Backport tag 1123 to FIX 4.4 TCR?

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

Hi All,

FIX 5.0 has a very good way to represent how the Trade Capture Report should be handled by the Respondent. Tag 1123 TradeHandlingInstr is used for this purpose. 1123 is for example used to differ between “One-Party Report for Matching” and “Two-party report”.

There is no good way in FIX 4.4 to represent the same thing. I have seen FIX 4.4 implementations using 856=1 (Alleged) to represent the correspondent to 1123=2 “One-Party Report for Matching” and 856=0 (Submit) to represent the correspondent to 1123=1 “Two-party report”.

I would like to use tag 1123 in FIX 4.4. What is the recommende practice here? Is it OK to use that tag as is or should we use a custom tag 20000+ with same enumerations for the same purpose?

Regards, Bernt Sandén

3

Bernt,

Nice to hear from you. In the FIX compliance guidelines we have a recommendation, not yet approved, that recommends that firms requiring fields from later versions of the FIX specification adopt those fields into their implementation, as opposed to using user defined fields.

So your idea here has merit and precedence in terms of industry practice.

Technically this practice is not yet officially approved by the GTC Governance Board, but I expect its approval given the number of markets that already have adopted this practice and it is certainly better than further proliferating custom fields.

Of course, ideally we would prefer you move up to FIX.5.0, but we understand that this is not always practical.

Best,
Jim N

Hi All,

FIX 5.0 has a very good way to represent how the Trade Capture Report
should be handled by the Respondent. Tag 1123 TradeHandlingInstr is used
for this purpose. 1123 is for example used to differ between “One-Party
Report for Matching” and “Two-party report”.

There is no good way in FIX 4.4 to represent the same thing. I have seen
FIX 4.4 implementations using 856=1 (Alleged) to represent the
correspondent to 1123=2 “One-Party Report for Matching” and 856=0
(Submit) to represent the correspondent to 1123=1 “Two-party report”.

I would like to use tag 1123 in FIX 4.4. What is the recommende practice
here? Is it OK to use that tag as is or should we use a custom tag
20000+ with same enumerations for the same purpose?

Regards, Bernt Sandén

4

Jim,

Thanks for the swift reply. It seem to be a reasonable practice. It would also cause less problems if/when upgrading from 4.4 to 5.0.

Cheers, Bernt

Bernt,

Nice to hear from you. In the FIX compliance guidelines we have a
recommendation, not yet approved, that recommends that firms requiring
fields from later versions of the FIX specification adopt those fields
into their implementation, as opposed to using user defined fields.

So your idea here has merit and precedence in terms of industry
practice.

Technically this practice is not yet officially approved by the GTC
Governance Board, but I expect its approval given the number of markets
that already have adopted this practice and it is certainly better than
further proliferating custom fields.

Of course, ideally we would prefer you move up to FIX.5.0, but we
understand that this is not always practical.

Best, Jim N

Hi All,

FIX 5.0 has a very good way to represent how the Trade Capture Report
should be handled by the Respondent. Tag 1123 TradeHandlingInstr is
used for this purpose. 1123 is for example used to differ between “One-
Party Report for Matching” and “Two-party report”.

There is no good way in FIX 4.4 to represent the same thing. I have
seen FIX 4.4 implementations using 856=1 (Alleged) to represent the
correspondent to 1123=2 “One-Party Report for Matching” and 856=0
(Submit) to represent the correspondent to 1123=1 “Two-party report”.

I would like to use tag 1123 in FIX 4.4. What is the recommende
practice here? Is it OK to use that tag as is or should we use a
custom tag 20000+ with same enumerations for the same purpose?

Regards, Bernt Sandén