FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Tweak
Have not tried
Architecture
XAPWG
MAZA
None
Summary
Good evening FpML experts.
I have a question about the onBehalfOf element, which is located in the dataDocument element (swaption instrument schema).
The annotation to the element says the following: Indicates which party (and accounts) a trade is being processed for.
Plese help me with such questions regarding this element:
1) Am I correct in my understanding that this element can be used to identify, in particular e.g. the owner of the portfolio or portfolio management party in a trade swaption/swap transaction?
2) Can this element serve as an entry point for a software that uses FpML to define on whose behalf the trade is executed in the system?
3) Should the href attribute in the onBehalfOf element coincide with href attribute, for example, in the
/dataDocument/trade/swaption/buyerPartyReference element
or
with href in the /dataDocument/trade/swaption/sellerPartyReference element
and determine in this way whether the party specified in the onBehalfOf element represents the buy side or represents the sell side?
Hope for your cooperation as usual.
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
Maksym
Notes:
mgratacos
06/23/23 10:11 am
Some background info on onBehalfOf. The scenario onBehalfOf is trying to resolve is when an intermediary is sending the two sides of the same trade on behalf of two separate parties. The intermediary could send the messages to a third party and the two messages would look identical. The third party would not be able to tell whether they are duplicate messages or two messages representing the two sides of the same trade. There is ambiguity. The onBehalfOf tries to resolve this ambiguity.
So the function of onBehalfOf is to explicitly indicate that the message is being sent from the perspective of a specific party.
MAZA
06/30/23 10:51 am
Good evening, thank you very much for your reply.
I did not quite understand your answer in the context of duplicates.
Can we analyze the function of this element on a simulated example.
Lets assume we have the following extract from the trade:
<dataDocument>
<onBehalfOf>
<partyReference href=”Coca-Colla”/>
</onBehalfOf>
<trade>
<tradeHeader>
<partyTradeIdentifier>
<partyReference href=”Coca-Colla”/>
<tradeId tradeIdScheme=”http://anyURI.com”>S712008</tradeId>
</partyTradeIdentifier>
<partyTradeIdentifier>
<partyReference href=”PepsiCo”/>
<tradeId tradeIdScheme=”http://anyURI.com”>S712009</tradeId>
</partyTradeIdentifier>
<tradeDate id=”tradeDate”>2018-09-17</tradeDate>
</tradeHeader>
<swaption>
<buyerPartyReference href=”Coca-Colla”/>
<sellerPartyReference href=”PepsiCo”/>
<premium>
<payerPartyReference href=”Coca-Colla”/>
<receiverPartyReference href=”PepsiCo”/>
<paymentAmount>
<currency>EUR</currency>
<amount>100000</amount>
</paymentAmount>
<paymentDate id=”paymentDate”>
<adjustedDate>2018-09-19</adjustedDate>
</paymentDate>
<paymentType>Forward_premium</paymentType>
</premium>
Questions:
1) The onBehalOf element in this code says that the trade is filled on behalf of “Coca-Colla”, which is also the “buyer” of the swaption and “payer” of the premium ? Is this true?
2) When we see such a document, is it true that we should perceive that it is filled out (e.g. somewhere in their intermediary system) on behalf of Coca-Cola?
At the same time, if the onBehalOf element contained “Pepsi”, then the content of the document would be the same, but we would understand with the help of onBehalOf that this trade was received from “Pepsi”.
Thank you,
Regards, Maksym
MAZA
09/12/23 2:52 am
Closed.
Thank you.