[This message was posted by John Prewett of Lava Trading (Citi) <[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/75fb1e0a - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> Interesting question...yes, I'm lurking, too :-) > > Taking your hypothetical literally (entity receives iceberg order with > instructions to send the order to a specific venue that does not support > iceberg orders), I might have made a different business decision with respect > to order handling. > > I would wonder, "Does the sender fail to understand that his intended > destination provides no support for these order types or did he simply > specify the wrong destination, intending this order instead for a venue that > does support iceberg orders?" > > Further, as the SOR operator, I would be concerned about exercising > discretion not granted to me. Simulating the behavior of an iceberg at the > SOR level may produce different business results than would be obtained were > the order handled as instructed. For example, what if the undisplayed > liquidity counts toward a liquidity-provision requirement that would not be > satisfied by the drip handling of the SOR. > > My inclination would be to reject an order that cannot be handled as > instructed, providing an appropriate reject code. > > Just another perspective... > > Best, > John All valid points. I would hope that a SOR that behaved in the manner I described was well document to its customers so that its behavior was precisely what should be expected. Thanks JohnP [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.
