Imported from previous forum
If we are dealing in covered warrants is there any reason why we could not use the fields used to describe option characteristics (strike, put/call, underlying, expiry, etc)to desrcibe the same characteristics of warrants? Or would new fields be neccessary to describe the same characteristics for a different instrument class?
[ original email was from Jim Northey - jnorthey@lasalletech.com ]
This information on covered warrants came from a previous discussion group response:
Covered warrants are essentially options. They have a strike price, put/call indicator and expiry date in addition to the symbol. If you don’t handle options in your implementation to date, you’ll need additional tags.
Unless you support 4.2 style security definitions, market data etc. not just simple order/execution type messages, you won’t need to expand the message set you support just to handle warrants.
Based upon the above information you would want to used the FIX 4.2 options tags for covered warrants. NOTE: for FIX 4.2 we only have defined "WAR" for SecurityType[167].
For FIX 4.3 - we need to make sure we account for Covered Warrants (as there appears to be more than one group using FIX for covered warrants). Hopefully - we can use the new field CFICode for this purpose.
Hope this helps.
> If we are dealing in covered warrants is there any reason why we could not use the fields used to describe option characteristics (strike, put/call, underlying, expiry, etc)to desrcibe the same characteristics of warrants? Or would new fields be neccessary to describe the same characteristics for a different instrument class?
>