[This message was posted by Hanno Klein of Deutsche Börse Systems 
<[email protected]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at 
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at 
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/929f7c1f - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]

It depends on the FIX version. As of FIX 4.3, the <Parties> block is available 
and recommended to convey business actors. The recommendation is to use 
SenderCompID and SenderSubID only for technical routing/validation of messages.

The <Parties> block has a PartyRole which can convey an Executing 
Firm/Desk/Trader which you can use for a hierarchy. It also has values for 
specific accounts but tag 1 (Account) is also fine. It depends a bit whether 
you want to keep this information together in a single component or scattered 
across multiple fields.

> Hi Pravin,
> 
> You are correct; that's the way the fields would map for the hierarchy
> you laid out. 49 is the broker/firm, 50 is the dealer/trader, and 1 is
> just the account, as you said.
> 
> Paul
> 
> > Consider the hierarchy - brokers -> dealers -> trading account
> >
> > For NewOrderSingle, i am guessing the corresponding FIX fields
> > would be:
> >
> > Broker = SenderCompID Dealer = SenderSubID Trading Account = Account
> >
> > Is this correct? Please confirm.


[You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to 
mailto:[email protected]]

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Financial Information eXchange" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.


  • [FIX] Re: ID fields 'General Q/A' forum at fixprotocol . org
    • [FIX] Re: ID fields 'General Q/A' forum at fixprotocol . org

Reply via email to