Pierre –
see some brief responses; we can discuss
at more length tomorrow.
From: bpwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:bpwg@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Lamy, Pierre
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:39
PM
To: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: FpML-BP amended
minutes 5/23 - generic product
Brian,
I
like your adjusted design, and I think that we are getting close to something
that makes good sense. Here are a few comments:
- I notice that you have
the optionBuyerPartyReference at the trade level and the
payerPartyReference at the underlyer level. Is this
intentional? I would have thought more appropriate to have a
complete BuyerSeller.model and PayerReceiver.model? Also, I was
wondering if it would make sense to have the BuyerSeller.model and a
choice between [BuyerSeller.model, PayerReceiver.model] at the underlyer
level, to address the case where the underlyer is not expressed in a
pay/receive mode, such as the reference entity.
- We will get the trade
date only if the generic gets integrated into the Trade construct (unless
of course we create an adequate field), which is something that we should
keep in mind as we integrate the generic as part of the portfolio
reconciliation construct. (In our latest version, the genericProduct
existed besides the trade, which I think was incorrect.)
- I also would like to
question again the riskType element (which I suggested some time ago), my
usage experience of it being that it provides value only when the
underlyer is not expressed. Hence the risk of confusion in terms of
usage (aside from the fact that it should at minimum be made optional).
I look forward to tomorrow's discussion.
-----Original
Message-----
From: bpwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:bpwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Brian Lynn
Sent:
Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:00 AM
To: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject:
RE: FpML-BP amended minutes 5/23 - generic product
I've
updated the generic product as discussed last week.
Main
changes included:
- add
a couple of missing fields from the portrec spreadsheet
-
removed a number of the option details fields (and the entire structure).
I've
attached a diagram and the schema files (the main one to look at is
fpml-generic-4-2.xsd).
-
Brian
-----Original
Message-----
From: bpwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:bpwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc
Gratacos
Sent:
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:16 AM
To: bpwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject:
FpML-BP amended minutes 5/23
Present
=======
Brian
Lynn (GEM)
Irina
Yermakova (ISDA)
Michael
Fitzgerald (SWIFT)
Pierre
Lamy (GS)
Vinod
K Jain (Bank of New York)
Christian
Unger (BBH)
John
Booth (Northern Trust)
Steve
Ross-Talbot (Hattrick)
Marc
Gratacos (ISDA), chair
Minutes
=======
Review
of Actions
1.
Review of actions
>>>
Action (OPEN): MG to document scenarios where lack of message
rejected/timeout
for cash flow matching messages this is required.
>>>
Action (OPEN): IY to propose a message or messages for responding to
a
request or a notification, with the ability to:
-
indicate that the message was received (but not necessarily processed)
-
indicate that the message was processed successfully.
>>>
Action: BL/MG to document that generic product is intended to be
used
only for portfolio composition reporting and reconciliation (deferred to
Generic Product discussion)
>>>
Action (DONE): BL to identify the new fields that would be required
to
meet the list in the spreadsheet for the portfolio reconciliation data
standards (attached)
>>>
Action (DONE): IY circulate the existing portfolio reconciliation
Documentation
2.
Product types: disagreement on the fact that the Validation Working doesn't
agree to include product type rules as validation rules. These rules should
applicable to the FpML scheme. If it is not included, it can be published as
separate document with links from the values description.
3.
Generic product: GS uses a very skinny representation for complex products.
Agreement that there are benefits on including this generic product. There is
an open question on whether a more optional representation based on the
confirmation view is better than a generic representation. Brian mentioned that
from his experience, in some cases, the data is so poor that it is even hard to
fill out the elements that you'd require for generic product. Agreement to
include generic product for reconciliation. Need to update elements based on
the analysis that Brian did.
AOB
Issues
with choreography and fixing identities. We'll talk about it in the next
meeting. People can continue discussions in the mailing list.
Actions
=======
MG
Check with validation Working group on rationale for not including validation
rules for product type scheme.
BL
Update generic product representation.
Kind
Regards,
-Marc
+13472846531
************************************************************************
**************************************************
The
information contained in either this email and, if applicable, the attachment,
are confidential and are intended only for the recipient.
The
contents of either the email or the attachment may not be disclosed or used by
anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any
use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at
isda@xxxxxxxx then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies
thereof. This communication is part of an ISDA process and is not intended for
unauthorized use or distribution.
************************************************************************
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
To
unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line In the body
include the line: unsubscribe bpwg youremail@address To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_bpwgmail/threads.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
To
unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line In the body
include the line: unsubscribe bpwg youremail@address To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_bpwgmail/threads.html