fpml modeling task force february 6, 2008 fpml modeling task force february 6, 2008 speakers: karel...
TRANSCRIPT
FpML Modeling Task Force
February 6, 2008
FpML Modeling Task Force
February 6, 2008
Speakers: Karel Engelen, ISDA
Brian Lynn, Global Electronic MarketsMarc Gratacos, ISDA
And members of the MTF
Speakers: Karel Engelen, ISDA
Brian Lynn, Global Electronic MarketsMarc Gratacos, ISDA
And members of the MTF
2
AgendaAgenda
• Objectives of the presentation• Overview of Modeling Task Force• Product MTF• Messaging MTF• Relation of MTF to version 5.0• Conclusions
• Objectives of the presentation• Overview of Modeling Task Force• Product MTF• Messaging MTF• Relation of MTF to version 5.0• Conclusions
Objectives for TodayObjectives for Today
• Describe the process and recommendations of the FpML Modeling Task Force
• Get feedback on the proposals• Seek commitment from working groups to
address proposals
• Describe the process and recommendations of the FpML Modeling Task Force
• Get feedback on the proposals• Seek commitment from working groups to
address proposals
3
Overview of Modeling Task ForceOverview of Modeling Task Force
• Task force created Sept/Oct. 2007• Participants include members of Coordination
Committee plus invited guests with extensive FpML experience
• Objective is to identify and address modeling inconsistencies and issues in FpML 4.x
• Two strands:– Product modeling MTF focuses on cross-product
inconsistencies– Messaging MTF focuses on implementability of the
FpML messaging framework
• Task force created Sept/Oct. 2007• Participants include members of Coordination
Committee plus invited guests with extensive FpML experience
• Objective is to identify and address modeling inconsistencies and issues in FpML 4.x
• Two strands:– Product modeling MTF focuses on cross-product
inconsistencies– Messaging MTF focuses on implementability of the
FpML messaging framework
4
Product MTFProduct MTF
• Inconsistencies/Issues– MTF researched and discussed modeling differences
and weaknesses across different asset classes– It identified about 3 dozen areas where differences
occurred– It listed approximately 37 issues to be resolved– It prioritized these issues based on impact, difficulty to
resolve, degree of consensus, etc.
• Inconsistencies/Issues– MTF researched and discussed modeling differences
and weaknesses across different asset classes– It identified about 3 dozen areas where differences
occurred– It listed approximately 37 issues to be resolved– It prioritized these issues based on impact, difficulty to
resolve, degree of consensus, etc.
5
Categories of InconsistenciesCategories of Inconsistencies
• Underlyers and Generic Underlyers• Modeling of choices• Granularity• Sharing across asset classes• Date related• Outside product• Naming conventions• Detailed type modeling
• Underlyers and Generic Underlyers• Modeling of choices• Granularity• Sharing across asset classes• Date related• Outside product• Naming conventions• Detailed type modeling
6
Examples of inconsistenciesExamples of inconsistencies
• Underlyer-related– E.g. non-equity underlyers in equityOptions– Pricing/Market environment related instruments as
OTC derivative underlyers
• Naming, – e.g. cashFlow vs. cashflow– unadjustedDate vs. adjustableDate– equityAmericanExercise vs. americanExercise
• Underlyer-related– E.g. non-equity underlyers in equityOptions– Pricing/Market environment related instruments as
OTC derivative underlyers
• Naming, – e.g. cashFlow vs. cashflow– unadjustedDate vs. adjustableDate– equityAmericanExercise vs. americanExercise
7
Examples of inconsistencies (2)Examples of inconsistencies (2)
• Date-related– Different ways to handle adjustable vs. relative dates– Differences in availability of adjusted dates,
adjustments, etc.
• Modeling approach– Option modeling structure (generic option model vs.
product-specific models)– Product granularity; use of sub-typing vs. aggregation
of features (e.g. equityOption with Asian feature vs. fxAverageRateOption)
• Date-related– Different ways to handle adjustable vs. relative dates– Differences in availability of adjusted dates,
adjustments, etc.
