swap there is no concept of a swap header. Details of payment flows are defined within swapStreams which each contain their own independent parameters.
FpML Transparency view supports a parametric representation of a swap.
The following elements and their sub-elements within the calculationPeriodAmount element:
The following elements and their sub-elements within the stubCalculationPeriodAmount element:
In general, an interest rate swap will be a swap with a fixed leg and a floating leg, two floating legs, or two fixed legs.
The structure of a swapStream is shown diagrammatically below:
|
|
The components within a swapStream cannot be randomly combined and cannot be thought of as existing in their own right; they only make sense in the given context and in relationship to other components within the swapStream container.
The paymentDates and resetDates components contain the payment and reset frequency.
FpML uses the ISDA Floating Rate Option to specify the floating rate being observed. This scheme was used rather than attempting to parameterize into elements because although most floating rate indices are defined fully by a standard set of parameters (namely index, currency and fixing source) there are sometimes other details including fixing offsets and formulas. This approach allows for more flexibility in adding new floating rate indices without having to introduce new elements, although this comes at the expense of a self contained definition within the standard.
The information relating to amounts and rates is collected in the calculationPeriodAmount.
Certain swapStream components are designated as being optional (although it would be more accurate to say that they are conditional). Thus a fixed rate stream never includes a resetDates component, but this is required for a floating rate stream. The principalExchanges component is required in the case of cross currency swaps or other types of swap involving exchanges of principal amounts.
The detailed structures within the swapStream are shown diagrammatically below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
As noted above, the definition of a forward rate agreement trade is contained within a single component. A forward rate agreement is a simple and commoditized product. This means there is no variation in the product traded and it is not expected to become more complex in the future.
The structure of the fra component is shown diagrammatically below:
|
|
FpML also supports interest rate options. The supported components are:
The ISDA 2000 Definitions have been followed closely in defining the various option dates and element names. Thus components for European, Bermuda and American exercise have been defined which are re-used in each of the first four components above. These components share an element called relevantUnderlyingDate whose meaning is dependent on the option component it is contained in:
This is a style of option to which the right or rights granted are exercisable on a single date referred to as the expiration date. This date can be specified either as an adjustableDate or as a relativeDate though the latter is only expected to be used in the case of cash settled cancellations where the expiration date may be defined as an offset to the cash settlement payment date.
The relevantUnderlyingDate is optional, in its absence the effectiveDate of the underlying is the effectiveDate defined in the swapStreams. This can only be excluded for european swaptions.
|
|
This is a style of option to which the right or rights granted are exercisable during the exercise period which consists of a period of days. The underlying should specify its effective date based on the earliest possible exercise. When exercise implies a stub period this will be taken to be a short stub at the start, i.e. the underlying swap defines a series of flows, exercise merely brings the flows into existence from the relevantUnderlyingDate.
|
|
This is a style of option to which the right or rights granted are exercisable during an exercise period which consists of a number of specified dates. These dates can be defined as a list together with adjustments or by reference to an existing schedule elsewhere in the trade (e.g. resetDates). In the latter case bounds can be placed on the referenced schedule to define a subset of the whole schedule.
|
|
With a cancelableProvision the seller grants the buyer the right to terminate all swapStreams, typically in exchange for an upfront premium. Unlike optionalEarlyTermination, the cancellation of the swap does not require the parties to exchange a cash settlement amount on exercise representing the fair value of the remaining life of the swap although an exercise fee can be specified in the exerciseFeeSchedule.
|
|
With an extendibleProvision the seller grants the buyer the right to extend all swapStreams, typically in exchange for an upfront premium. This provision is very similar to a cancelableProvision and in fact the two share the same market risk profile. FpML makes a clear distinction between the two since the operational risk associated with misrecording the type of applicable provision can be high. For example, a 10 year swap with the right to cancel after 5 years has exactly the same risk profile as a 5 year swap with the right to extend for 5 years after 5 years. However, failing to give notice of exercise after 5 years will in one case (extendibleProvision) result in the swap terminating after 5 years and in the other case (cancelableProvision) result in the swap terminating after 10 years, i.e. action after 5 years is required in one case to lengthen the term of the swap in the other to shorten it.
|
|
The option to enter into a swap is defined as its own product and contains the underlying swap as a swap element. A swaption straddle is defined by setting the swaptionStraddle element to true: this implies that the swaption buyer has the right, on exercise, to decide whether to pay or receive fixed on the underlying swap. If the underlying does not contain a single fixed stream and a single floating stream then the straddle is invalid and thus this flag should be set to false..
|
|
Caps and Floors are defined as one or more capFloorStreams and zero or more additionalPayments. The capFloorStream re-uses the InterestRateStream entity and thus its content is identical to a swapStream.
|
|
Though a capFloorStream allows the definition of fixed streams or known amount streams these are not the intended use of this component and there use would be considered an invalid FpML trade.
The floatingRateCalculation component has been amended to allow the specification of cap/floor structures within a single stream (e.g. straddles, corridors). The changes are:
These additions allow for multiple cap and floor rates to be added to the stream and to define precisely which party bought and sold them. To maintain backward compatibility with FpML1.0 the buyer and seller are optional. When absent the following rules apply:
This section provides an in-depth review of the product architecture of FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives. The products covered by FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives are the single name credit default swap, the credit default swap index, the credit default swap basket, the credit default swap on a mortgage, and the credit default swap on a loan.
In order to define the scope of the credit default swap work FpML adopted the definition used in the ISDA Year End 2001 Flash Survey:
"In a credit default swap one counterparty (the protection seller) agrees to compensate another counterparty (the protection buyer) if a specified company or Sovereign (the reference entity) experiences a credit event, indicating it is or may be unable to service its debts. The protection seller is paid a fee and/or premium, expressed as an annualized percent of the notional in basis points, regularly over the life of the transaction."
The FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives Product Architecture draws heavily on the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions (hereafter referred to as the "2003 Definitions"). Wherever feasible the terminology and practice of the ISDA definitions has been adopted to ensure consistency between traditional and FpML contract representations. Appendix A lists the elements in FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives that differ in name from their corresponding terms in the 2003 Definitions. In FpML 5.3 it is possible to represent credit default swap trades done under either the 1999 or the 2003 definitions.
The FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives Subschema supports both a full confirmation and a transaction supplement (i.e. economics of the trade) representation of the credit default swap. The transaction supplement representation is a subset of the elements contained in the full confirmation representation. This flexible approach makes FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives usable in all stages of the credit default swap trade lifecycle.
Product support for the credit default swap index was added to FpML in version 4.1. The FpML representation for this product is closely based on the credit default swap work that first appeared in FpML 4.0. In fact, the index trade itself is described using the creditDefaultSwap element. Only a transaction supplement representation of a credit default swap index is supported.
Support for tranches on credit default swap indices was added in version 4.2.
Product support for the credit default swap on a mortgage was added to FpML in version 4.3. The support includes the representation of a mortgage underlyer and the addition of additional structures within the creditDefaultSwap product representation.
| Underlying product | Mortgage | Corporate |
| Traded on | Reference obligation | Reference entity |
| Credit Events | Failure to pay principal; Write down – occurs when the reference obligation is written down (realized losses usually); Distressed ratings downgrade; Maturity extension; Failure to Pay Interest | Bankruptcy; Failure to pay; Restructuring; Sovereign failure to pay, in case of emerging market underlyers |
| Interest Shortfall | Interest does not have to be fully paid, and can be reimbursed at a later time | Not applicable |
| Factors | Bonds factor down, as mortgages are paid down | No factor issues |
| Payment frequency | Monthly | Quarterly |
| Maturity | Generally 30 year bonds. The CDS trade terminates with the maturity of the underlyer | Five or ten years are most common. CDS trades terminate with the maturity of the underlyer or a credit event |
While single name corporate CDS are terminated once a credit event occurs, mortgage CDS persist.
A failure to pay principal or interest by some underlying mortgagors results in a shortfall, which is then compensated by the protection seller, in accordance to the contract terms. If those mortgagors reimburse those defaults at a later point, this will result into a corresponding ‘additional fixed payment amount’ that will be returned by the production buyer.
Those ‘floating rate payment events’ and ‘additional fixed payments’ can exist without occurrence of a credit event. A typical case would be when a failure to pay interests is not eligible as a credit event (but specified as an eligible floating rate payment event).
Product support for the credit default swap on a loan was added to FpML in version 4.3. The support includes the representation of a loan underlyer and the addition of additional structures within the creditDefaultSwap product representation.
The Loan CDS approach is tackled through two extensions to the reference information:
Product support for credit default swap option was added to FpML in version 4.3. The support is based on the creation of a new creditDefaultSwapOption product. As part of this work, some option structures have been generalized to be reused across multiple types of options.
The credit default swap underlyer is supported by referencing the existing creditDefaultSwap product element within the new creditDefaultSwapOption product.
Like all other derivative products supported by FpML, the type used to represent the credit default swap, the credit default swap index, and the credit default swap basket, CreditDefaultSwap, is defined as an extension of the Product type and the corresponding creditDefaultSwap element belongs to the product substitution group. The creditDefaultSwap element appears in Figure 1.
|
|
Figure 1: creditDefaultSwap element
|
2003 Confirmation |
FpML creditDefaultSwap Element |
|
General Terms |
generalTerms |
|
Fixed Rate Payments |
feeLeg |
|
Floating Payment |
protectionTerms |
|
Settlement Terms |
Not included in Transparency view |
|
Notice and Account Details |
N/A |
|
Offices |
N/A |
Figure 2: Sections of the 2003 Confirmation and their corresponding FpML creditDefaultSwap elements.
Additional points to note:
The remainder of this document reviews each child element of the creditDefaultSwap.
The generalTerms element, which appears in Figure 3, represents the information specified in the General Terms section of the 2003 Confirmation.
|
|
Figure 3: generalTerms Element
The effectiveDate element represents the Effective Date term. In order to optionally allow the explicit specification of a particular business day convention per the 2003 Definitions this element is of type AdjustableDate2. The effectiveDate is optional for the transaction supplement representation of some credit default swap indices.
