Bust a fill from replaced order

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

First I would like to understand the benefits of cancel/replace over canceling and creating a new order. Is it because I can send in one “atomic” operation as opposed to sending in a cancel and having to wait for a “canceled” report before I can send a new order?

Secondly I’m wondering what is expected to happen if a execution system bust happens on a fill for the original, pre-replaced, order after the replace has already taken place? An example is:

Order A placed
Partial fill on order A
Cancel/Replace sent to replace A with B
Receive replaced message
Execution system busts partial fill on A

Thanks,
Nick

3

[ original email was from Tushar Deshpande - tushar.deshpande@citi.com ]
The atomic-operation point is valid. Secondly, an order could lose it’s place in the queue at the exchange if it’s canceled and a new one is entered. In the scenario you have mentioned, once the replaced message iis received, the order will be represented by B. Anyway an execution bust refers to the original execution using the ExecID of the original execution.

First I would like to understand the benefits of cancel/replace over
canceling and creating a new order. Is it because I can send in one
“atomic” operation as opposed to sending in a cancel and having to wait
for a “canceled” report before I can send a new order?

Secondly I’m wondering what is expected to happen if a execution system
bust happens on a fill for the original, pre-replaced, order after the
replace has already taken place? An example is:

Order A placed Partial fill on order A Cancel/Replace sent to replace A
with B Receive replaced message Execution system busts partial fill on A

Thanks, Nick

4

The atomic-operation point is valid. Secondly, an order could lose it’s
place in the queue at the exchange if it’s canceled and a new one is
entered. In the scenario you have mentioned, once the replaced message
iis received, the order will be represented by B. Anyway an execution
bust refers to the original execution using the ExecID of the original
execution.

First I would like to understand the benefits of cancel/replace over
canceling and creating a new order. Is it because I can send in one
“atomic” operation as opposed to sending in a cancel and having to
wait for a “canceled” report before I can send a new order?

Secondly I’m wondering what is expected to happen if a execution
system bust happens on a fill for the original, pre-replaced, order
after the replace has already taken place? An example is:

Order A placed Partial fill on order A Cancel/Replace sent to
replace A with B Receive replaced message Execution system busts
partial fill on A

Thanks, Nick
So a client sending in a cancel/replace message should still be able to handle cancels for order A after receiving the replace message? I would guess B’s cum quantity would be reduced when execution system bust one of A’s fills?

Thanks,
Nick