FpML Issues Tracker

686: sameCurrency is too strong a precondition for eqd-25

May 2, 2008

closed

Minor

Always

Equity Derivatives

Admin

apparry

Summary

eqd-25 is: " Context: BrokerEquityOption (complex type) eqd-25 (Mandatory) Preconditions: SameCurrency If numberOfOptions, equityPremium/paymentAmount and equityPremium/pricePerOption are present then: equityPremium/pricePerOption/amount * numberOfOptions = equityPremium/paymentAmount/amount. Comment: This is equivalent to eqd-20, but for brokerEquityOption, where there is no optionEntitlement. "

The precondition "SameCurrency" is too strong. The only items that must be the same currency are the pricePerOption and the paymentAmount. We shouldn't be checking the other items.

Writing out the rule correctly in XQuery gives: " (for $brokerEquityOption in //element(*, BrokerEquityOption)[fn:exists(numberOfOptions)][exists(equityPremium/paymentAmount)][exists(equityPremium/pricePerOption)][val:same-currency((equityPremium/paymentAmount,equityPremium/pricePerOption))] return ) "

With the precondition becoming a global function: " declare function val:same-currency($money as element()*) as xs:boolean (: Are all instances of a currency within these money elements are the same currency. In Saxon-SA the signature would be declare function val:same-currency($money as fpml:Money()*) as xs:boolean :) { (count(distinct-values($money/currency)) le 1) and (count(distinct-values($money/currency/@currencyScheme)) le 1) }; "

Following the FpML conventions this should be written out as: " Context: BrokerEquityOption (complex type)[fn:exists(numberOfOptions)][exists(equityPremium/paymentAmount)][exists(equityPremium/pricePerOption)][val:same-currency((equityPremium/paymentAmount,equityPremium/pricePerOption))] eqd-25 (Mandatory) equityPremium/pricePerOption/amount * numberOfOptions eq equityPremium/paymentAmount/amount. Comment: This is equivalent to eqd-20, but for brokerEquityOption, where there is no optionEntitlement. "

Notes:

  • matthewdr

    05/09/08 1:18 pm

    Discussed at EQDWG. Agreed to adopt the proposal.

  • mgratacos

    05/09/08 1:20 pm

    EQDWG 2008-05-09: agreement to what it is proposed to amend the rule.

  • iyermakova

    05/14/08 7:16 pm

    The way it is expressed needs to be checked by the Validation Working Group.

  • lyteck

    07/16/08 8:31 pm

    implemented as proposed using the new specs format.

  • matthewdr

    08/12/08 5:24 pm

    Accepting the resolution.

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.