USI / UTI in TradeCaptureReports

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

I'm looking at adding USI & UTI to TradeCaptureReports.

I've checked the document : http://www.fixprotocol.org/documents/7302/RequlatoryTradeIDGrp%20for%20supporting%20Unique%20Swap%20Identifier%20

which appears to support and arbitary number of regulatory ids. However, there doesn't seem to be any way of distinguishing between the different regulatory sources. USI & UTI for DTCC & EMIR, for example. Has anyone any suggestions or I have missed something?

 

Cheers - Steve

3

Hi Steve

Here at HSBC we have had to create our own custom tags, as an example:

7602

Reg ID Jurisdiction

String

C*

Describes type of Regulatory ID used in the Reg ID leg 1 and Reg ID leg 2 fields.

E.g. EMIR, CFTC, EMIR+CFTC

4

Steve,

The source of the USI/UTI is the reporting party that issues the ID value, e.g. swap dealer, MSP, SEF, CCP, etc.  The identifier value that identifies the reporting entity that issued the USI goes into the RegulatoryTradeIDSource field (for example as it depends on which of the various "cloned" components you're using).  I haven't come across a requirement to indicate which regulator issued the reporting entity's ID.  If you feel there is a requirement here that is missing, is there an official place you can point me to that indicates as such?  e.g. Federal Register announcement, CFTC or EMIR rule.

 

Nadeem

I am concern with your use of the custom tag 7602 to me RegIDJurisdiction.  This tag has been registered by Weeden & Co. in FIX's user defined field database a long time ago to mean "WdnStartTime".  Reference this part of the website and search for the tag number: http://www.fixtradingcommunity.org/pg/structure/tech-specs/additional-resources/user-defined-fields/user-defined-fields-tab-3

5

Hi Lisa,

these TCRs are destined for our clients, not the regulators. For some of our trades we will need to report to multiple jurisdictions so we would potentially have both USI and UTI on the same report to the client. The messages being sent to the regulator are sent via a totally separate route. You may well be correct that the recipient can deduce which TradeID is for which jurisdiction based on the IssuerId, but it seems to add extra complexity when a field identifying the jurisdiction would seem to make it easier.