Philip Westpfel
27 February 2017 4:29pm
Afternoon.
Can anyone confirm the range of the changes to TAG 29 please. Is this a global change impacting the entire FIX protocol or is this limited to the MiFID region please. If the former how is the US dealing with US centric processes linked to dealing capacity?
Hanno Klein
27 February 2017 4:48pm
Changes to tags always apply globally but are always optional as it is unlikely that they are mandatory around the world. Local regimes as well as regional ones like MiFID will then make certain elements mandatory. The US may have different regulatory requirements and hence have a different view on what they want to see in a dealing capacity. FIX is trying to make tags globally applicable by trying to understand the semantics behind the different terminologies used in Europe, Americas and Asia. FIX is not the superset of all terminologies out there. Elaborations are often used to reference other terms for the same “thing”, especially in the current MiFID II context.
Carl Erdly
21 April 2017 1:26pm
Hello,
Lots of discussions of late on the level of detail and consistency between buy and sell side reports for transaction reporting, all relating to Trade Capacity. Most, if not all of our trades (buy side) are Riskless Principal, but I’m hesitant to assume that we are definitely in the clear for NOT reporting market-side incremental fills until we get confirmation from our brokers on how they will client-side report them. How is everyone else pursuing this issue? I’m working with our dealing desk to reach out directly to brokers and find out what their client-side reporting will look like.
Carl Erdly
15 May 2017 2:30pm
Sending a follow up to my own post. We now have clarity that at least some of our brokers will be dealing in MTCH or AOTC which will require fill level reporting, and that for each individual fill that is reportable, the FIX tag Transaction Reporting Venue ID will be populated. Could you please refer me to which proposal this is detailed? I’m working with my OMS provider to have them build in this logic into their processing…
Hanno Klein
16 May 2017 2:09pm
Please refer to EP222, new value 5=“Trading venue transaction identifier” for RegulatoryTradeIDType(1906) with the following elaboration: “Assigned by the trading venue to a transaction. In the context of ESMA RTS 22 and RTS 24, this is an unique transaction identification “number generated by trading venues and disseminated to both the buying and selling parties in accordance with Article 12 of [RTS 24 on the maintenance of relevant data relating to orders in financial instruments under Article 25 of Regulation 600/2014 EU].” (quoted text from RTS 22). “Uniqueness” may be defined per relevant regulations.”
Robert Mitchell
16 May 2017 5:14pm
Will RegulatoryTransactionType (2347) be expanded to include “the regulatory mandate or rule that the transaction complies with.”?
Robert Mitchell
19 May 2017 11:10pm
Hanno, Any idea if/when MiFID2 working group might add “MiFID2 regulated” value to RegulatoryTransactionType (2347)?