The scheduledTerminationDate element represents the Scheduled Termination Date term. This element can be specified as either an adjustable date or a relative date. For confirmation and transparency purposes a specific date will always be specified. Again, the AdjustableDate2 type allows the parties to explicitly specify a particular business day convention per the 2003 Definitions. The Interval type (e.g. 5 Y for a five year deal) is included because this way of expressing a scheduled termination date is quite commonly used in historical price databases. The scheduled termination date is optional for the transaction supplement representation of some credit default swap indices. The effectiveDate and scheduledTerminationDate should always be included for a credit default swap.
The referenceInformation element is used in the representation of a credit default swap. The indexReferenceInformation element is used in the representation of a credit default swap index. The basketReferenceInformation element is used in the representation of a credit default swap basket.
The full expansion of the referenceInformation element appears in figure 4. Two of its child elements, referenceEntity and referenceObligation, are used to represent the Reference Entity and Reference Obligation(s) terms respectively.
The referenceEntity element is of type LegalEntity and is required. The LegalEntity type requires an entityName and/or an entityId to be provided. Both the entityName and the entityId are represented using schemes, which allow the source (e.g. reference database) of the information to be recorded.
A referenceObligation element has either a bond, a convertibleBond, a mortgage, or loan as one of its child elements. The bond, convertibleBond, mortgage, and loan elements are shared FpML elements. In other words, they were not created specifically to support credit derivatives and are also used in other asset classes.
For a credit default swap, bond or convertibleBond is used to specify a Reference Obligation's CUSIP/ISIN, Maturity and Coupon values. The instrumentId element is used to specify CUSIP/ISIN. The mandatory instrumentIdScheme is used to specify whether the id provided is a CUSIP or an ISIN. Since multiple occurrences of instrumentId are allowed, the schema supports the specification of both the obligation's CUSIP and ISIN, if they both exist. The couponRate and maturity elements are used to represent the Coupon and Maturity terms respectively.
A mortgage underlyer was added to the underlying classes that are part of the ReferenceObligation structure in order to support cds on mortgage. This Mortgage type uses most of the structures present at other underlying assets.
|
|
The extensions specific to the mortgage structure are the following:
A loan underlyer was added to the list of available product classes as part of the Reference Obligation. This Loan type extends Underlying Asset structure.
|
|
The extensions specific to the loan structure are the following:
To represent the Primary Obligor term a referenceObligation element may optionally have either a primaryObligor or a primaryObligationReference element. If the Primary Obligor is the Reference Entity, then primaryObligorReference should be used. Its href attribute will contain the id attribute of the referenceEntity. Otherwise, the primaryObligor element, which is of type LegalEntity, should be used.
Similarly, to represent the Guarantor term a referenceObligation element may optionally have either a guarantor or a primaryObligationReference element. If the Guarantor is the Reference Entity, then guarantorReference should be used. Its href attribute will contain the id attribute of the referenceEntity. Otherwise, the guarantor element, which is of type LegalEntity, should be used.
The optional allGuarantees and referencePrice are used to represent the terms All Guarantees and Reference Price respectively.
|
|
Figure 4: referenceInformation element
Although the structure of referenceInformation appears to be somewhat complex, the specification of Reference Entity and Reference Obligation information in FpML documents is quite simple, straightforward and flexible. An example bears this out:
In order to support the full credit default swap trade lifecycle, the schema allows this information to be expressed in various degrees of detail:
Example 1 - Reference Entity only:
<referenceInformation>
<referenceEntity>
<entityName>Bundesrepublic Deutschland</entityName>
</referenceEntity>
<noReferenceObligation/>
</referenceInformation>
Example 2 - Reference Entity and ISIN of the Reference Obligation with optional scheme attributes:
<referenceInformation>
<referenceEntity>
<entityName>Bundesrepublic Deutschland</entityName>
</referenceEntity>
<referenceObligation>
<bond>
<instrumentId instrumentIdScheme =
"http://www.fpml.org/spec/2002/instrument-id-ISIN-1-0">DE0001135200</instrumentId>
</bond>
</referenceObligation>
</referenceInformation>
Example 3 - Full Representation of Reference Entity and Reference Obligation terms:
<referenceInformation>
<referenceEntity id ="DBR">
<entityName>Bundesrepublic Deutschland</entityName>
</referenceEntity>
<referenceObligation>
<bond>
<instrumentId
instrumentIdScheme =
"http://www.fpml.org/spec/2002/instrument-id-ISIN-1-0">DE0001135200</instrumentId>
<couponRate>.05</couponRate>
<maturity>2012-07-04</maturity>
</bond>
<primaryObligorReference href =
"DBR"/>
</referenceObligation>
<referencePrice>1</referencePrice>
</referenceInformation>
The referencePolicy element is applicable to the transactions on mortgage-backed security, which can make use of a reference policy. Presence of the element indicates that the reference policy is applicable; absence implies that it is not.
The indexReferenceInformation element appears in the Figure 5. This element is used to identify the index referenced by a credit default swap index trade.
The indexReferenceInformation element is structurally very similar to the referenceEntity element. The indexReferenceInformation element identifies a collection of (Reference Entity, Reference Obligation) pairs issued by an index sponsor (e.g. iBoxx, TRAC-X). The referenceEntity element, on the other hand, identifies a specific Reference Entity.
|
|
Figure 5: indexReferenceInformation element
The identification is accomplished by a combination of the indexId and the indexName elements. There are optional elements to explicitly define the index series number, the version number of the index series annex, the annex publication date and the source of the relevant annex (the elements indexSeries, indexAnnexVersion, indexAnnexDate and indexAnnexSource respectively) (for a given series, multiple versions of the “annex” may be published over time). The indexSeries and indexAnnexVersion elements are of integer type, the indexAnnexDate element is of date type and the indexAnnexSource element is of complex type IndexAnnexSource (which is of base type string).
The indexAnnexSource element corresponds to the field ‘Source of Relevant Annex’ that appears in the Dow Jones CDX form of Transaction Supplement and it is proposed an FpML-defined Scheme is defined with initial possible values of “Publisher” and “Master Confirmation”. These values have the meanings ascribed to them in the Dow Jones CDX General Terms Confirmation (A value of “Publisher” implies the relevant annex for a transaction is the list for the relevant index with the relevant annex date published by Mark-it Partners).
See the Mark-it Partners website (http://www.mark-it.com) for examples of published annexes for the CDX and iTraxx index families.
An additional optional repeating element excludedReferenceEntity is also proposed to support the iTraxx and CDX forms of Transaction Supplement which allow for specific reference entities in the index to be excluded by making reference to them in the Transaction Supplement. This element uses the existing LegalEntity type.
Identifying a credit default swap index with indexReferenceInformation is quite straightforward. Like referenceInformation, it allows for this information to be expressed in various degrees of detail.
Some illustrative example FpML snippets including the optional elements follow:
<generalTerms>
...
<indexReferenceInformation>
<indexName>Dow Jones CDX.NA.IG.3 Version 1</indexName>
<indexId indexIdScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2003/instrument-id-RED-pair-1-0">123456789</indexId>
<indexSeries>3</indexSeries>
<indexAnnexVersion>1</indexAnnexVersion>
<indexAnnexDate>2004-09-20</indexAnnexDate>
<indexAnnexSource>Publisher</indexAnnexSource>
</indexReferenceInformation>
...
</generalTerms>
<generalTerms>
...
<indexReferenceInformation>
<indexName>Dow Jones iTraxx Europe Series 2 Version 1</indexName>
<indexId indexIdScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2003/instrument-id-RED-pair-1-0">123456789</indexId>
<indexSeries>2</indexSeries>
<indexAnnexVersion>1</indexAnnexVersion>
<indexAnnexDate>2004-09-17</indexAnnexDate>
<excludedReferenceEntity>
<entityName>Acme Inc.</entityName>
<entityId entityIdScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2003/entity-id-RED-1-0">123456</entityId>
</excludedReferenceEntity>
</indexReferenceInformation>
...
</generalTerms>
The optional tranche element allows the specification of index tranches. The structure requires an attachment point and an exhaustion point and optionally the applicability of the legal term Incurred Recovery.
|
|
The Dow Jones CDX Tranche Transactions Standard Terms Supplement requires the "Source of Relevant Settled Entity Matrix" field on a Confirmation. The optional settledEntityMatrix element supports it. It contains a required matrixSource element and an optional publicationDate element.
<generalTerms> ... <indexReferenceInformation> <indexName>Dow Jones iTraxx Europe Consumers Series 2 Version 1</indexName> <indexSeries>2</indexSeries> <indexAnnexVersion>1</indexAnnexVersion> <tranche> <attachmentPoint>0.03</attachmentPoint> <exhaustionPoint>0.07</exhaustionPoint> </tranche> <settledEntityMatrix> <matrixSource>NotApplicable</matrixSource> </settledEntityMatrix> </indexReferenceInformation> ... </generalTerms>
Several terms that appear in the General Terms section of the 2003 Confirmation do not appear in the generalTerms element because elements to represent these terms already existed in the FpML trade element. The terms that belong to this category appear in Figure 6 along with their corresponding FpML element.
|
ISDA Confirmation Term |
FpML Element |
|
Trade Date |
trade.tradeHeader.tradeDate |
|
Calculation Agent |
trade.calculationAgent.calculationAgentPartyReference |
|
Calculation Agent City |
trade.calculationAgentBusinessCenter |
Figure 6 General Terms that do not appear in creditDefaultSwap.generalTerms element.
The feeLeg element represents the information specified in the Fixed Payments section of the 2003 Confirmation. In other words, this is where the payment stream from Fixed Rate Payer to the Floating Rate Payer is specified. This element reuses types and elements from FpML 5.3 Interest Rate Derivatives.
