FpML-FXWG-Legacy Fwd: RE: [fpml-fx] Settlement -- deliverable or non-deliverable

["Danielle Cauthen" <dcauthen@xxxxxxxx>]

--- In fpml-fx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Frank Smith" <frank.smith@...> 
wrote:

Settlement -- deliverable or non-deliverableThe only commonly 
acknowledged
electronic confirmation format is the SWIFT MT3XX series.  Within 
the MT300
message (FX confirmation) there is no field for the
deliverable/non-deliverable text.  Therefore, these parties must be
inserting it in another field (for example Field 57 using the D 
option or
Field 72) with free text content.
I believe it to be safer utilising it the way that we currenctly 
envisage.
At least, this was how it was when I was initimately involved; 
things may
have changed in the last 15 months, of course!
Frank
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Rick Schumacher [mailto:rick.schumacher@...]
  Sent: 04 January 2002 15:24
  To: fpml-fx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [fpml-fx] Settlement -- deliverable or non-deliverable


  I have been finishing up my 3 remaining examples and going through 
a bunch
of sample confirmations that various group members have sent me 
(Chase,
Goldman, and BNP-Paribas).  I have noticed a few things that we 
might have
to deal with (which I'm writing up now and will come in a separate 
email),
but one item that I noticed was that on a lot of confirmations (for 
options
as well as non-deliverables), there is a line that looks like the 
following:

          Settlement:     <text>

                  where the value of <text> will always be either
"Deliverable" or "Non-Deliverable"

  I went to the ISDA 1998 FX & Currency Options Defintions document 
(the one
that I used the file splitter on last August), and all of their 
sample
confirmations contain this text as well.

  As you know, we have implied that everything is deliverable, 
unless there
is the existence of the nonDeliverableForward element within 
fxSingleLeg or
cashSettlementTerms within fxSimpleOption.

  I'm wondering whether this is OK, or if we should introduce a 
generic
element that would reference a scheme that contains values of 
Deliverable or
Non-Deliverable.

  I don't have a problem with keeping things as is (less work, 
obviously)
... I just want to make sure that the group is happy with what we've 
done
... if not, we should make the change now.

  Comments welcome (and encouraged) !!

  Rick


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  fpml-fx-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.

--- End forwarded message ---



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line
In the body include the line: unsubscribe fxwglegacy youremail@address
To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_fxwglegacymail/threads.html