Posted on behalf of Sourabh, Rathi from BAML:
On behalf of BAML, we welcome the APAC Client Facilitation Proposal submitted by the committee. We are broadly supportive of adding new value in existing FIX tag ExecInst (18) for buy side to explicitly provide the facilitation consent on FIX ticket. As stated in the proposal, we agree that using an existing FIX tag that supports multiple character value is simplified approach to implement consent for both buy side vendors and sell side.
After going through the proposal, we would like to submit our feedback and questions as below:
Is the expectation that this tag/value pair is used to initiate a facil request or confirm an agreement? If it is to confirm the agreement, the value ‘Allow Facilitation’ can be misinterpreted as it doesn’t sufficiently represent the agreement. Ideally, facilitation is marked to indicate a handshake as opposed to a one-sided value published on new order or amend.
Consultation and explicit agreement with SFC on implementation
Can you confirm that the proposed solution has been already reviewed by SFC and given in principle confirmation for industry to implement tag 18 instruction as explicit client consent? Are there any further guidance on the level of details to be additionally captured in consent over and above the FIX tag instruction?
Tag 29 (Last capacity)
We suggest that proposal should state explicitly that there is no change to the tag 29 (last capacity) on facilitation trades to the client. This will continue to follow the industry practice (for APAC at least) of sending value = “3” i.e. cross as principal, when trade is facilitated.
Solution Market scope
We recommend that proposal of sending facilitation instruction should not be limited/confined to HK market; however, extended as general practice for other markets. Given most of the sell side firms staff are based in Hong Kong, guidance would be in general applicable for APAC markets traded out of HK.