FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
Always
Architecture
Admin
andrew
Summary
The coordination committee is currently discussing how the trade execution time should be represented in FpML. This comes from MiFID regulations. Some architectural questions were raised while discussing how we should represent time in FpML:
1. Should Parties have different views of time?
2. Should the clock issuing the time be identified?
3. Can we allow multiple elements (i.e. multiple clock identifiers) to represent the source of another element (i.e. time information)?
Notes:
mgratacos
09/06/07 10:05 am
mgratacos
10/17/07 9:55 pm
mgratacos
10/18/07 1:28 pm
The tolerance of the time between the point when the deal is executed and the deal is entered into the system will depend on the time window specified by the regulator.
matthewdr
02/20/08 12:57 pm
“The tolerance of the time between the point when the deal is executed and the deal is entered into the system will depend on the time window specified by the regulator.” – but:
1. There is usually more than one regulator.
2. Not all processes are regulated.
It doesn’t really matter what it is, as long as it is agreed, known, and the business process can work with it.
ISO 20022 Message Transport Characteristics make Clock Divergence From UTC part of the Message Transport Mode. I suggest we do the same.
mgratacos
02/21/08 2:24 pm
AWG 2008-02-21: the ability to record execution time was provided. We consider this issue closed until we get feedback from implementations.