FpML Issues Tracker

37: FpML 2.0 – Proposal To Move To Recommendation

June 5, 2002

closed

Minor

Always

Documentation

hpegeron

hpegeron

Summary

At the last Standards Committee meeting there was alot of feedback of implementations of FpML 2.0. As a result it being proposed to move FpML 2.0 to Recommendation. Are there any objections from anyone in this group to such a move ? If so please state the reasons why we should not move to Recommendation.

Steven

Notes:

  • hpegeron

    04/13/05 6:21 pm

    Steven,

    At SwapsWire we are using the FpML 1.0 Recommendation and components from FpML
    2.0. We currently limit ourselves to the Swap product but are making extensive
    use of the FpML 2.0 ‘earlyTerminationProvision’ component and the associated
    mandatory components of its sub-components (e.g. mandatory/optional early
    termination, european exercise, bermudan exercise, american exercise, cash
    settlement). In the attached Word document I have identified some minor
    changes we found necessary which I think are worth considering for
    incorporation into the Trial Recommendation.

    I have also raised one issue relating to the inconsistency of naming between
    FpML 2.0 and the 2000 ISDA Definitions, i.e. Bermuda (ISDA) vs Bermudan (FpML).

    Regards
    Guy

  • hpegeron

    04/13/05 6:21 pm

    Hi,

    Further to Guys mail, we in Merrill Lynch have implemented a SwapsWire
    feed. The core part (the translator) is currently being used for some
    simple trade capture, so we are already using FpML 1.0. I have been
    supervising technical and archtiectural parts of MLs SwapsWire feed. We
    are still waiting for the messaging part to get sorted out, but that
    is another story!

    We are in the process of extending this for FpML 2.0 and have the basic
    infrastructure in place for it. We have a use for it internally for
    content based routing for the flow business, and I am in negotiations
    at a global level to use this for front/back office communication e.g.
    confirmation generation. Again, we have translation work in place and
    are leveraging that.

    However, we could really do with a push on the credit derivatives side:
    if this was somewhere in the spec/in the near future it would have massive
    cross business area benefits.

    I also concur with Guy about little and not so little differences
    between FpML 1.0 and 2.0 which do not retrofit as easily as one would
    want eg. it makes them a bit awkward to fit them in exactly the same
    architectural framework, but it is possible to do so.

    Regards,
    Andrew Addison

    • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.

    Report an Issue

    The FpML Issues Tracker is designed to facilitate public interaction in the standard.

    By registering you will be able to submit corrections and comments, generate reports, and view the complete issues archive for FpML.

    Report Issue