Imported from previous forum
Can anyone comment on the general acceptance and usage by exchanges or other trading venues of the CFI Code as a means to identify security type? I have not seem this myself as a means of identification, at least in the U.S. exchanges.
Thanks,
Jim
Can anyone comment on the general acceptance and usage by exchanges or
other trading venues of the CFI Code as a means to identify security
type? I have not seem this myself as a means of identification, at least
in the U.S. exchanges. Thanks, Jim
Jim,
There is widescale adoption of CFICode in the clearing side of US listed derivatives (both futures and options). On the trading side there is adoption in the buy-side to brokerage space.
However, the requirement for CFICode and the premature obsolescence of PutOrCall and SecType=FUT, OPT have caused issues for firms wanting to move from FIX.4.2 to FIX.4.4
So we voted and approved reinstatement of PutOrCall(tag 201) and SecurityType(tag 167) = FUT, OPT for FIX.4.4. We have already added these back into FIX.5.0 (via Service Pack 1). We will be releasing a Repository maintenance release sometime in 2009 that will re-introduce these fields into FIX.4.4 as part of a very small errata.
Overall, you will find that even within the ISO standards that there is a move to take a step back from CFICode. We will continue to maintain it within FIX for supplemental identification, not primary identification.
Alas, there are enough firms that have implemented CFICode that the re-introduction will cause disruption and rework.
Hi community,
coming back to this answer from 2008:
How is the situation today? We are going to add Futures and Options to our FIX Trading Adapter to forward the orders to our customers (banks) systems and this generic interface shall cover a broad range of different customer needs.
While 460/Product is not fine-grained enough, the field 461/CFICode seems to be very detailed.
The field 167/SecurityType appears quite established looking at e.g. EUREX FIX interface.
Please, could anybody elaborate how the situation is today?
Many thanks, Jörg
I also found this thread about the situation some years later:
http://forum.fixtrading.org/t/cfi-code-usage-in-fix-4-4-onwards/11543
with helpful comments from @ltaikit and @jim.northey.
I wonder how the situation has evolved until today.
@jorgthonnes the CFI Code is fully supported by FIX today. It has been revised by ISO last years (see here).
The FIX Reference Data Working Group published detailed guidelines for MiFID II data elements (see here, Appendix 3 - ESMA Asset Class and Sub Asset Class Taxonomy). This uses standard FIX fields like Product(460) and SecurityType(167) as an alternative to the externally defined CFICode(461) from ISO.
Thanks for the prompt reply.
So 460/Product and 167/SecurityType cover the most used (or all) combinations supported by the CFI Code?
Just downloaded the PDF file. Interestingly, the PDF stop at page 28 of 36,
exactly where the above mentioned Appendix 3 starts.
Please check whether there may be an issue with the PDF or the download.
Indeed, interesting, will need to ask the FIX Program Office to look into, thanks for pointing that out!
In the meantime, Chapter 2.1.1 also contains FIX mappings.
The document only covers the ESMA scope. I am not aware of any attempt to do a complete mapping between CFI Code and FIX. There should not be any major gaps.
@jorgthonnes I think we need to be careful here. None of this replaces one or the other, including what @gtcpm stated in the prior reply about what the RDWG did. One is not necessarily an alternative to another.
They all serve different purposes and can complement each other or used “stand alone”.
Hi Jörg,
there has been harsh critics over any of the existing taxonomy systems. Especially by the (so called “open”-) FIGI initiative supported by Bloomberg. Which has not made it through to a successful end in ISO committees. There is/was a djungle of different interests on the usage of standardization where roughly said on one hand is ISO and the EU regulatory and on the other side established financial industry practice. In GER also Wertpapiermitteilungen with its own taxonomy plays a rather unhelpful unhandy role. If of any interest you probably find some background information in this small paper from 2018 including an update from July 2019. https://www.beckmann-partner.de/news/die-standardisierung-in-der-finanzwirtschaft/
Regards Uli
2 Likes
Thanks, Uli. I will have a look at it.
Lisa’s point should be taken that nothing replaces one or the other. There are multiple methods for classification of Financial instruments. For various reasons, because of different needs that may not align across jurisdictions, strategies, firm type, and so forth. So the key is that FIX supports what the users may want to use.
I’m not sure why FIGI was brought up, as it is an instrument identifier, not a classification system. As a Bloomberg participant in many standards efforts - including CFI working groups at ISO I have chaired, I don’t think it is a correct representation to say harsh critic or imply CFI is not supported. Also, you can research the MIT Open Source license that is included inside the FIGI standard… it is open, not “so called”.
It is a good point on the different existing methodologies - and I would say that there is not one single established financial industry practice. Mainly because different firms will have nuanced differences the more specific you get about classifying something.
@gtcpm, just checking again: Now the file is completely unavailable. Is the FIX Program Office working on a complete version right now?