I’ve been browsing the forums and online but can’t see any FIX based solutions for this issue.
The use case here is that we have various ETF providers who send orders to their brokers as a result of an ETF market maker (AP) requesting an ETF from the ETF provider.
In order to identify the flow as Create Redeem flow the broker needs to know which AP is requesting the ETF.
A client must request the ETF from an ETF Market Maker, the Market maker (AP) then sends the create request to the ETF provider who then must send the basket order to the broker with the AP identifier.
Does anyone know if there is a standard FIX tag for providing such information?
452 allows you to specify value 66 which is a Market Maker. The AP is in effect the market maker in this flow. So could 452=66, 448=, 447=D (Custom code), and 2376=23 (Firm)?
Tags 1 and 58 tend to get very overloaded with customer information and hence we are looking for a solution that scales across vendors and would work for any broker wanted to support this flow.
Thanks,
James
@jamespurnell44, PartyRole(452) = 66 (Market Maker) is the right one for workflows where this role needs to be identified. PartyIDSource(447) would be N=LEI in a regulatory context but your choice of D=Custom indicates that the market maker IDs are issued by a single party. Who issues the IDs in your case?
PartyRoleQualifier(2376) = 23 (Firm) is an optional field that was added with EP222 in the context of MiFID to distinguish between firms and natural persons (PartyRoleQualifier(2376) = 24) for roles such as investment decision makers, i.e. PartyRole(452) = 122. What is your usage intended to express? It is not required to be present.
Hanno,
Thanks for the response, it’s greatly appreciated.
The AP (ETF Market Maker) is just a firm name. There’s no regulatory context related to the name. The ETF Market Maker sends a request to the ETF Provider and it’s this ETF Provider who creates the orders that go to the broker. These order have the name of the ETF Market Maker (AP). This AP name must then match with the name of the AP that is sent post trade on the trade confirmations. So in effect the ETF Provider is accountable for making sure the AP name is identical in both the order and the confirm.
The same AP could send their order flow via another ETF Provider and that ETF Provider isn’t required (as there currently is no standard for this) to use the same AP name as the other provider. The important thing is that the AP name matches on both the orders and confirms. Hence whilst most RTF Providers are likely to use the same industry names it’s easier to keep this as a custom code rather than a legal entity. The legal entity also complicates matters as it adds extra required lookups and validation.
There is no natural person involved so as you say 2376 is not a requirement.
Would it be right to assume the flattened tag is for this would then be 20066 taking the 452=66 (Market Maker) value?
So essentially repeating group:
452=66, 448=‘The AP Name’, 447=D
or
20066=‘The AP Name’
Thanks again for your help.
James
@jamespurnell44, understand and thanks for the elaboration. Using 20066 as a workaround when unable to support the Parties component is a convention used by some venues in Europe. Others are using the 20xxx range of user-defined fields for other purposes, i.e. it needs to be bilaterally agreed to use 20066.
Thanks for confirming. Really appreciate the help
1 Like