The feeLeg allows representation of the following types of payment schedules for a credit default swap using a combination of the singlePayment and periodicPayment elements:
In addition, it's important to note that the use of initialPayment allows the representation of the situation when the seller of protection pays a fee to the buyer as an upfront payment. An example of this scenario is the payment in exchange for an agreed modification of the first period start date.
|
|
Figure 7: feeLeg element
In transparency view, the fixed leg is limited to representing the fixed rate for a periodic payment, and optionally an upfront fee.
The addition of the adjustedPaymentDate element within singlePayment and adjustedPaymentDates component in periodicPayment allows the optional inclusion of a 'cashflows' like structure consistent with what was done in FpML 5.3 Interest Rate Derivatives. Note these structures are intended more for internal application integration use rather than external communication, i.e. Wouldn't be applicable for confirmations.
Here are some example fee schedules:
Example 1 - Fixed Rate - Regular Schedule:
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction dayCountFractionScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2004/
day-count-fraction-1-0">ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
or in a Transaction Supplement
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 2 - Fixed Amount - Regular Schedule:
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>10625.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 3 - Fixed Rate - Month-End Rolls:
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>EOM</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction dayCountFractionScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2004/
day-count-fraction-1-0">ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
or in a Transaction Supplement
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>EOM</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 4 - Fixed Rate - Initial (Short) Stub:
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<firstPaymentDate>2002-11-01</firstPaymentDate>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 5 - Fixed Rate - Initial (Long) Stub:
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<firstPaymentDate>2003-02-01</firstPaymentDate>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 6 - Fixed Amount - Single Payment:
<feeLeg>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2002-11-02</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>100000.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 7 - Upfront Fee combined with Fixed Rate Regular Schedule
<feeLeg>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2002-11-02</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>100000.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 8 - Irregular Payment Schedule
<feeLeg>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2002-11-02</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>100000.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2002-12-02</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>50000.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 9 - Fixed Rate - Final (Short) Stub:
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<lastRegularPaymentDate>2003-03-20</lastRegularPaymentDate>
<rollConvention>20</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.009</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 10 - Fixed Rate - Regular Schedule (Including Optional Cashflows):
Note that the adjustedPaymentDate element values have not been adjusted for any applicable business days.
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.0085</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction dayCountFractionScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2004/
day-count-fraction-1-0">ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
<adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDate>2003-02-01</adjustedPaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>10625.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDate>2003-05-01</adjustedPaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>10625.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDate>2003-08-01</adjustedPaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>10625.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDates>
<adjustedPaymentDate>2003-11-01</adjustedPaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>10625.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</adjustedPaymentDates>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
Example 11 - firstPeriodStartDate - Novations Support
Suppose the following Old Transaction is Novated with the following information:
Old Transaction FpML (abbreviated) representation:
<creditDefaultSwap>
<generalTerms>
<effectiveDate>
<unadjustedDate>2004-06-09</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NONE</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</effectiveDate>
<scheduledTerminationDate>
<adjustableDate>
<unadjustedDate>2009-06-20</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NONE</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</adjustableDate>
</scheduledTerminationDate>
...
</generalTerms>
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<firstPaymentDate>2004-09-20</firstPaymentDate>
<rollConvention>20</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>EUR</currency>
<amount>5000000.0</amount>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.0125</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction dayCountFractionScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2004/
day-count-fraction-1-0">ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
...
</creditDefaultSwap>
For the New Transaction the FpML representation would show:
New Transaction FpML (abbreviated) representation:
<creditDefaultSwap>
<generalTerms>
<effectiveDate>
<unadjustedDate>2004-09-22</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NONE</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</effectiveDate>
<scheduledTerminationDate>
<adjustableDate>
<unadjustedDate>2009-06-20</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NONE</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</adjustableDate>
</scheduledTerminationDate>
...
</generalTerms>
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<firstPeriodStartDate>2004-09-20</firstPeriodStartDate>
<firstPaymentDate>2004-12-20</firstPaymentDate>
<rollConvention>20</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>EUR</currency>
<amount>5000000.0</amount>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.0125</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction dayCountFractionScheme="http://www.fpml.org/spec/2004/
day-count-fraction-1-0">ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
...
</creditDefaultSwap>
Example 12 - Periodic payments - stepping notional
A credit default swap pays 100bp every 3 months. The notional starts at 5M but steps down twice throughout the life of the deal (only the relevant portions of FpML are shown):
<feeLeg>
<periodicPayment>
<paymentFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
</paymentFrequency>
<rollConvention>1</rollConvention>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-03-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>4000000</stepValue>
</step>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-09-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>3000000</stepValue>
</step>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.010</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction>ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
<protectionTerms>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-03-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>4000000</stepValue>
</step>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-09-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>3000000</stepValue>
</step>
</calculationAmount>
<creditEvents>
<defaultRequirement>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>10000000</amount>
</defaultRequirement>
...
Example 13 - Irregular Payments, stepping notional
In this example, payments are made at irregular intervals (note that there is no June payment). Also the amount of each payment is determined based on notional that change over time:
<feeLeg>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2001-12-01</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>230.50</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2002-03-01</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>219.20</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
<singlePayment>
<adjustablePaymentDate>2002-9-01</adjustablePaymentDate>
<fixedAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>500.00</amount>
</fixedAmount>
</singlePayment>
<periodicPayment>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-03-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>4000000</stepValue>
</step>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-09-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>3000000</stepValue>
</step>
</calculationAmount>
<fixedRate>0.010</fixedRate>
<dayCountFraction>ACT/360</dayCountFraction>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
</feeLeg>
<protectionTerms>
<calculationAmount>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>5000000</amount>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-03-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>4000000</stepValue>
</step>
<step>
<stepDate>2002-09-01</stepDate>
<stepValue>3000000</stepValue>
</step>
</calculationAmount>
...
The payment information that appears in the transaction supplement representation of a credit default swap index trade is expressed in FpML by using the initialPayment and periodicPayment/fixedAmountCalculation elements.
Trades on credit default swap indices generally have an upfront payment associated with them. Unlike upfront payments on credit default swap trades, the initial payment can be from either protection buyer to protection seller or from protection seller to protection buyer. To address this requirement, an additional optional element called initialPayment has been added to feeLeg in FpML 4.1. This element is intended to be used solely in the representation of a credit default swap index trade.
The structure of initialPayment can be seen in figure 6. The major difference between initialPayment and singlePayment is that initialPayment allows the specification of which party is making the payment (payerPartyReference) and which is receiving it (receiverPartyReference).
Unlike a credit default swap trade, a credit index trade has two fixed rates associated with it:
The present value of the difference between these two fixed rates is one of the two inputs to the calculation of the initial (e.g. upfront) payment. The other component is accrued interest.
Here is an example of the payment information associated with a trade and how that information appears in FpML:
<feeLeg>
<initialPayment>
<payerPartyReference href="partyA"/>
<receiverPartyReference href="partyB"/>
<paymentAmount>
<currency>EUR</currency>
<amount>10000</amount>
</paymentAmount>
</initialPayment>
<periodicPayment>
<fixedAmountCalculation>
<fixedRate>0.0070</fixedRate>
</fixedAmountCalculation>
</periodicPayment>
<marketFixedRate>0.0040</marketFixedRate>
</feeLeg>
The paymentDelay has been added as a boolean element as part of the feeLeg construct to support the ISDA definition associated with the fixed amount:
| Fixed Amount: | [Fixed Amount definition for underlying with no payment delay]/[Fixed Amount definition for underlying with payment delay] |
Parties should make a selection that is appropriate in view of the interest basis of the Reference Obligation as set out in the Underlying Instruments. The former version may be preferred if the Reference Obligation does not have a payment delay, and the latter if it is a security with a payment delay.
The schema definition states: “Applicable to CDS on MBS to specify whether payment delays are applicable to the fixed Amount. RMBS typically have a payment delay of 5 days between the coupon date of the reference obligation and the payment date of the synthetic swap. CMBS do not, on the other hand, with both payment dates being on the 25th of each month.”
In Transparency view the protectionTerms element contains only the protection amount (trade notional); in futures versions of the schema it may contain indicators for some commonly negotiated credit events such as "restructuring".
There are several places in the FpML 5.3 Credit Derivatives Subschema where the element names diverge from the names used for terms in the 2003 Definitions. These names are listed in the table that appear in Figure 11.
|
FpML Element Name |
2003 Definitions |
Existing FpML Element |
Clarity |
|
sellerPartyReference |
Floating Rate Payer |
X |
X |
|
buyerPartyReference |
Fixed Rate Payer |
X |
X |
|
dateAdjustments |
Business Day, Business Day Convention |
X |
|
|
obligationId |
CUSIP/ISIN |
X |
|
|
feeLeg |
Fixed Payments |
X |
|
|
protectionTerms |
Floating Payment |
X |
|
|
calculationAmount |
Fixed Rate Payer Calculation Amount, Floating Rate Payer Calculation Amount |
X |
|
|
valuationDate |
Valuation Date |
X |
|
|
valuationTime |
Valuation Time |
X |
|
|
accruedInterest |
Quotations |
X |
|
|
excluded |
Excluded Obligations |
X |
|
|
excluded |
Excluded Deliverable Obligations |
X |
|
|
category |
Obligation Category |
X |
|
|
category |
Deliverable Obligation Category |
X |
|
|
calculationAgentPartyReference |
Calculation Agent |
X |
Figure 11: Naming differences between FpML 5.3 and the 2003 definitions (incomplete).
