FpML Issues Tracker

614: ird-6 requires a precondition of hasInitialStub

February 29, 2008

closed

Minor

Always

Validation Rules

Admin

None

Summary

" (Mandatory) Preconditions: isParametric paymentDates/firstPaymentDate > calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate. "

The problem is that firstPaymentDate is an optional element. The firstPaymentDates only apply for legs with an initial stub.

I suggest either we add a 'precondition' for ird-6 that the swapStream "hasInitialStub".

Notes:

  • matthew

    03/27/08 9:53 pm

    Assigning to VWG and PF-W.

  • andrew

    04/22/08 2:10 pm

    How about

    Preconditions: isParametric

    If paymentDates/firstPaymentDate and calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate both exist then paymentDates/firstPaymentDate > calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate.

    Also addresses issue #615

  • iyermakova

    05/20/08 1:53 pm

    ValWG 2008-05-20: agreement to make the change to have both Preconditions: isParametric and hasInitialStub

  • lyteck

    07/14/08 8:48 pm

    fixed as proposed:
    – added “hasInitialStub” condition
    – added local condition as suggested by Andrew (though, I don’t see how it addresses 615)

  • matthewdr

    08/12/08 4:37 pm

    The problem with the resolution was the all the proposals were implemented rather than just the proposal selected by the VWG.

    Currently:

    ird-6 (Mandatory)
    Context: InterestRateStream (complex type)
    [isParametric] [hasInitialStub] [if both paymentDates/firstPaymentDate and calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate exist]

    As it was supposed to be according to the VWG:

    ird-6 (Mandatory)
    Context: InterestRateStream (complex type)
    [isParametric] [hasInitialStub]

    Please implement as per the VWG’s decision.

  • h_mcallister

    08/18/08 2:37 pm

    Please note, the precondition that the swapStream “hasInitialStub” does not guarantee the existence of firstPaymentDate.
    The schema annotation states “This element must only be included if there is an initial stub” – but it does not assert that firstPaymentDate is always produced where there is an initial stub.

  • matthewdr

    08/19/08 4:49 pm

    Based on Harry’s feedback we need to reconsider this. I believe what Harry is saying is that the definition of hasInitialStub is incorrect.


    Condition: hasInitialStub
    (context: InterestRateStream) paymentDates/firstPaymentDate exists.

    I suggest we remove the condition “hasInitialStub”. Then we change the rule to say:


    ird-6 (Mandatory)
    Context: InterestRateStream (complex type)
    [isParametric] [paymentDates/firstPaymentDate exists] [calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate exists]
    paymentDates/firstPaymentDate > calculationPeriodDates/effectiveDate/unadjustedDate.

  • matthewdr

    08/19/08 4:52 pm

    re-opening because of the feedback from Harry.

  • lyteck

    08/19/08 6:10 pm

    fixed as last proposed by Matthew (removed condition hasInitialStub).

  • matthewdr

    08/20/08 9:23 am

    Closing after review.

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.