[This message was posted by Dean Kauffman of Brookpath <[email protected]> to the "4.4 Changes" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/17. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/be17fadc - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Further to Jim's response: A two-phase messaging process is useful when a front-end system or ATS must accept allocation instructions (by sending a calculated Allocation Report) then hand off the trade to a back end or clearing system to book the allocation instances. As account issues are resolved one-by-one the back end will trigger individual Confirmation messages. This was the business model that proposed Confirmation back in 4.4. Dean > > Hi, > > > > Wanted to get a better handle on the benefits we achieve by splitting the > > allocation and confirm messages vs having confirms be handled by allocation > > message? > > > > Is it to allow confirmations at an allocation account/trade level vs block > > level? > > > > Checking to see if there are other benefits? > > > > Thanks. > > Rich > > Hello > > The ability to use separate messages was provided simply because that's how > people are used to it, particularly in equities. However the allocation > report message was designed to include all the details available on the > confirmation messages, so you can actually use either. > > I wouldn't say there are benefits either way - just use whichever model suits > your business (and is supported by the people you'll be messaging!). > > Jim. [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.