The table also indicates the reason why the FpML name diverges from the name used in the 2003 definitions. There are only two reasons for diverging:
The Scope of FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft includes redesigned FX product model developed by the Modeling Task Force (MTF) and FX Working Group to make it more consistent with other FpML product representations and to facilitate its further development. As a result of this work many of an original 4.x model’s issues were addressed:
In FpML 5.3 Last Call Working Draft the following FX products are covered:
Foreign exchange single-legged instruments include spot and forwards. fxSingleLeg contains a reusable entity (FxCoreDetails.Model) that describes common components to FX spot, forward and swap legs: two instances of the exchangedCurrency component (the first currency and the second currency), an optional dealtCurrency that indicates which currency was dealt, either a single value date component for the trade or an optional value date per exchanged currency, an optional tenorPeriod that (appears in the Reporting View only) denotes the tenor on which both currencies traded will settle, a single instance of the exchangeRate component, and an optional nonDeliverableSettlement component. Note: An optional confirmationSenderPartyReference (to the party that is sending the current document as a confirmation of the trade is accommodated) has been moved out from the product economics. It will be placed at the trade level.
|
|
The simple FX transaction contains two currencies which are exchanged between parties. The characteristics of each currency exchange: the currency, the amount, and optionally settlement instructions are described in the exchangedCurrency structure. An optional payment date is allowed per currency if there is a requirement to provide for date adjustments for each currency based upon business day conventions to accommodate unscheduled holidays.
|
|
The rate of exchange is required for a foreign exchange trade. The rate of exchange includes a reusable entity (QuotedCurrencyPair) that describes the underlying composition of the rate: the currencies and the method in which the rate is quoted. The actual trade rate is required, but other rate information such as spot rate, forward points and point value are also accommodated. For non-base currency trades, cross rates (or rates to base) to accommodate the currency exchange rates to cross between the traded currencies are provided for. Note: the refactored rate of exchange model has stricter grammar than FpML 4.x, which eliminates a few rules (e.g. fx-1, fx-2, fx-3, fx-28, fx-29 ).
|
|
A foreign exchange swap is a single product that combines two trades, either spot/forward or forward/forward. (The FpML 4.x model allowed any number of exchanges but the new restricts it to just two. In the old model FX Swap was a container for other products – like a strategy. In the new model it's a single product). A standard FX swap contains only two legs, nearLeg and farLeg to indicate the value date order. There are a variety of different types of FX swaps in the marketplace: standard (round-amount) swaps, overnight swaps, unequal-sided swaps, forward-forward swaps. All of the features that are available within FxCoreDetails.Model, common components to standard FX spot and forward trades (described previously) can be utilized in describing an FX swap as well.
|
|
Near and far legs are based on a new FxSwapLeg type and derived from a super type Leg from which all swap legs are extended (and is not derived from Product as in 4.x).
Foreign exchange options model is completely redesigned compared to 4.x model that was very loose with too many independent optional elements. It did not enforce relationships between elements. The basic data types used for values like rates had no constraints (e.g. could be negative). The model is designed to bring related data together and many elements were renamed in line with FpML naming convention and MTF recommendations.
Foreign exchange options are now more consistent with other option products. FxOption type extends new Option base type - a type that defining the common features of options - buyer and seller model and derived from a Product type (the Option type could be used to re-factor other option types). It also includes separate exercise structures for standard European and American options.
A vanilla fxOption identifies an exercise style, the put currency and amount, and call currency and amount, strike price and premium information. The premium is structured similar to an exchanged currency for a conventional FX trade, where optional settlement information for the premium can be attached. In addition, there are optional procedures associated with the exercise, a soldAs reference to allow buyer/seller perspective to be easier to derive – did I buy a put or sell a call, spotRate that this represents the current market rate for a particular currency pair. Note: quotedAs component has been removed as it was a legacy element carried through the versions and the group felt it was confusing.
|
|
Fx American Exercise structure includes additional support for multipleExercise with optional limits on the notional size.
|
|
One or more financial instruments, of any sort that are supported by the FpML specification, can be combined to form what is called a strategy. This can include various packages of the same or different asset classes in a single trade. Typical examples of this would include option packages (e.g., straddles, strangles) or a delta hedge (FX OTC option with spot risk hedged by FX spot deal). Additionally, other asset classes can be combined in a strategy (e.g., interest rate swap with FX, etc.).
FpML Transparency view supports standardized OTC equity options without customizations. More precise high-level documentation will be available in a future draft. The following descriptions may include features not included in Transparency view. Please consult the schema reference for more precise documentation.
|
The underlyer component specifies the asset(s) on which the option is granted, which can be either on either a singleUnderlyer or basket, and consist of equity, index, or convertible bond components, or some combination of these The description element is used to provide a free-form text description of the asset, whereas instrumentId contains a short-form, unique identifier (e.g. ISIN, CUSIP) for the asset. At least one instrumentId must be present. The exchangeId element contains a short form unique identifier for an exchange. If omitted then the exchange shall be the primary exchange on which the underlying is listed. The relatedExchangeId element contains a short form unique identifier for a related exchange. If omitted then the exchange shall be the primary exchange on which listed futures and options on the underlying are listed. The clearanceSystem element contains the identity of the clearance system to be used. If omitted, the principal clearance system customarily used for settling trades in the relevant underlying shall be assumed. |
|
FpML supports three styles of equity option: European, American and Bermudan. For consistency of representation with interest rate derivatives each of these styles is represented using its own component. Each of these components is described more fully below. The automaticExercise element contains a boolean value. If true then each option not previously exercised will be deemed to be exercised at the expiration time on the expiration date without service of notice unless the buyer notifies the seller that it no longer wishes this to occur. The EquityValuation component specifies the date and time on which the option is valued. The element valuationDateis assumed to have the meaning as defined in the ISDA 2002 Equity Derivatives Definitions. It enables the valuationDate to be expressed in relation to some other date defined in the document (the anchor date), where there is the opportunity to specify a combination of offset rules. This component will typically be used for defining the valuation date in relation to the payment date, as both the currency and the exchange holiday calendars need to be considered. Alternatively, valuationDate is a date that shall be subject to adjustment if it would otherwise fall on a day that is not a business day in the specified business calendar locations, together with the convention for adjusting the date. The element valuationDate specifies the interim equity valuation dates of the swap. The valuationDate can be specified as a series of dates that shall be subject to adjustment if they would otherwise fall on a day that is not a business day in the specified business calendar locations, together with the convention for adjusting the date, otherwise, the valuationDate is a series of dates specified as some offset to other dates (the anchor dates). The element valuationTimeType is the time of day at which the calculation agent values the underlying, for example the official closing time of the exchange. The element valuationTime specifies the time of day at which the calculation agent values the underlying. The futuresPriceValuation element contains a boolean value to indicate whether or not the official settlement price as announced by the related exchange is applicable, in accordance with the ISDA 2002 definitions. The optionsPriceValuation element contains a boolean value to indicate whether or not the the official settlement price as announced by the related exchange is applicable, in accordance with the ISDA 2002 definitions.. The EquityExerciseValuationSettlement component specifies equity option contractural settlement information. The settlement date specifies when the option is to be settled relative to the valuation date. If the settlement date is not specified explicitly then settlement will take place on the valuation date. The settlementType component is used to specify whether the option is settled in cash or physically. The settlementPriceSource element specifies the source from which the settlement price is to be obtained, e.g. a Reuters page, Prezzo di Riferimento, etc. The settlementType element shows how the transaction is to be settled when it is exercised. The values comes from list: Cash, Election, Physical. |
|
The sub-components of the EquityEuropeanExercise component specify the date and time when the option will expire. The element expirationDate enables the expiration date to be expressed as adjustable or relative date to some other event, such as the close of business for the exchange. The element equityExpirationTimeType is the time of day at which the equity option expires, for example the official closing time of the exchange. |
|
The commencementDate and expirationDate are used to specify the period during which the option may be exercised (more than once if permitted by the equityMultipleExercise component). The option may be exercised on any business day in this period up to the latest time specified for exercise. The element
latestExerciseTimeType-The latest time of day at which the equity option can be exercised, for example the official closing time of the exchange.
The element
equityExpirationTimeType-The time of day at which the equity option expires, for example the official closing time of the exchange.
|
|
The commencementDate and expirationDate are used to specify the period during which the option may be exercised (more than once if permitted by the equityMultipleExercise component). The option may be exercised on any of the days in the list bermudaExerciseDates up to the latestExerciseTime specified for exercise. The element
latestExerciseTimeType-The latest time of day at which the equity option can be exercised, for example the official closing time of the exchange.
The element
equityExpirationTimeType-The time of day at which the equity option expires, for example the official closing time of the exchange.
|
|
The EquityPremium component specifies the amount and timing of the premium payment that is made for the equity option. payerPartyReference and receiverPartyReference are pointer style references to Party components that specify the payer and receiver of the premium respectively. In FpML the premium amount can be expressed in a number of ways: as a monetary amount ( paymentAmount), as a price per option ( pricePerOption) or as a percentage of notional ( percentageOfNotional) - if more than one method is used then they must be mutually consistent. There are circumstances in which no premium would be specified, for example if the trade formed part of a put/call combo structure. The swapPremium element holds a boolean value that, if "true" specifies that the premium is to be paid in the style of payments under an interest rate swap contract. |
When a date specified in an equity option contract falls on a non-business day then it may be necessary to adjust it to be a business day. At the time the contract is agreed it is not always possible to determine whether or not a particular date in the future will be a business day.
The meaning of "business day" varies according to the context in which it is used. When the context is the payments of monetary amounts then the rules for adjustment according to currency business days apply, and the equity option product architecture uses the same AdjustableOrRelativeDate component ( or derivations ) as the interest rate and foreign exchange products.
However, when the context is the valuation or settlement of equities or equity indices then the term "business day" means "exchange business day". In this case the equity option product architecture specifies the use of unadjusted dates with the adjustment rules being implicitly inherited from the ISDA definitions.
FpML provides generic Return Swaps support including "long form" Equity Swap representations, as well as Total Return Swaps. A separate product element called equitySwapTransactionSupplement supports "short form" Equity Swap Transaction Supplement.
