Imported from previous forum
[ original email was from Dean Kauffman - dean.kauffman@tradeweb.com ]
From Jim Northey:
Could we talk one more time about permitting optional specification of a per contract quantity as opposed to only permitting par value quantity specifications for trading. We have been getting quite a bit of push back from the firm in the UK and we also had push back from NASD. The problem is that the reference data bases are not always available and not always accurate.
Response from Dean Kauffman:
We can reinstate QtyType as long as we restrict its use to a very short list of enum values and request it not to be used in equities or fixed income trading or reporting.
[ original email was from Kevin Houstoun - kevin.houstoun@ssmb.com ]
This issue has been assigned ID PC20030411_18 and will be discussed by the Global Technical Committee
> From Jim Northey:
>
> Could we talk one more time about permitting optional specification of a per contract quantity as opposed to only permitting par value quantity specifications for trading. We have been getting quite a bit of push back from the firm in the UK and we also had push back from NASD. The problem is that the reference data bases are not always available and not always accurate.
>
> Response from Dean Kauffman:
>
> We can reinstate QtyType as long as we restrict its use to a very short list of enum values and request it not to be used in equities or fixed income trading or reporting.
>
>