[This message was posted by Robert Mitchell of NYU <[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/380e21da - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Thanks Lisa. Is there a link you can send me that would help me understand the expected format of such a proposal and the mechanics of getting it in front of the GFIC? > Now you're talking. If you can give us a list of the FIX message where > you feel FinancingDetails should be added because it is not there, we > would consider it. The process would be for you to submit a proposal for > this to be added to the messages and why (e.g. illustrate the business > requirements or the business you're trying to support) to the Global > Fixed Income Committee since Repos fall under their purview. > > At the time FinancingDetails was created it was part of an initiative > that focused only on trading, thus the reason this component is not in > the market data and security definition messages. There was no > requirement for it back in 2003 when this component block was added to > the specification. > > > I guess you are referring to Quote and IOI. But those are conceptually > > very different from SecurityDefinitionRequest and MarketDataRequest. > > If and when REPO markets go to an exchange model aren't you going to > > have to be able to quote GC REPOs of different tenors? How can you do > > that if you can't specify the FinancingDetails in the Instrument? > > > > > When this was designed we do not feel any of the fields in the > > > FinancialDetails component should be part of the core Instrument > > > block. That said, FinancingDetails component exists in a lot of > > > different messages already where Instrument component also exists. > > > Nothing prevents you from using the fields in FinancingDetails in > > > conjunction with the Instrument block to define your > > > "standardized" repo. > > > > > > Like I said in my earlier reply, if you find you need the > > > FinancingDetails block in a message where it doesn't exist let us > > > know and we will consider adding it. > > > > > > > So, does anyone know why FinancingDetails shouldn't be part of the > > > > Instrument? We have all the fields that allow one to specify an > > > > Instrument as a REPO, Product (460), SecurityType (167), > > > > SecuritySubType > > > > (762), but there is no way to indicate the TerminationType (788) > > > > or the Start and End Dates (916, 917) or the other fields of > > > > <FinancingDetails>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, I want to be able to accept orders and provide market > > > > > data quote updates on a standard overnight gcf repo. > > > > > > > > > > > The FinancingDetails component block is a separate component > > > > > > block from the Instrument component block. The > > > > > > FinancingDetails component block is in many messages including > > > > > > IOI, Order messages, Quote messages, TradeCapture messages. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which messages are you looking to use? By "standardize a > > > > > > financing arrangement" are you looking to defined a > > > > > > "standardized" repo to be traded? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to be able to offer clients a standard ON REPO. The > > > > > > > problem I'm running into is the lack of a FinancingDetails > > > > > > > block in the Instrument definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FinancingDetails is associated only with IOIs and > > > > > > > NewOrder... messages. Is there any way in the existing > > > > > > > specification to standardize a financing arrangement as an > > > > > > > Instrument? [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.
