FpML-FXWG-Legacy Fwd: Miscellaneous items

["Danielle Cauthen" <dcauthen@xxxxxxxx>]

--- In fpml-fx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rick Schumacher 
<rick.schumacher@...> wrote:

First, I hope everyone in the group is doing well.

I'm writing for two reasons:  one is to provide you with an update 
on how
FpML is doing, and the other is to ask if anyone is interested in 
getting
together for one or two phone calls to review a simple proposal on 
term
deposits.

Regarding FpML status:

- Version 3.0 will be going into Last Call Working Draft within the 
next
month or so, I believe.  Shortly after our work was completed in 
January, a
few of us (Ned Micelli, Justin Oglethorpe, Gavin Smith, Bill Specht, 
and I)
participated in a short-lived Cross Products Task Force that 
consisted of
participants from the various working groups, with a goal of ensuring
consistency throughout the specification.  We also took a stab at 
business
messaging (and realized that it will require a dedicated working 
group, but
we did create an initial framework document), and we changed the
specification to incorporate portfolios of trades, moved out 
counterparty
from the trade message node, etc.  The latest Version 3.0 draft is 
on the
FpML web site and can be found at:
http://www.fpml.org/spec/2002/wd-fpml-3-0-2002-04-17/index.asp.  
Since then,
there have been a few errors noted (none of major significance), 
which we
are in the process of correcting before the Last Call Working Draft 
is
published.


Regarding term deposits:

- Ned Micelli and I have done some work to create a proposal for 
simple term
deposits, in response to a request from a few firms that have 
interest in
this area.  We have created a proposal which is on the FpML web site 
at:
http://www.fpml.org/documents/proposals/index.asp (near bottom of 
page, I'd
suggest downloading either the zip file or at least reviewing the 
Word
document if you're interested).  Here's the issue.  Term deposits 
are fairly
simple instruments to handle.  But, in FpML spirit, a working group 
must
ratify everything.  So, FpML could go through a Call for 
Participation and
establish a working group, but as you'll see from this proposal, 
it's fairly
far along, and the subject matter probably doesn't warrant an entire 
working
group.  (Obviously, if the subject was to cover Money Markets 
overall, then
a working group would clearly be necessary, but that's not the 
intention.)
So, I've been asked to send a request to the FX group to see if 
anyone in
the group would be interested in getting involved for a few phone 
calls to
review this document.  I don't think the workload would be that great
(probably would amount to 3 or 4 phone calls for an hour each), but 
it would
be important to have some individuals that have some experience with 
this
particular financial instrument.

So, I am asking each of you to send a reply letting me know whether 
you'd be
interested in assisting with the development of this particular 
instrument.

If you could reply with either a "yes" or "no" by the end of this 
week, that
would be fine.  If we get sufficient positive response, then that's 
great.
If we don't, then we'll just leave it as a Proposal on the FpML web 
site
until there's sufficient demand for it.

Thanks, and regards.

Rick

--- 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