No meeting this week. I’ll send an e-mail with details for next meeting. April 7, 2005 Attendees --------------- Kedhar Kodlapur (Lehman Brothers) Ira Fuchs (XML Associates) Brock Arnason (Morgan Stanley) Marc Teichman (DTCC) Robert Stowsky (BrookPath) Brian Lynn (GEM) Rajeev Kotyan (Sonic Software) Henri Pegeron (ISDA) Marc Gratacos (ISDA) Regrets ----------- Matthew Rawlings (JP Morgan Chase) Robert Stowsky (BrookPath) AllocationAmended Message ------------------------------------------ The proposed message to modify trade allocations (AllocationAmended) gives the new trade information, and implies that the receiver should be able to identify the modified trade based on the trade ID of the newly modified trade. Brian sent an e-mail requesting to record the original trade ID (before the modification) and to record the entire original trade details, for technologically challenged firms that man need to have a person find the original trade. Matthew Rawlings sent an e-mail to the list raising the following point “We have a choice between (1) supporting all the different interpretations of the messages, and (2) standardizing on one interpretation. As I understand it Brian has asked us to support additional interpretations but to improve the situation by making the interpretation explicit.” So we have to make a decision between accommodating different ways of modeling the process or supporting only one way to do it. People agreed on having a week for reviewing the proposal and make comments about it. N-Level Allocations ---------------------------- Brian presented a proposal to model N-Level Allocations. This basically means the ability to allocate a block trade to multiple allocation trades, and then allocate these in turn to other allocation trades (and so on if desired). The initial proposal was to create a new type called “BlockAndAllocationTradeIdentifier” that would include the allocationTradeId element from BlockTradeIdentifier and the blockTradeId element from AllocationTradeIdentifier. After some discussion, people felt that it was simpler to add a blockTradeId in the BlockTradeIdentifier type and document clearly that the element would be used for N-Level allocations. People agreed on this change. Proposal on short-form allocations ------------------------------------------------- Some changes were suggested: * Make approvals element optional and approval element mandatory * Provide a choice between accountReference and partyReference. There were some comments regarding fees and how to represent them as allocated/non-allocated. Brock’s example doesn’t seem to be very explicit but there weren’t alternative proposals made. It’s an open issue. Marc Teichman made the suggestion of having a short form representation plus a reference to the original trade. Proposal needs to be submitted. Examples on Trade Side ------------------------------------ Marc Gratacos put together an example of how to model brokerPartyReference with the new tradeSide structure. Marc Teichman raised the concern that this is adding more complexity into the schema. He said that he would look into the proposal and will post comments in the mailing list. Action items ------------------ - Marc G. will create an example with tradeSide/Accounts and Allocations - Marc G. will update Brock’s proposal incorporating feedback. - All should review Brian’s proposal on AllocationAmended. Please, post your comments on the mailing lists.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>