Imported from previous forum
Hi,
We have come across a unique case where the status of the order is changed from partial fill to New. As per my understanding this should not happen. Please help to clarify.
Following is an example:
For an order there is a trade which has resulted in partial fill. This trade is removed from the order which resulted in no executions.
Regards,
Shakir
Hi Shakir,
If trade cancels can happen with reinstatements (executed qty added back to the book upon cancellation), your scenario in question is valid. Though certain systems may deny to communicate it as Order status = NEW, in a case where …
Order Qty = Leaves Qty the order status should be NEW.
Rgds,
Thaya.
Hi,
We have come across a unique case where the status of the order is
changed from partial fill to New. As per my understanding this should
not happen. Please help to clarify.Following is an example: For an order there is a trade which has
resulted in partial fill. This trade is removed from the order which
resulted in no executions.Regards, Shakir
Thanks Thaya.
Does this confirm to FIX? As you pointed out that certain systems may deny, then it would create issue in handling multiple connectivities.
Regards,
Shakir
Hi Shakir,
If trade cancels can happen with reinstatements (executed qty added back
to the book upon cancellation), your scenario in question is valid.
Though certain systems may deny to communicate it as Order status = NEW,
in a case where …Order Qty = Leaves Qty the order status should be NEW.
Rgds, Thaya.
Hi,
We have come across a unique case where the status of the order is
changed from partial fill to New. As per my understanding this should
not happen. Please help to clarify.Following is an example: For an order there is a trade which has
resulted in partial fill. This trade is removed from the order which
resulted in no executions.Regards, Shakir
Shakir,
My view is, it conforms to FIX. Here is an extract from the FIX 4.2 specs :-
“A Cancel on an execution (trade bust) happening the same day of the trade will result in CumQty and
DayCumQty each decreasing by the quantity busted, and LeavesQty increasing by the quantity busted.
OrderQty and DayOrderQty will remain unchanged. If the business rules allow for a trade bust to be
reported on a later date than the trade being busted, the OrderQty and DayCumQty will remain
unchanged, the LeavesQty and DayOrderQty will increase by the quantity busted, and the CumQty will
decrease by the quantity busted.”
If the leaves can be increased in this manner, for a bust that results in Order Qty = Leaves implies, the order status is NEW.
What I meant by “deny” is that some systems, keep the order status in PFILL, even when this condition is met. I think if your system is an “Order Router” you must ignore the exchange stamped order status, and display a FIX compliant order status all the time for your clients. i.e NEW.
Hope this helped. I couldn’t find a order status change matrix table for trade bust resulting in Order Qty = Leaves Qty. Hard luck!
Rgds,
Thaya.
Thanks Thaya.
Does this confirm to FIX? As you pointed out that certain systems may
deny, then it would create issue in handling multiple connectivities.Regards, Shakir
Hi Shakir,
If trade cancels can happen with reinstatements (executed qty added
back to the book upon cancellation), your scenario in question is
valid. Though certain systems may deny to communicate it as Order
status = NEW, in a case where …Order Qty = Leaves Qty the order status should be NEW.
Rgds, Thaya.
Hi,
We have come across a unique case where the status of the order is
changed from partial fill to New. As per my understanding this
should not happen. Please help to clarify.Following is an example: For an order there is a trade which has
resulted in partial fill. This trade is removed from the order which
resulted in no executions.Regards, Shakir
I recently saw this situation in practice and someone referred me to a pre-existing discussion thread on this topic: http://www.fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/d2d9b88c
Shakir,
My view is, it conforms to FIX. Here is an extract from the FIX
4.2 specs :-“A Cancel on an execution (trade bust) happening the same day of the
trade will result in CumQty and DayCumQty each decreasing by the
quantity busted, and LeavesQty increasing by the quantity busted.
OrderQty and DayOrderQty will remain unchanged. If the business rules
allow for a trade bust to be reported on a later date than the trade
being busted, the OrderQty and DayCumQty will remain unchanged, the
LeavesQty and DayOrderQty will increase by the quantity busted, and the
CumQty will decrease by the quantity busted.”If the leaves can be increased in this manner, for a bust that results
in Order Qty = Leaves implies, the order status is NEW.What I meant by “deny” is that some systems, keep the order status
in PFILL, even when this condition is met. I think if your system is
an “Order Router” you must ignore the exchange stamped order status,
and display a FIX compliant order status all the time for your
clients. i.e NEW.Hope this helped. I couldn’t find a order status change matrix table for
trade bust resulting in Order Qty = Leaves Qty. Hard luck!Rgds, Thaya.
Thanks Thaya.
Does this confirm to FIX? As you pointed out that certain systems may
deny, then it would create issue in handling multiple connectivities.Regards, Shakir
Hi Shakir,
If trade cancels can happen with reinstatements (executed qty added
back to the book upon cancellation), your scenario in question is
valid. Though certain systems may deny to communicate it as Order
status = NEW, in a case where …Order Qty = Leaves Qty the order status should be NEW.
Rgds, Thaya.
Hi,
We have come across a unique case where the status of the order is
changed from partial fill to New. As per my understanding this
should not happen. Please help to clarify.Following is an example: For an order there is a trade which has
resulted in partial fill. This trade is removed from the order
which resulted in no executions.Regards, Shakir