Return-type Swaps have 1-to-many Legs, all of which must be derived from the ReturnSwapLeg type. Instances of Legs are returnLeg, interestLeg. Other Leg types may be derived from ReturnSwapLeg at will, to allow for private extensions to support whatever type of Generic Return Swap is desired.
The scope of this FpML representation for return swaps is to capture the following types of swaps that have equity-related underlyers:
FpML Return Swaps Product Architecture amends the previous Equity Swaps Product Architecture since it describes a more generic representation of return type swaps, not only equities. The generic representation includes the product coverage introduced in previous versions of FpML to support full conformance with ISDA 2002 Equity Derivative Definitions, intial and final stubs, and Equity Swap Transaction Supplement. In addition, it supports the representation of Total Return Swaps.
This document provides an in-depth review of the technical architecture of the FpML Return Swap subschema. The scope as well as the current limitations of this schema, which will be addressed through a next release, are described in the first section of this document.
The FpML representation of the returnSwap relies on the structures that are presented in the figure below:
|
Swaps may have 1-to-many Legs, the principal components of the return swap schema are as follows: |
The figure 2 presents the structure of the return leg of the swap, which has 10 categories of components:
|
Figure 2: The structure of the return leg. These categories of components are described through the next few pages. They are the following: |
The effective date and the termination date are similarly defined for both the interest and equity leg of the trade. Each of these dates can be specified either in reference to a date defined somewhere else in the document (using the relativeDate subcomponent), or as a specific date (using the adjustableDate subcomponent).
The figure 3 presents the effective date as an example of how these two components are structured:
|
Figure 3: The effectiveDate. |
The example 1 below presents how these schema structures are used for defining the effective date of the equity swap as a function of the trade date (the elapse time between these being the settlement cycle of the underlying security assets) and the termination date as a function of the last payment of the swap. This corresponds indeed to the most frequent practice for confirming equity swaps.
Example 1 - Effective date as a function of the trade date and effective date as a function of the last payment date:
<effectiveDate id="EffectiveDate">
<relativeDate>
<periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier>
<period>D</period>
<dayType>ExchangeBusiness</dayType>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
<dateRelativeTo href="TradeDate"/>
</relativeDate>
</effectiveDate>
<terminationDate id="TerminationDate">
<relativeDate>
<periodMultiplier>0</periodMultiplier>
<period>D</period>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
<dateRelativeTo href="FinalEquityPaymentDate"/>
</relativeDate>
</terminationDate>
The underlyer component provides a detailed description of the characteristic of the underlying asset(s). Seven types of asset classes have been included as part of this release, of which six are actually used by the equity swap. These six underlying types are the convertible bond, the equity, the exchange-traded fund, the future contract, the index and the mutual fund. The seventh one is the bond, that is used by the schema for credit derivatives and will be later used by the schema for trigger swaps once it will be released. Each of these asset types has been defined by extending a component named underlyingAsset that contains some key attributes that are common across most of the underlyers: the identifier, the descriptive name, the currency of denomination, the stock exchange on which the underlyer is listed and the clearance system. With the exception of the identifier element, all these attributes are optional.
Thereafter is the description of these six types of underlyers that are used by the schema for equity swaps. These diagrams also present the respective schemes that have been associated with these components. Not surprisingly, the exchangeId is used quite often.
|
Figure 4: The equity underlyer extends the underlyingAsset component by adding two (optional) elements: the related exchange and the options exchange. |
|
Figure 5: The index underlyer extends the underlyingAsset component by adding two (optional) elements: the related exchange and the identifier of the reference future contract that may have been referenced as part of the swap contract. |
|
Figure 6: The mutual fund underlyer extends the underlyingAsset component by adding two (optional) elements: the indicator of whether the fund is open or closed and the name of the fund manager. |
|
Figure 7: The exchange-traded fund underlyer extends the underlyingAsset component by adding three (optional) elements: the related exchange, the options exchange and the name of the fund manager. |
|
Figure 8: The future contract underlyer extends the underlyingAsset component by adding four (optional) elements: the related exchange, the options exchange, the contract multiplier and the specific reference of the future contract that is used as part of the swap. |
|
Figure 9: The convertible bond underlyer extends the underlyingAsset component through six elements that characterize the instrument (the related exchange, the issuer name, the coupon rate, the maturity date, the par value and the face amount); in addition, the underlyingEquity component describes the equity underlyer in which the convertible bond can be turned into. |
|
Figure 10: The commodity underlyer extends the IdentifiedAsset component and may be used in the same way as all other FpML underlyers. |
These various types of underlyers can be combined through two different structures, depending upon whether the swap has only one underlyer or has multiple underlying assets: the singleUnderlyer structure or the basket structure. The figure 11 below provides a high-level view of these two alternative structures, which are detailed in the following paragraphs.
|
Figure 11: Overview of the two alternative types of underlying structured: the singleUnderlyer and the basket. |
In the case of a single underlyer, the singleUnderlyer component specifies the number of open units, the description of the underlyer (through the underlyingAsset substitution group) and the dividendPayout ratio (which is defined through the underlyer component rather than the return component for reasons that are related to the basket, and that are explained below). It should be noted that the eleven members of the underlyingAsset substitution group (The bond, convertibleBond, cash, commodity, equity, exchangeTradedFund, future, index, loan, mortgage, mutualFund) do not appear in this diagram: only the basis elements are represented.
Basket underlyers are currently not supported in Transparency view.
<underlyer>
<basket>
<openUnits>1</openUnits>
<basketConstituent>
<equity>
<instrumentId instrumentIdScheme="RIC">TIM.MI</instrumentId>
<description>Telecom Italia Mobile spa</description>
<currency>EUR</currency>
<exchangeId exchangeIdScheme="http://www.fpml.org/schemes/4.0/exchangeId">Milan Stock Exchange</exchangeId>
</equity>
<constituentWeight>
<openUnits>783000</openUnits>
</constituentWeight>
<dividendPayout>
<dividendPayoutRatio>85</dividendPayoutRatio>
</dividendPayout>
<underlyerPrice>
<grossPrice>
<currency>EUR</currency>
<amount>4.14</amount>
<priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression>
</grossPrice>
<netPrice>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>4.182</amount>
<priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression>
</netPrice>
</underlyerPrice>
<underlyerNotional>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>3274506</amount>
</underlyerNotional>
</basketConstituent>
<basketConstituent>
<equity>
<instrumentId instrumentIdScheme="RIC">VOD.L</instrumentId>
<description>Vodafone Group</description>
<currency>GBP</currency>
<exchangeId exchangeIdScheme="http://www.fpml.org/schemes/4.0/exchangeId">London Stock Exchange</exchangeId>
</equity>
<constituentWeight>
<openUnits>24860</openUnits>
</constituentWeight>
<dividendPayout>
<dividendPayoutRatio>85</dividendPayoutRatio>
</dividendPayout>
<underlyerPrice>
<grossPrice>
<currency>GBP</currency>
<amount>110.00</amount>
<priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression>
</grossPrice>
<netPrice>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>165.00</amount>
<priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression>
</netPrice>
</underlyerPrice>
<underlyerNotional>
<currency>USD</currency>
<amount>4101900</amount>
</underlyerNotional>
</basketConstituent>
</basket>
</underlyer>
Equity Options and Return Swaps both now use a common EquityValuation type.
|
Figure 14: The EquityValuation type, that specifies the valuation terms of the return leg of the swap. |
The following developments present in more details the four main structures that are part of ReturnLegValuation type: the initialPrice, the valuationPriceInterim, the valuationPriceFinal and the paymentDates (old equityPaymentDates). Even if these components can appear quite complex at first glance, the objective here is to outline how they have been based upon a limited set of 'building blocks' that are systematically reused.
|
|
The purpose of the initialPrice component is to specify the initial price for the underlyer of the trade (equity, bond, index). In most of the cases, this price will be known. There can however be certain cases, such as a forward trade, where the actual price is not known on trade date and where the trade confirmation will rather specify the terms according to which this initial price will be determined at a later point.
Three possible ways for defining the price of the underlyer are available: as an actual price and currency ( EquityPrice.model), in reference to an amount defined somewhere else in the document using the amountRelativeTo element, or by specifying a specific determination method using the determinationMethod component. Commissions can be associated with each of these three alternative definitions. For addressing the requirements related to composite FX swaps, the possibility is also provided, through the fxConversion component, to explicitly define the FX rate that has been used to convert the price from its listing currency to the reference currency of the swap.
Considering that in the vast majority of the cases the initial price is defined as an actual price and currency, the examples below will focus on detailing the various options available for specifying such actual price. The other possibilities offered through the Price type will be further detailed through the interim and final price components.
Example 3 - Specification of an initial price as an actual price that does not include commissions and FX terms:
<initialPrice> <netPrice> <currency>USD</currency> <amount>37.44</amount> <priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression> </netPrice> </initialPrice>
<initialPrice> <commission> <commissionDenomination>BPS</commissionDenomination> <commissionAmount>5</commissionAmount> </commission> <grossPrice> <currency>CAD</currency> <amount>113228777</amount> <priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression> </grossPrice> <netPrice> <currency>USD</currency> <amount>84089141</amount> <priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression> </netPrice> <fxConversion> <fxRate> <quotedCurrencyPair> <currency1>CAD</currency1> <currency2>USD</currency2> <quoteBasis>Currency1PerCurrency2</quoteBasis> </quotedCurrencyPair> <rate>1.34665</rate> </fxRate> </fxConversion> </initialPrice>
Example 4 - Specification of an initial price as a percentage of the notional, without commissions nor FX terms:
<initialPrice> <netPrice> <amount>94.80278</amount> <priceExpression>PercentageOfNotional</priceExpression> </netPrice> </initialPrice>
This structure that specifies the date and time of the valuation will typically not be used as part of the definition of the initial price. This is because in most cases the initialPrice component specifies the price of the underlyer that is used as the initial reference point for the swap, and there is no need to refer to any specific date or time. Considering that this 'building block is defined and used in a quite similar same way for the interim and final price, it will be detailed through these latter.
