Can someone please direct me to formal FIX guidance on MiFIDII Transaction Reporting Requirements for the AK message. The updated PT guideslines include details for Commission Unbundling but they don’t, for example, show inclusion of PartyRole=73 in NoPartyIDs for Exchange. Also re: provision of LEI codes in NoPartyIDs PartyRole=1. If firms are currently sending BIC codes should these be replaced with the LEI code? It doesn’t appear that either BIC or LEI codes could be provided as an additional alternate identifier and I don’t believe you can have two instances of 452=1 in the group. Thanks for your help. Vanessa
Just a quick reply on your assumption “I don’t believe you can have two instances of 452=1 in the group”. You can have multiple party instances with the same PartyRole(452) to convey alternate identifiers of a given party. You simply use different values of PartyIDSource(447), i.e. B=BIC and N=LEI. Your Rules of Engagement should point out the fact that there may be more than once instance for party roles x,y,z,…
I cannot speak for the guidelines developed by the FIX Regulatory Subgroups, i.e. whether the LEI should be additional or simply replacing the BIC if currently sent. Backward compatibility is easier if it is additional and firms can switch over at their own pace.
Thank you Hanno I did not know that. If that’s the case then I can follow up separately on other. How can I send message directed to Confirm working group?
I will ask the FIX Program Office to point out this thread to the right working group. The forum should be used for all answers to allow everybody to benefit from them, i.e. please simply start a new thread for an additional question. If your firm is a FIX member, you can also join the working group directly.