Imported from previous forum
[ original email was from carl weir - carl.weir@uk.abnamro.com ]
Dear all,
My question is this. Has anyone come across a problem whereby a Cash Equities Traders; Sales Traders require the CLient to send an agreed acronym so that the Sales Traders from the Client to the End User know whom specifically is recieving and sending the Order?
I know that it could be done in AUTEX ATR by using END-POINT ACRONYMS, but how could it be done in BLOOMBERG, McGRTEGOR, and RITD?
The best solution would have to be the use of a common field that can be interacted with any Vendor?
Any comments whether single or multiple Vendor specific would be gratefully recieved.
Thanks & regards,
Carl Weir
ABN AMRO
[ original email was from Gideon Low - gideon@corefix.com ]
Carl,
At least for identifying the sending trader, I’ve seen this implemented most frequently with the SubID tags. A much more sensible solution is to use the LocationID tags. Perhaps a future release of the protocol could standardize on a “TraderID” tag, as LocationID seems intended more for identifying a geographic group within an organization rather than an individual.
As a practical matter, your best approach is probably to abstract this logic in your code to be able to read/send the values from/to a variety of tags, or to consider a service bureau solution that handles such normalization issues transparently.
Gideon Low
CoreFIX, LLC
> Dear all,
>
> My question is this. Has anyone come across a problem whereby a Cash Equities Traders; Sales Traders require the CLient to send an agreed acronym so that the Sales Traders from the Client to the End User know whom specifically is recieving and sending the Order?
>
> I know that it could be done in AUTEX ATR by using END-POINT ACRONYMS, but how could it be done in BLOOMBERG, McGRTEGOR, and RITD?
>
> The best solution would have to be the use of a common field that can be interacted with any Vendor?
>
> Any comments whether single or multiple Vendor specific would be gratefully recieved.
>
> Thanks & regards,
>
> Carl Weir
> ABN AMRO
>
I concur that I have most frequently seen this implemented via the SenderSubID field.
As far as the suggestion "a future release of the protocol could…" FIX 4.3 added PartyRole (tag 452) with a value of "12" which identifies "Executing Trader (associated with Executing Firm - acutally executes)" for the sellside if you will. PartyRole with a value of "11" represents "Order Origination Trader (associated with Order Origination Fimr - e.g. trader who initiates/submits the order)" for the buyside if you will.
> Carl,
>
> At least for identifying the sending trader, I’ve seen this implemented most frequently with the SubID tags. A much more sensible solution is to use the LocationID tags. Perhaps a future release of the protocol could standardize on a “TraderID” tag, as LocationID seems intended more for identifying a geographic group within an organization rather than an individual.
>
> As a practical matter, your best approach is probably to abstract this logic in your code to be able to read/send the values from/to a variety of tags, or to consider a service bureau solution that handles such normalization issues transparently.
>
> Gideon Low
> CoreFIX, LLC
>
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > My question is this. Has anyone come across a problem whereby a Cash Equities Traders; Sales Traders require the CLient to send an agreed acronym so that the Sales Traders from the Client to the End User know whom specifically is recieving and sending the Order?
> >
> > I know that it could be done in AUTEX ATR by using END-POINT ACRONYMS, but how could it be done in BLOOMBERG, McGRTEGOR, and RITD?
> >
> > The best solution would have to be the use of a common field that can be interacted with any Vendor?
> >
> > Any comments whether single or multiple Vendor specific would be gratefully recieved.
> >
> > Thanks & regards,
> >
> > Carl Weir
> > ABN AMRO
> >
>
[ original email was from Brian Gay - bgay@bloomberg.net ]
Bloomberg’s order routing FIX interfaces use SenderSubId to identify the individual sending the order. However, it is not an agreed upon acronym that we send, but Bloomberg’s numeric representation of the user’s workstation.
> Dear all,
>
> My question is this. Has anyone come across a problem whereby a Cash Equities Traders; Sales Traders require the CLient to send an agreed acronym so that the Sales Traders from the Client to the End User know whom specifically is recieving and sending the Order?
>
> I know that it could be done in AUTEX ATR by using END-POINT ACRONYMS, but how could it be done in BLOOMBERG, McGRTEGOR, and RITD?
>
> The best solution would have to be the use of a common field that can be interacted with any Vendor?
>
> Any comments whether single or multiple Vendor specific would be gratefully recieved.
>
> Thanks & regards,
>
> Carl Weir
> ABN AMRO
>