The purpose of the valuationPriceInterim component is to specify the interim price(s) for the equity underlyer of the trade. This is an optional component, as it does not apply in the case of a bullet swap, where there is no reset date. Its other specificity vis-a-vis the initial and final valuation components it that this components can hold an array of valuation dates, as opposed to only one valuation date.
Similarly to the initialPrice component, the diagrams 16 and 17 below present the two sets of structures that are part of the valuationPriceInterim component: one structure that specifies the price and one structure that specifies the valuation dates. Both structures are mandatory.
The example 6 below is very illustrative of the typical use of the valuationPriceInterim structure for representing the interim valuation prices of an equity swap:
Example 6 - Typical example of how the valuationPriceInterim component is used to specify the the interim valuation:
<valuationPriceInterim>
<determinationMethod>ValuationTime</determinationMethod>
<valuationRules>
<valuationDates id="InterimValuationDate">
<adjustableDates>
<unadjustedDate>2001-10-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2001-11-13</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2001-12-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-01-14</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-02-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-03-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-04-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-05-13</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-06-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-07-12</unadjustedDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-08-12</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</adjustableDates>
</valuationDates>
<valuationTimeType>Close</valuationTimeType>
</valuationRules>
</valuationPriceInterim>
The schema also provides the ability to address some more unusual situations. One of these relates to the case where the valuation dates are defined as a function of the equity payment dates. In such case, a specific consideration needs to be given to the various types of holidays, i.e. banking holidays versus exchange holidays. The relativeDateSequence component does provide such ability to define a date as a function of another date by applying a defined sequence of offsets, as opposed to only one offset as in the case of the relativeDate component. This case is illustrated in the example 7 below.
Example 7 - The interim valuation dates are defined in relation to the payment dates:
<valuationPriceInterim>
<valuationRules>
<valuationDates id="InterimValuationDates">
<relativeDateSequence>
<dateRelativeTo href="InterimEquityPaymentDate"/>
<!--The first offset is 2 exchange business days prior to the payment date.-->
<dateOffset>
<periodMultiplier>-2</periodMultiplier>
<period>D</period>
<dayType>CurrencyBusiness</dayType>
<businessDayConvention>FOLLOWING</businessDayConvention>
<sequence>1</sequence>
</dateOffset>
<!--The second offset is 1 banking business day prior to the payment date.-->
<dateOffset>
<periodMultiplier>-1</periodMultiplier>
<period>D</period>
<dayType>ExchangeBusiness</dayType>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
<sequence>2</sequence>
</dateOffset>
<businessCenters id="PrimaryBusinessCenter">
<businessCenter>USNY</businessCenter>
</businessCenters>
</relativeDateSequence>
</valuationDates>
</valuationRules>
</valuationPriceInterim>
The example 8 below provides another example of an unusual definition of the interim valuation date. Here, the valuation dates are defined through a rule-based schedule, which corresponds to the market practice typically in use for fixed income swaps. This practice is however used only rarely in the case of equity derivatives.
Example 8 - The interim valuation dates are defined through a rule-based schedule:
<valuationPriceInterim>
<determinationMethod>ValuationTime</determinationMethod>
<valuationRules>
<valuationDates id="InterimValuationDates">
<periodicDates>
<calculationStartDate>
<adjustableDate>
<unadjustedDate>2002-04-10</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</adjustableDate>
</calculationStartDate>
<calculationPeriodFrequency>
<periodMultiplier>1</periodMultiplier>
<period>M</period>
<rollConvention>10</rollConvention>
</calculationPeriodFrequency>
<calculationPeriodDatesAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
</calculationPeriodDatesAdjustments>
</periodicDates>
</valuationDates>
<valuationTimeType>Close</valuationTimeType>
</valuationRules>
</valuationPriceInterim>
<valuationPriceFinal>
<determinationMethod>HedgeExecution</determinationMethod>
<valuationRules>
<valuationDate id="FinalValuationDate">
<adjustableDate>
<unadjustedDate>2003-03-12</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</adjustableDate>
</valuationDate>
</valuationRules>
</valuationPriceFinal>
The purpose of the valuationPriceFinal component is to specify the final price for the equity underlyer of the trade.
In a similar way than what has been previously detailed for the components that specify the initial and the intermediate valuations, the diagrams 18 and 19 below respectively detail the structure that specifies the final price and the structure that specifies the date on which this valuation will take place. Both structures are mandatory.
It can be noted at this point that the only difference between this valuationPriceFinal component and the valuationPriceInterim component is that only one final valuationDate can be specified, while the possibility is provided to define several interim valuationDates. The equity valuationDates component used for specifying the interim valuation dates has then been substituted with the equity valuationDate component, which allows only one date.
The example 8 below presents the most common use of this structure, a specific final valuation date being defined while the final price is specified through the use of the determinationMethod element. Of course, if the interim valuation dates would be defined in reference to the payment dates (as illustrated in the example 7) or through a rule-based schedule (example 8), such method would also be applied for defining the final valuation date.
Example 9 - The most common definition of the final valuation:
<valuationPriceFinal>
<commission>
<commissionDenomination>BPS</commissionDenomination>
<commissionAmount>60</commissionAmount>
</commission>
<determinationMethod>HedgeExecution</determinationMethod>
<valuationRules>
<valuationDate id="FinalValuationDate">
<adjustableDate>
<unadjustedDate>2004-02-03</unadjustedDate>
<dateAdjustments>
<businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention>
</dateAdjustments>
</adjustableDate>
</valuationDate>
</valuationRules>
</valuationPriceFinal>
The last structure that participates in the definition of the equity swap valuation is the schedule of equity payment dates. These dates are specified through the equity paymentDates component. The structure of this component is threefold:
The structure of the paymentDatesInterim (old equityPaymentDatesInterim) and the paymentDateFinal (equityPaymentDateFinal) is very similar. The only difference is that several dates can be specified in the first case, and only one date in the latter.
As a result, both the interim and the final payment dates can be defined either as a schedule of dates or in reference to a date defined somewhere else in the document. This latter approach is used most often, with the payment dates being specified as one settlement cycle after the valuation date to which they relate. This is illustrated through this final example relating to the valuation component, which provides a complete view of how the valuation dates are defined as an actual schedule of dates to which the payment dates refer.
Example 10 - Equity swap which payment dates are defined in relation to the schedule of valuation dates:
<rateOfReturn> <initialPrice> <netPrice> <currency>USD</currency> <amount>37.44</amount> <priceExpression>AbsoluteTerms</priceExpression> </netPrice> </initialPrice> <notionalReset>true</equityNotionalReset> <valuationPriceInterim> <determinationMethod>ValuationTime</determinationMethod> <valuationRules> <valuationDates id="InterimValuationDate"> <adjustableDates> <unadjustedDate>2001-10-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2001-11-13</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2001-12-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-01-14</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-02-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-03-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-04-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-05-13</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-06-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-07-12</unadjustedDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-08-12</unadjustedDate> <dateAdjustments> <businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention> </dateAdjustments> </adjustableDates> </valuationDates> <valuationTimeType>Close</valuationTimeType> </valuationRules> </valuationPriceInterim> <valuationPriceFinal> <determinationMethod>HedgeExecution</determinationMethod> <valuationRules> <valuationDate id="FinalValuationDate"> <adjustableDate> <unadjustedDate>2002-09-24</unadjustedDate> <dateAdjustments> <businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention> </dateAdjustments> </adjustableDate> </valuationDate> </valuationRules> </valuationPriceFinal> <paymentDates id="EquityPaymentDate"> <paymentDatesInterim id="InterimEquityPaymentDate"> <relativeDates> <periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier> <period>D</period> <dayType>CurrencyBusiness</dayType> <businessDayConvention>FOLLOWING</businessDayConvention> <businessCenters id="PrimaryBusinessCenter"> <businessCenter>USNY</businessCenter> </businessCenters> <dateRelativeTo href="InterimValuationDate"/> </relativeDates> </paymentDatesInterim> <paymentDateFinal id="FinalEquityPaymentDate"> <relativeDate> <periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier> <period>D</period> <dayType>CurrencyBusiness</dayType> <businessDayConvention>FOLLOWING</businessDayConvention> <businessCentersReference href="PrimaryBusinessCenter"/> <dateRelativeTo href="FinalValuationDate"/> </relativeDate> </paymentDateFinal> </paymentDates> </rateOfReturn>
The notional component specifies the notional of each of the legs of the swap (it is indeed also present in the interest leg of the trade). Similarly to the price of the underlyer, four possible ways of defining this notional are available:
The four examples below illustrate each of these cases mentioned before:
Example 11 - The explicit notional amount:
<notional> <notionalAmount id="EquityNotionalAmount"> <currency>USD</currency> <amount>28469376</amount> </notionalAmount> </notional>
Example 12 - The reference to a notional amount defined somewhere else in the document:
<notional> <relativeNotionalAmount href="EquityNotionalAmount"/> </notional>
Example 13 - The use of the determinationMethod for specifying the notional amount:
<notional> <determinationMethod id="EquityNotionalAmount">Number of Shares * Initial Price</determinationMethod> </notional>
Example 13b - The reference to a determination method defined somewhere else in the document:
<notional> <relativeDeterminationMethod href="EquityNotionalAmount"/> </notional>
The main purpose of the amount (old equityAmount) component is to specify the method that determines the amount to be paid/received on each of the payment dates. Its role however goes quite beyond this, as it also specifies:
|
Figure: The amount component. |
This amount component is based on the LegAmount type that is also used for defining the interestAmount. It extends this type by adding a boolean cashSettlement element that specifies whether the swap will cash or physically settle.
