Imported from previous forum
Is there a FIX model specifying who should receive an update when an order is amended or cancelled by a third party ?
In such a scenario, it looks like most venues require the submitted of the amend/cancel request to receive the update, but not the owner of the order. However for certain venues where order amendment/cancelation is done by a third party (similar to a sponsored user), the owner may also require updates.
Is there an approach recommended by FIX protocol ?
Hi Chathura,
so far I am not aware of any recommended approach, even though FIX is being used by electronic venues such as exchanges by many years now and often in quite complex setups, including the ability of third parties handling orders they do not own.
The system architecture behind the interface determines the options you have for notification of owners about changes to their order requested by third parties. You have to distinguish between requests coming over the same session versus a different session (or GUI). In principal, there should be an unsolicited notification of the owner if the change is done over a different session. The request submitter should always get a direct response on the session he used for submission. There are also models out there where the owner of an order changes (automatically or upon request) to the submitter of a cancel/replace request. This can be useful whenever a trader is unavailable or has connectivity problems and someone else wants to take over the order. Often this is in the context of the regulator demanding that ownership needs to change to be able to attribute order handling to the person doing it.
Third parties can be sponsored users as you say but also fellow traders, senior/head traders or other special users. In general they should always be associated with the participant (Executing Firm) which limits the capabilities to that firm’s scope.
Regards,
Hanno.
Thanks a lot Hanno for the explanation.