• Modeling approach– Option modeling structure (generic option model vs.
product-specific models)– Product granularity; use of sub-typing vs. aggregation
of features (e.g. equityOption with Asian feature vs. fxAverageRateOption)
8
Prioritization of inconsistenciesPrioritization of inconsistenciesNum Category Issue Sev Effort Consen Compat Tot
1 X-Asset Cashflow vs CashFlow 7 9 10 10 362 X-Asset Inconsistent modeling of multiple exercise 6 9 9 10 343 Date Consistent availability of Adjusted dates 4 8 10 10 324 X-Asset Inconsistent payment and premium structures 6 8 8 10 325 X-Asset Single Payment 4 9 8 10 316 Gen Und Specific Name/Generic Underlyer 7 6 7 10 307 Naming Element names within product shouldn't include asset class 6 6 7 10 298 Gen Und Inappropriate Underlyers 5 6 7 10 289 Choices Leg Substitution group 5 6 7 10 28
10 X-Asset Differences in modeling option features in FX from elsewhere 6 4 8 10 2811 X-Asset Differences in modeling rate observations 5 6 7 10 2812 X-Asset Interest Leg modeled inconsistently 7 3 7 10 2713 Non-Prod Object identification 8 5 4 10 2714 Choices Rate calc subst group 4 7 5 10 2615 X-Asset Not all legs derived from abstract base type 6 4 6 10 2616 Naming Element names should not repeat path/context 6 4 6 10 2617 Date Consistent availability/modeling of Absolute vs Relative Dates 4 5 7 10 2618 Date Availability of adjustable dates in FX 4 6 6 10 2619 Date DateRelativeTo issues - simple/complex target, single legal value 6 4 6 10 2620 Details Use of boolean 6 6 4 10 2621 Non-Prod Settlement information 4 5 7 10 2622 X-Asset Not all options derived from abstract base type 5 4 6 10 2523 X-Asset Not all leg/stream types allow linking to other legs 4 7 3 10 2424 Granularity Short form vs. long form 6 3 5 10 2425 Non-Prod PR type references several types (AssetOrTermPoint…) 4 4 6 10 2426 Granularity Confusing use of types for short/long forms (eq) 5 6 7 5 2327 Non-Prod TradeSide 4 5 4 10 2328 Non-Prod Accounts 3 5 5 10 2329 Gen Und Incorrect underlyer derivation/hierarchy 5 8 9 0 2230 Choices Floating vs. Fixed Leg 3 4 4 10 2131 Granularity Broad vs. Narrow 4 2 5 10 2132 Granularity Inconsistent availability of short/long form (eq) 6 6 8 0 2033 Gen Und Use for new areas 8 4 7 0 1934 Details ReturnSwapLeg references deprecated type 6 6 6 0 1835 Non-Prod Documentation location 4 4 5 5 1836 Non-Prod Trade vs Contract 8 0 0 10 1837 Non-Prod Strategy 3 4 5 0 12 9
GuidelinesGuidelines
• Product MTF is developing some guidelines to try to improve consistency in the future– Granularity of products– Generalization across asset classes– Mapping of products to schema files– Naming conventions
• Product MTF is developing some guidelines to try to improve consistency in the future– Granularity of products– Generalization across asset classes– Mapping of products to schema files– Naming conventions
10
RecommendationsRecommendations
• Product MTF has developed a number of recommendations to address inconsistencies– Reviewed all 37 issues– Determined approach to each issue
• Some required no action• Sometimes several issues result in the same
recommendation• A few require further investigation before a decision can be
reached.• Many resulted in issues assigned to specific FpML WGs for
implementation• Not all of these will be implemented, as the working groups
may not agree to implement the recommendations
• Product MTF has developed a number of recommendations to address inconsistencies– Reviewed all 37 issues– Determined approach to each issue
• Some required no action• Sometimes several issues result in the same
recommendation• A few require further investigation before a decision can be
reached.• Many resulted in issues assigned to specific FpML WGs for
implementation• Not all of these will be implemented, as the working groups
may not agree to implement the recommendations
11
MTF RecommendationsMTF Recommendations
