Marc, I've got the following usage question around tradeSide, and was interested in feedback. The expected usage as demonstrated in the published samples, is to point from buyer/seller and payer/receiver to the relevant tradeSide which in turn points to the relevant party. This is a usage change from the days prior to tradeSide when buyer/seller and payer/receiver would point directly to the relevant party. It also introduces some additional complexity because of the additional level of indirection. It would seem that including the tradeSide elements in the message without pointing directly to them, would still accomplish the same benefit without the usage change and additional complexity. The usage would be as follows: Point from buyer/seller and payer/receiver to the relevant party elements, and include the tradeSide elements in the message for the purpose of grouping the parties by role as they relate to a particular party who is named as the creditor. Given the above, I would further question whether it would be sensible to send only one tradeSide in a message which includes one side of the trade, or whether it would always make sense to include two tradeSide elements regardless. (This question would not apply with the tradeSide usage as shown in the sample messages, since there would have to be two tradeSide elements because there are two parties of the trade represented on the message even when there is only one side of the trade that is being submitted). Best Regards, Marc "Marc Gratacos" <MGratacos@xxxxxxxx> 02/08/2006 10:55 AM Please respond to mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To <mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject RE: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue As I mentioned I suggest limiting the occurrence of tradeSide to 2 and publish it in this third working draft. I don't see a strong reason for not doing that. If someone comes up with a case needing more than 2 sides, we'll go back to maxOccurs=unbounded. -----Original Message----- From: Marc Gratacos [mailto:MGratacos@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:35 AM To: mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue Andrew, I don't think so. Example 16 is a list of trades (I am attaching it). Within each trade there are only two trade sides. Best Regards, -Marc +1-212-901-6028 -----Original Message----- From: andrew.p.parry@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:andrew.p.parry@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:34 AM To: mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue Marc Note our own examples already show usage with trade side greater than 2 ( ie ) msg_ex16_fx_single_leg_roles_accounts.xml Regards Andrew Parry +44 20 7325 1486 IBML Product Manager http://ibml.jpmorgan.com "Marc Gratacos" <MGratacos@xxxxxxxx> 19/01/2006 16:43 Please respond to mwg To: <mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc: Subject: RE: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue What should do on this? I personally think we should limit it to 2. I don't see a strong reason for not doing that. If someone comes up with a case needing more than 2 sides, we'll go back to maxOccurs=unbounded. What do other people think? Best Regards, -Marc +1-212-901-6028 From: matthew.d.rawlings@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:matthew.d.rawlings@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:38 PM To: mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue Maybe we need to be clearer that additional fees aren't legs? Matthew Rawlings +44 791 539 7824 Brian Lynn <brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 11/01/2006 20:37 Please respond to mwg To: mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: matthew.d.rawlings@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue Usually a swap with three streams or more will still involve the same two sides. On the other hand, sometimes there are additional fees or payments with a different party, and this might involve additional sides. (Occasionally firms will represent these additional payments as additional streams, contradicting my first comment). For this reason I think that you can't necessarily constrain the number of sides, though it would be reasonably rare that you would need more than two. Brian Lynn, CTO Global Electronic Markets, http://global-emarkets.com High-speed FpML matching, reconciliation, and validation: http://fpml-mediator.com From: Marc Gratacos [mailto:MGratacos@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:25 PM To: mwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: matthew.d.rawlings@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: FpML-MWG40 tradeSide issue All, See tradeSide issue reported by Matthew Rawlings: "The cardinality of tradeSide under trade ( //trade/tradeSide), should be "0..2". Currently the cardinality is 0 to unlimited." http://www.fpml.org/issues/view.php?id=158 Wouldn't be possible to have a swap with, for example, three or more streams, each one having a different tradeSide? Let me know your opinion on this. Thanks a lot, -Marc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mwg-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: mwg-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mwg-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: mwg-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>