RE: FpML-VALU changes to position model

The changes are relatively minor, including some minor structural changes, some increased optionality, and some additional identification information.

If anyone has any questions, comments, or objections to this change, please circulate them to the list (note the new email address for the list).

If there are significant issues raised with this by Friday, we’ll schedule a meeting for next week to review this in more detail.

Also, if anyone has any other issues or proposals that they’d like to raise, please let me know and/or circulate to the group. I’d be happy to hold a meeting if we have anything substantial to discuss.

Brian Lynn, CTO

Global Electronic Markets, http://global-emarkets.com

High-speed FpML matching, reconciliation, and validation:

http://fpml-mediator.com

From: prwg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:prwg@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Gratacos
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:49 AM
To: prwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FpML-VALU changes to position model

All,

The Business Process Working Group is working on having an FpML representation for portfolio reconciliation. One of the tasks has been to review the current position representation defined by this group because we wanted to reuse the same representation for portfolio reconciliation. We have identified some potential changes to the Position type.

Position_current.jpg is the current position representation in 4.2 defined by this working group.
Positon_new.jpg is the new proposed position representation defined by the Business Process Working Group, which will be used for position reporting and portfolio reconciliation.

The changes include:

Removed containers scheduledDates and valuations since the architecture specification doesn’t recommend its use.
Made reportingRoles optional since for some portfolio reconciliation messages it’s not appropriate.
Added position identification elements: positionId, version.
Changed constituent content

Made choice structure optional for extensibility purposes.
Added positionVersionReference to reference the information of a submitted position.
Changed to a single partyTradeIdentifier block to reduce ambiguity.

Let me know your thoughts.

Best regards,

-Marc