The payment currency is the first component of this structure. It specifies the payment currency of the equity leg of the swap through three possible methods:
|
|
The core of the component is its second component, which specifies the payoff of the return leg. This can done in three possible ways:
The optional calculationDates component is also aimed at these more complex equity swaps. It provides the possibility to define calculation dates (such as observation points in the case of an equity payoff that is a function of some specific market levels). These calculation dates can be specified similarly to the valuation dates:
Example 14 - The use of the amount component for a vanilla equity swap:
<amount> <paymentCurrency id="EquityPaymentCurrency"> <currency>USD</currency> </paymentCurrency> <referenceAmount>ISDA Standard</referenceAmount> <cashSettlement>true</cashSettlement> </amount>
The return component encapsulates the information that defines the dividend to be paid to the receiver of the equity amounts, with the exception of the dividend payout ratio, that is specified through the underlyer component. (As explained earlier, this is because a specific payout ratio can be associated with each underlyer component in the case of basket swaps; such situation can typically be related to different tax regimes across countries when those various underlyers originate from different market places.)
In Transparency view the return component has only a the returnType element, that specifies (through an enumeration) whether the contract is a total return swap, a price return swap or a dividend return swap.
The notionalAdjustments component specifies whether the adjustment to the equity notional of the swap will obey to certain specific terms. These terms can be, according to the current industry practice, threefold: standard, execution and portfolio rebalancing. An execution-style swap is a trade where the quantity of underlyers is expected to vary quite often; in order to facilitate these later 'executions', the parties agree in advance on contractual terms that will facilitate these expected adjustments to the contract. A portfolio-rebalancing swap is a trade where the basket components will be often adjusted not only in terms of quantities but also in terms of types of underlyers; similarly to the previous case, some specific language will typically accommodate such adjustments.
These legal terms are however not specified through the schema representation of the equity swap. There are two reasons for this. The first one is that they are not part of the ISDA Definitions for Equity Derivatives. The second reason is that this current version of the equity swap schema is focused on representing the economic description of the trade. These legal terms are then not part of it.
The interest leg of the equity swap leverages for the most part the schema developed for the interest rate swaps.
However, instead of simply reusing the entire swapStream, the interest rate leg of the equity swap schema reuses certain of the components that are part of this swapStream.
This design approach is motivated by the differences in market practices that exist between the equity and fixed income products. The industry practice for the equity swaps consists in defining a schedule of actual dates for the equity valuation, while most of the other swap dates are defined in reference to this schedule. The practice in place in the interest rate area consists, on the other hand, in defining a rule-based schedule. As a result, the swapStream features are largely focused on defining such periodicity rules along with the appropriate calendar exceptions, and do not provide the possibility for defining a complete schedule of actual dates (if we except through the firstPeriodStartDate, the firstRegularPeriodStartDate and the lastRegularPeriodEndDate) and references to these.
Instead of leveraging the whole swapStream component, the interest leg of the equity swap leverages then components at a more granular level, such as the resetFrequency component, the interestCalculation component and the calculationPeriodDatesReference element.
As a result, the interest leg of the equity swap has several categories of components, which are presented in the figure 28 below and respectively specify the following features of the interest leg:
|
Figure: The interestLeg of the returnSwap. |
The interestLegCalculationPeriodDates component defines the various dates associated with the interest leg of the swap:
The diagram below presents the key features of these different date structures. Three of these components are structured in the same way: the effectiveDate, the terminationDate and the interestLegPaymentDates. These components indeed all provide the possibility to define a date (or several dates, in the case of the interestLegPaymentDates component) as either an actual date or in reference to a date specified somewhere else in the document.
The interestLegResetDates component has been developed as a simplified version of the ResetDates type that is part of the interest rates derivatives schema. Three of the seven components that are part of this ResetDates type have indeed been reused:
The example below presents a typical example of how this schema is applied to the standard interest leg of an equity swap:
Example 17 - The calculation period dates of the interest leg of an equity swap:
<interestLegCalculationPeriodDates id="InterestLegPeriodDates"> <effectiveDate> <relativeDate> <periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier> <period>D</period> <dayType>ExchangeBusiness</dayType> <businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention> <dateRelativeTo href="TradeDate"/> </relativeDate> </effectiveDate> <terminationDate> <relativeDate> <periodMultiplier>0</periodMultiplier> <period>D</period> <businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention> <dateRelativeTo href="FinalEquityPaymentDate"/> </relativeDate> </terminationDate> <interestLegResetDates> <calculationPeriodDatesReference href="InterestLegPeriodDates"/> <resetRelativeTo>CalculationPeriodStartDate</resetRelativeTo> </interestLegResetDates> <interestLegPaymentDates> <relativeDates> <periodMultiplier>0</periodMultiplier> <period>D</period> <businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention> <dateRelativeTo href="EquityPaymentDate"/> </relativeDates> </interestLegPaymentDates> </interestLegCalculationPeriodDates>
The notional amount is defined through the same structure than for the equity leg of the swap: the notional component. As mentioned earlier, and illustrated through the example 12, this component is most often used for referencing the notional amount that is defined as part of the equity leg.
The interest amount is defined in the same way than the equity amount: using the LegAmount complex type. Used through the interest leg, it specifies the following elements:
Example 18 - The interest amount of an equity swap:
<interestAmount> <paymentCurrency href="ReferenceCurrency"/> <referenceAmount>Standard ISDA</referenceAmount> </interestAmount>
The interestCalculation component specifies the interest rate reference of the swap (by referring either to a fixed interest rate or to a floating reference rate) and the day count fraction to be applied. As indicated in the introduction to the interest leg section, this structure has been developed by leveraging the components defined for the interest rate swap schema.
The component supports also compounding for on the interest leg (see optional compounding element within InterestCalculation. The compounding rate on the Interest leg can be different than that used for funding calculation. In addition, the structure supports the representation of multiple types of spreads, i.e. one for a long amount and one for a short amount.
|
Figure: The interestCalculation component. |
The example below presents a typical example of how this interestCalculation component can be applied for specifying the floating rate of an equity swap:
Example 19 - Specifying the floating rate of an equity swap:
<interestCalculation> <floatingRateCalculation> <floatingRateIndex>USD-LIBOR-BBA</floatingRateIndex> <indexTenor> <periodMultiplier>3</periodMultiplier> <period>M</period> </indexTenor> <spreadSchedule> <initialValue>0.0050</initialValue> </spreadSchedule> </floatingRateCalculation> <dayCountFraction>ACT/360</dayCountFraction> </interestCalculation>
Similarly to the principal exchange, the EquitySwapAdditionalPayment complex type extends the design developed for the interest rate swaps by providing the ability to define dates in relation to other dates, as well as to specify the calculation logic that supports certain types of fees.
This additionalPayment structure leverages some of the features that are also used through other components:
Example 21 - Upfront fee:
<additionalPayment> <payerPartyReference href="PartyA"/> <receiverPartyReference href="PartyB"/> <additionalPaymentAmount> <formula> <formulaDescription>18388000 * Reference Price * [6.5% (the upfront Fee) + 0.63% (taxes)]</formulaDescription> <math> <mn>18388000 </mn> <mo>*</mo> <mi>ReferencePrice</mi> <mo>*</mo> <mo>(</mo> <mn>6.5</mn> <mo>%</mo> <mo>+</mo> <mn>0.63</mn> <mo>%</mo> <mo>)</mo> </math> <formulaComponent name="ReferencePrice"> <componentDescription>Volume-weighted average price per share of underlying security on Trade Date</componentDescription> </formulaComponent> </formula> </additionalPaymentAmount> <additionalPaymentDate> <relativeDate> <periodMultiplier>0</periodMultiplier> <period>D</period> <businessDayConvention>NotApplicable</businessDayConvention> <dateRelativeTo href="EffectiveDate"/> </relativeDate> </additionalPaymentDate> <paymentType>Upfront fee</paymentType> </additionalPayment>
The purpose of the ReturnSwapEarlyTermination component is to specify the date from which each of the parties to the trade may have the right to terminate it early. The figure 33 below presents the structure of this component:
|
|
Figure: The earlyTermination component.
Similarly to the other date-related components that are part of the return swap, the date can be specified using either the adjustableDate component or the relativeDate component. Considering that the standard market practice is to provide the ability for both the parties to the trade to early terminate it starting on Trade Date, the relativeDate element should be used most often. This is illustrated in the example below.
<earlyTermination> <partyReference href="PartyA"/> <startingDate> <dateRelativeTo href="TradeDate"/> </startingDate> </earlyTermination> <earlyTermination> <partyReference href="PartyB"/> <startingDate> <dateRelativeTo href="TradeDate"/> </startingDate> </earlyTermination>
The Equity Derivative Working Group extended FpML to cover:
Variance Swaps and Options are modelled using the following product element in FpML:
Please note that the following documentation describes the full, confirmation-view representation of variance swaps. In Transparency view, some of the fields mentioned below are not available. Please consult the schema reference for more precise documentation.
these components provide support for:
varianceSwapTransactionSupplement specifies the structure of a variance swap transaction supplement. This modelled using the same variance legs as Variance Swap, but does not allow for long form content such as extraordinary events.
|
|
varianceLeg - A type describing return which is driven by a Variance calculation.
|
|
varianceOptionTransactionSupplement specifies the structure of a variance option transaction supplement. VarianceOptionTransactionSupplement implements Variance Option Transaction Supplement by providing a short form representation for use in trades governed by a Master Confirmation Agreement.
|
|
Dividend Swaps (Transaction Supplement form) are modelled using the following product element in FpML: dividendSwapTransactionSupplement.
dividendSwapTransactionSupplement specifies the structure of the dividend swap transaction supplement.
|
|
Correlation Swaps are modelled using the following product element in FpML:
The correlationSwap product is modelled as a single netted leg.
|
|
The correlationLeg - A type describing return which is driven by a Correlation calculation.
|
|
This section provides an in-depth review of the product architecture of FpML 5.3 regarding Bond and Convertible Bond Options. It also covers the set of shared option constructs that are used by other types of options, not only Bond or CB options.
|
|
The OptionBase type defines the schema structure associated with optionType: The type of option transaction. From a usage standpoint, put/call is the default option type, while payer/receiver indicator is used for options index credit default swaps as well as the swaptions. Straddle is used for the case of straddle strategy, which combines a call and a put with the same strike. The optionType is to be used if the underlyer does not carry any mention of the resulting trade direction as well as in the case of a straddle.
