[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/4240e123 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
It is unlikely that there will be a formal answer from the GTC on this matter here in the forum. In general it is best practice to echo back the input values of a new order to support drop copies. If drop copies are not needed then you might get back fewer fields. It is also best practice to restate an order back to the submitter in case of unsolicited changes. The restatement can affect price, quantity or other order attributes such as order type. However, this says nothing about whether the recipient must or must not change the order type in case of a stop order being triggered. This goes all the way to the core of the matching engine that does it one way or another. The TriggerInstruction component block is an explicit request to change the order type and is thus more obvious. It is much less obvious for "legacy" FIX systems with FIX 4.2 or 4.4 and should there be left to bilateral agreement in my view. > Does FPL/GTC have a view as to what the best practice is? Should the > order type be changed when stop orders (and other such contingent > orders) are triggered? Or, as there may not be a consensus, is this a > matter that FPL/GTC feel should be left for the parties to agree on in > the rules of engagement? [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.
