|
Ann, The next meeting is scheduled
for next week. Thank you for your detailed
feedback and let us know the results of any further discussions you have with
the business on your side. Regards, Bhavik Katira CEO TenDelta™ Fresh
insight. Pure logic. +1.917.582.4574 new york +44.(0).7780.808732 london TenDelta™
provides business process consulting, technology design & education
services; specializing in the Syndicated Loan Market. Entrusted with
engineering innovative & logical solutions; we endeavor to deliver timely,
robust, cutting-edge solutions. Copyright
©2008-2009. TenDelta™ LLC (US), TenDelta™ Limited (UK). All Rights Reserved. From: loanwg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:loanwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Taylor, Ann Hi Bhavik, Unfortunately, I have a conflict today and will not be able to
attend the discussion. However, I would like to update you on the current
status of my analysis regarding providing contract information on a rollover. 1) MISYS functionality currently only allows
rollovers to existing contracts if the new contract is a BASE loan. There
is discussion at this time to open that up for all contract types. I am
still obtaining information from MISYS on this. Whether or not CS would
use that functionality is a pending business conversation. 2) Regardless of allowing rollovers to the same
contract id, when there is more than one contract involved, the breakdown of
how the payment or increase associates to each rollover contract is not
stored. MISYS has indicated that this could be derived. This is
pending discussion and agreement. Derivations are not done by our
development teams but may be approved for use if supplied within the Loan IQ
functionality. 3) Regarding your agenda items: 1) ok with CS 2) ok with CS 3) pending business discussion 4) pending business discussion 5) pending business discussion 6) ok with CS 7) agreed by CS 8) this is how CS processes post cash release 9) ok with CS 10) see above, CS cannot provide contract details when there is a
payment or increase at this time 11) ok with CS 12) If there were a contract specfic drawdown on a rollover, we
would want to send the rateset/drawdown notice Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.
Thanks, Ann Ann Taylor ü Please
consider the environment before printing this email. From: loanwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:loanwg@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bhavik Katira Next Working Group Meeting:
17th November 2009: 1000-1100 EST (3-4pm GMT) Agenda, schema etc will be sent
prior to the meeting. Minutes from 3rd
November 2009 1.
Comm. Adjustment: Update the scheme for
Increase/Decrease to an enumeration. 2.
Comm. Adjustment: The amount field should be
an absolute figure (the enumeration defines the direction). 3.
Business question: What happens in the case
that a commitment adjustment is refused…? Does this affect the structure of the
notification we have created…? 4.
Business question: Should we capture a flag
to denote whether a commitment adjustment is mandatory from the borrower’s
perspective…? 5.
Business question: Should we capture a
‘schedule date’ (in the case where the adjustment is pre-defined)…? 6.
General design: All ‘flags’ should be named
consistently (we decided to maintain a –flag suffix). 7.
General design: Modification flag should not
be required in the Facility Notice section. 8.
General design: There was a discussion
around corrections. The working group agreed that there is effectively a window
within which modifications to existing business events can take place. But, if
the event has been processed and there has been cash movement then a correcting
event may need to take place. In this latter case, the eventId may need to be
different. To be discussed further… (current structure should still be able to
handle this scenario). 9.
General design: Move the effective date into
the Facility Notice section (the wg agrees that all facility business events
should have an associated effective date). 10.
Rollover: Some providers/agents may not be
able to provide full details of specific loan which have been repaid during a
rollover. WG members have stated that they may only be able to provide facility
repayment details in cases. The current loans in this scenario would be a set
of new loan contracts. Unfortunately, this would mean making the
loanContractRepayment (within the Repayment structure) optional. This, in turn,
brings up the question as to what kind of validation there will be around the
provision of loanContractRepayment details… This needs to be discussed further. 11.
Rollover: Conversion flag should be captured
at a higher level within the rollover message structure. 12.
New Request: Rate Set Notices. In a rollover
situation where we have multiple existing loan contracts transforming to a new
set of loan contracts, each of the contracts may require a rate set notice to
be created. At the moment the rate set notice is not part of the rollover
message. Is the expectation that the sender would need to generate separate
rate set notices for each loan contract ‘rolling over’ or should we incorporate
this workflow within the rollover structure itself…? Regards, Bhavik Katira CEO TenDelta™ Fresh
insight. Pure logic. +1.917.582.4574 new york +44.(0).7780.808732 london TenDelta™
provides business process consulting, technology design & education services;
specializing in the Syndicated Loan Market. Entrusted with engineering
innovative & logical solutions; we endeavor to deliver timely, robust,
cutting-edge solutions. Copyright
©2008-2009. TenDelta™ LLC (US), TenDelta™ Limited (UK). All Rights Reserved. From: loanwg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:loanwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavik Katira Additional Item to add to the
list below 12. New Request: Rate Set
Notices. In a rollover situation where we have multiple existing loan contracts
transforming to a new set of loan contracts, each of the contracts may require
a rate set notice to be created. At the moment the rate set notice is not part
of the rollover message. Is the expectation that the sender would need to
generate separate rate set notices for each loan contract ‘rolling over’ or
should we incorporate this workflow within the rollover structure itself…? Regards, Bhavik Katira CEO TenDelta™ Fresh
insight. Pure logic. +1.917.582.4574 new york +44.(0).7780.808732 london TenDelta™
provides business process consulting, technology design & education services;
specializing in the Syndicated Loan Market. Entrusted with engineering
innovative & logical solutions; we endeavor to deliver timely, robust,
cutting-edge solutions. Copyright
©2008-2009. TenDelta™ LLC (US), TenDelta™ Limited (UK). All Rights Reserved. From: loanwg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:loanwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavik Katira Dial-in Details US: + 1 (888) 481 - 3032 Intl: + 1 (617) 801- 9600 UK: 0800 904-7961 Participant Code: 28413758 Please refer to the attached
schema design. Items to discuss: 1.