Incorporates features that are not underlyer-specific and cannot be integrated as part of the OptionBase because of backward compatibility reasons with the eqd schema.
|
|
The premium construct has a similar approach than the swaption (i.e. premium based upon a premium construct), but introduces a simplified payment that does not incorporate the settlement features. In order to make this construct forward applicable to the equity options, this new SimplePayment is then extended to incorporate some premium-specific concepts that currently exist as part of the eqd schema.
|
|
The overall approach is to leverage the swaption constructs, both for the Exercise and the ExerciseProcedure, with a couple of backward compatible extensions to tackle some specific features.
The proposed extension is for the multiple exercise, where the existing Multiple Exercise only support notional amounts, while the template for convertible bonds refers to number of options:
| Multiple Exercise: | Applicable |
| Minimum Number of Options: | The lesser of (i) [ ] and (ii) the unexercised number of Options |
| Maximum Number of Options: | The unexercised number of Options |
| Integral Multiple: | 1 |
As a result, the new schema introduces choice nodes to provide the ability to express the minimum/maximum levels either in terms of notional amounts (swaptions) or number of options (bond and CB options).
In addition, the notionalReference node is made optional, as this reference is not used in the case of options on securities.
|
|
This provides the ability to support the notional for CDS option as expressed in the ISDA template, i.e. as a reference to the notional of the underlyer swap or as an explicit amount.
This requirement was identified in the case of bond and CB option. Not CDS options. The structure positions an explicit construct as part of the base type, so that it can be applied over time to the equity options. The currency has been added, as it is present as part of the bond and CB option confirmations.
|
|
The market practice consists in pricing convertible bond options based upon a swap curve, while also to include 'standard penalty' (called Make Whole Amount) in the case where the option is exercised early one. Conversely, the bond options are priced using a price reference.
As a result, the BondOptionStrike provides a choice between a swap curve reference and a price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two changes have been added to the convertible bond underlyer in order to support options on convertible bonds:
|
|
This section provides a detailed description of the product architecture for commodity derivatives. FpML transparency view currently provides support for cash-settled commodity swaps (fix/float), cash settled commodity options, bullion forwards, and physically settled natural gas, oil, electricity, and coal swaps.
The 'commodity' underlyer is meant to identify the commodity ‘index’ which is subject to the trade and is flexible enough to support agricultural products, and energy. Support for other commodity types has not been fully evaluated but this does not preclude their being able to be represented A number of global elements are already defined in the FpML schema for various asset types. The commodity underlyer follows the same model.
|
|
The 'instrumentId' and the 'description' elements are derived from the IdentifiedAsset type, which is used by multiple underlyers. The 'instrumentId' contains the unique identifier for the asset, and is intended to hold a Commodity Reference Price in the format set out by ISDA in the 1993 or 2005 Commodity Definitions. However, a CUSIP, ISIN, or any other identifier could also be used. The 'description' contains the name of the asset.
The following sequence of elements is optional and they are specified only in the event that no ISDA Commodity Reference Price or other identifier for this commodity ‘index’ exists.
The 'specified Price' is not defined in the Commodity Reference Price and so needs to be stated in the underlyer definition as it will impact the calculation of the Floating Price.
The 'deliveryDates' element is applicable for a Commodity Transaction that references a listed future.
The 'deliveryDateRollConvention' specifies, for a Commodity Transaction that references a listed future via the 'deliveryDates' element, the day on which the specified future will roll to the next nearby month when the referenced future expires.
The 'multiplier' specifies the multiplier associated with the transaction. This element is intended for use with freight transactions.
The commodity swap product is designed to support both fixed/float swaps and float/float swaps. There is also support for describing the attributes of physical commodity delivery. Its design is fully compatible with other FpML products and reuses standard common types.
As with all products in FpML the commodity swaps are accessed through a global element 'commoditySwap' which can substitute the 'product' element used in the construction of trade structures. The following diagram outlines the product structure.
|
|
The 'commoditySwap' structure only defines parameters for product-related information (e.g. dates, rates, underlying commodity, price source, etc.). Other trade-related information (e.g. trade date, identifiers, legal documentation, etc.) is held in the containing trade structure.
The 'commoditySwapLeg' element is placeholder within commoditySwap structure for the actual commoditySwap swap legs (e.g. fixedLeg and floatingLeg).
The 'fixedLeg' and 'floatingLeg' elements contain the details of any scheduled payments or exchanges during the life of the instrument and are described later. A transparency view commodity swap contains two legs, one fixed and one floating. More complex instruments are considered customized and are not fully covered in transparency view; for these, the "nonStandardTerms" indicator should be set to "true".
The optional 'commonPricing' flag may be relevant for a Transaction that references more than one Commodity Reference Price. If Common Pricing is not specified or its value is set to 'false', it will be deemed not to apply.
A schedule of fixed payments associated with a commodity swap are defined within a 'fixedLeg' using the following structure.
|
|
Each 'floatingLeg' defines a series of financial payments for a commodity who's value is derived from a floating price source such as an exchange.
|
|
Two structures distinguish the 'floatingLeg' from the 'fixedLeg': the existence of the 'commodity' underlyer (see description above at the Commodity Underlyer section) and the 'calculation' structure within the floating leg.
The 'calculation' structure captures details relevant to the calculation of the floating price.
The structure is defined by the following elements:
The product representation of physically-settled trades is done within the commoditySwap product element by adding a family of physical legs.
Note: xxx gets replaced by oil, gas, electricity, and coal.
The following structures vary between all these commodities,
The product support for financially-settled and physically-settled commodity options in FpML is based on the creation of a new 'commodityOption' product. The product references the 'commodity' underlyer in order to support the underlying asset of the option.
|
|
All FpML products inherit two optional elements from the Product type: 'productType' and 'productId'. The 'productType' defines a classification of the type of product. FpML defines a simple product categorization using a coding scheme. The 'productId' contains a product reference identifier allocated by a party. In this case, FpML does not define the domain values associated with this element.
The 'buyerPartyReference' and 'sellerPartyReference' contain references to the parties that buy or sell the instrument respectively. Buying the instrument means paying for the instrument and receiving the rights defined by it. On the other hand, selling the instrument means granting the rights defined by the instrument and in return receiving a payment for it.
The optionType element is for specifying whether this is a call option or a put option.
The choice allows to selecet the financially-settled commodity options or physically-settled options.
The CommodityFinancialOption.model is specific to financially-settled commodity options:
|
|
The 'commodity' underlyer component is specified using a reference to the 'commodity' asset (see description above at the Commodity Underlyer section).
The following elements are specific to asian/averaging commodity options only:
As with the 'commoditySwap', the notional amount of the 'commodityOption' is specified stating either the 'notionalQuantity' or if the notional changes over the life of the transaction, then the 'notionalQuantitySchedule' is specified. In addition, the 'totalNotionalQuantity' must be specified. Note that the intention is that a notional step should be specified for each Calculation Period in the trade, regardless of whether there is a change in value between two periods. This is so as to match the notional quantity schedule to the calculation periods as clearly as possible. The notional steps must be in chronological order (i.e the first step corresponds to the first Calculation Period, the last step to the last Calculation Period).
The 'exercise' structure contains the parameters for defining how the commodity option can be exercised and how it is settled.
The different options for specifying the strike price per unit will consist of a single strike price of a strike price schedule. Note that the intention is that a strike price per unit step should be specified for each Calculation Period in the trade, regardless of whether there is a change in value between two periods. This is so as to match the strike price schedule to the calculation periods as clearly as possible. The strike price per unit of the strike price per unit steps must be in chronological order (i.e the first step corresponds to the first Calculation Period, the last step to the last Calculation Period).
The CommodityPhysicalOption.model is specific to physically-settled commodity options:
|
|
The approach is similar to that used for interest rate swaptions by embedding a physically-settled swap/forward transaction within the option transaction. So that the exercise of an option results in a new physically-settled swap or forward transaction.
The 'physicalExercise' structure defines how the commodity option can be exercised into a physical transaction.
The 'premium' element defines the option premium payable by the buyer to the seller. Should the premium differ over the course of an Asian options life (e.g. because delivery is per calendar day which is reflected in the premium), a premium schedule should be specified. Note that the intention is that a premium step should be specified for each Calculation Period in the trade, regardless of whether there is a change in value between two periods. This is so as to match the premium schedule to the calculation periods as clearly as possible. The premium steps must be in chronological order (i.e the first step corresponds to the first Calculation Period, the last step to the last Calculation Period).
The 'commonPricing', 'marketDisruption', and 'rounding' elements are common across all commodity transactions. For a detailed description of them see the commoditySwap section.
The commodityForward product element supports the representation of Bullion Forwards. Whilst some commodity forwards are booked as single period swaps, precious forwards are extremely basic trades and are confirmed under a different ISDA confirmation template
Even though the initial scope is limited to Bullion Forward, the intention of the working group is to allow support for other commodity classes should this be required.
|
|
The fixed payment of the Commodity Forward product is represented using the fixedLeg element of type NonPeriodicFixedPriceLeg.
|
|
The intention of the new leg is to re-use as many existing commodity components as possible to achieve a flexible implementation of a forward that will be adaptable for use with further commodity classes.
Consequently, the BullionPhysicalLeg component will be a member of a choice group such that further commodity types can be added over time.
|
|
View PDF for details on schema changes
View SCHEME DEFINITIONS for details on coding schemes changes
These are automatically generated reference documents detailing the contents of the various sections in the FpML schema.
Schema and Example files - Provides zip file with FpML Schema and all examples.