Design Proposal: Introduction of a
Commitment Adjustment Structure. a. Review structure b. What
business scenarios should it be used…? Is it simply when there is a commitment
change where no cash flow occurs…? c. Agree that it should be used whether there is a decrease
or an increase. d. Change
can be positive or negative…? Or should we have a flag followed by an absolute
amount…? 2.
Design Proposal: Should we introduce an
‘Effective Date’ in the facility notice section…? 3.
Design Proposal: Rollover changes a. Added ‘effectiveDate’. b. Renamed
‘Maturing-‘ to ‘Prior-‘ and ‘New-‘ to ‘Current-‘. c. Introduced the ‘currentLoanContract’ structure d. CurrentLoanContract
contains a optional choice which contains either a DrawdownPayment,
loanContractIncrease or conversionFlag. 4.
Design Proposal: L/C Termination should
contain the change amount rather than the prior amount. More generically,
should we be capturing change amounts in all notices, rather than prior
amounts…? (It was mentioned in the last call that prior amounts are notoriously
difficult to extract in many cases). 5.
Design Proposal: Interest payment adjustment
added to InterestPayment structure. Should we capture this extra field to take
into account an adjustment from a previous period…? The other option is to
capture this in the new Cash Flow section and make it generic to all business
events. 6.
Design Proposal: Updated the
LenderLoanContractPeriod in the InterestAccrualSchedule to
InterestLoanContractPeriod. This is to account for the fact that the interest accrual
may not be based on the actual lender position. It may be based on a portion of
the lender position. E.g. A repayment occurs mid-accrual period and the
interest relating to the repayment amount is paid. When the interest payment is
communicated, the underlying InterestLoanContractPeriod, not the full lenders
loan contract position. a. Are we interest in knowing whether the
InterestLoanContractPeriod is actually the lender’s position…? b. Should
we represent both InterestLoanContractPeriod and LenderLoanContractPeriod…? 7.
Confirm: Modification Flag in Facility
Notice. There is no way to tell multiple instances of a modification… is this
an issue…? 8.
Confirm: L/C contains amount and
participation amount. 9.
Confirm: Choice containing full deal
structure in the Facility Notice. 10.
Confirm: Contacts structure. 11.
New Request: In the following scenarios
should we expect to send multiple messages out or come up with a combination
message type: a. Repayment with Interest b. Repayment
and New Loan c. Multiple On-Going Fees, Interest Payments, Rate Fixes,
Margin Changes etc… Regards, Bhavik Katira CEO TenDelta™ Fresh
insight. Pure logic. +1.917.582.4574 new york +44.(0).7780.808732 london TenDelta™
provides business process consulting, technology design & education
services; specializing in the Syndicated Loan Market. Entrusted with
engineering innovative & logical solutions; we endeavor to deliver timely,
robust, cutting-edge solutions. Copyright
©2008-2009. TenDelta™ LLC (US), TenDelta™ Limited (UK). All Rights Reserved. From: loanwg@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:loanwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavik Katira All, Unfortunately I have a clash
with this call for tomorrow and will be travelling. In the last few weeks we have had
feedback from working group members regarding: -
Increased flexibility with the Rollover
Notice structure – especially with respect to increases & repayments. -
Suggested updates to the Business
Validations from the business working group. -
Suggested updates to the L/C structure. -
Suggested updates to the Interest Payment
structure to cater for the case where we have a partial interest payments,
mid-period. -
The introduction of Contact information. -
Simplification of new vs modified messages
using a flag to denote the difference. -
The introduction of a simple Commitment
Adjustment structure. The feedback has been great and
we are expecting more, based on our last FpML call. A new copy of the schema will be
available as soon as the latest changes are in. We are waiting for some
feedback on a few design points – we expect it to be completed at some point
this week. Please keep sending in your
comments as they relate to applying the standards to real-life messages. Regards, Bhavik Katira CEO TenDelta™ Fresh
insight. Pure logic. +1.917.582.4574 new york +44.(0).7780.808732 london TenDelta™ provides
business process consulting, technology design & education services;
specializing in the Syndicated Loan Market. Entrusted with engineering
innovative & logical solutions; we endeavor to deliver timely, robust,
cutting-edge solutions. Copyright
©2008-2009. TenDelta™ LLC (US), TenDelta™ Limited (UK). All Rights Reserved. No virus
found in this incoming message. No virus found
in this incoming message. ============================================================================== No virus
found in this incoming message. |