• Cross-product• Credit Derivatives• Equity Derivatives• IR Derivatives• BPWG• Open questions
• Cross-product• Credit Derivatives• Equity Derivatives• IR Derivatives• BPWG• Open questions
12
Cross-product recommendationsCross-product recommendations
• 0) Publish conversion algorithms• 3) Standardize adjusted date handling• 13) Improve business object identification• 15) Standardize leg/stream type inheritance• 20a) Remove optionality of booleans where
possible• 29) Refactor underlying asset inheritance hierarchy• 33) Review use of TRS for non-equities• 34) Review use of deprecated elements in TRS• 36) Eliminate “contract”, revert to “trade”
• 0) Publish conversion algorithms• 3) Standardize adjusted date handling• 13) Improve business object identification• 15) Standardize leg/stream type inheritance• 20a) Remove optionality of booleans where
possible• 29) Refactor underlying asset inheritance hierarchy• 33) Review use of TRS for non-equities• 34) Review use of deprecated elements in TRS• 36) Eliminate “contract”, revert to “trade”
13
Equity Derivatives – recommendationsEquity Derivatives – recommendations
• 2, 22) Implement the Generic Option Model for Equity Options
• 6, 8) Eliminate underlyer substitution group, uses choice instead
• 7) Remove “equity” prefix from element names within products
• 9) Eliminate leg substitution group, replace with specific products (extends on-going work)
• 24) Eliminate separate product elements for short form
• 2, 22) Implement the Generic Option Model for Equity Options
• 6, 8) Eliminate underlyer substitution group, uses choice instead
• 7) Remove “equity” prefix from element names within products
• 9) Eliminate leg substitution group, replace with specific products (extends on-going work)
• 24) Eliminate separate product elements for short form
14
Credit Derivatives – recommendationsCredit Derivatives – recommendations
• 5) Consolidate singlePayment and initialPayment
• 20b) Eliminate use of optional empty element as synonym for boolean
• 5) Consolidate singlePayment and initialPayment
• 20b) Eliminate use of optional empty element as synonym for boolean
15
IR Derivatives - recommendationsIR Derivatives - recommendations
• 22) Base IR swaption model off generic option model
• 12) Investigate feasibility of generalizing IRS leg and TRS interest leg
• 22) Base IR swaption model off generic option model
• 12) Investigate feasibility of generalizing IRS leg and TRS interest leg
16
BPWG/PRWG recommendationsBPWG/PRWG recommendations
1) Replace “CashFlow” with “Cashflow” 4) Standardize payment and premium
structures based on SimplePayment type 21) Eliminate settlement info from payments
and products, move elsewhere 25) Replace valuation references that point to
multiple types with multiple elements
1) Replace “CashFlow” with “Cashflow” 4) Standardize payment and premium
structures based on SimplePayment type 21) Eliminate settlement info from payments
and products, move elsewhere 25) Replace valuation references that point to
multiple types with multiple elements
17
Open questionsOpen questions
• 16) eliminate context prefixes from IRD element names (e.g. cashSettlementXX)
• 17) standardize treatment of IRS effective and termination dates with other products
• 19) fix dateRelativeTo• various FX related issues• proposals on tradeSide, account, product
granularity/extension/composition, strategy element
• 16) eliminate context prefixes from IRD element names (e.g. cashSettlementXX)
• 17) standardize treatment of IRS effective and termination dates with other products
• 19) fix dateRelativeTo• various FX related issues• proposals on tradeSide, account, product
granularity/extension/composition, strategy element
18
Impact of Product MTFImpact of Product MTF
• If all recommendations are implemented– There will be substantial change to detailed FpML
element naming and detailed organization– There will be relatively minimal changes to overall
structure and organization in most areas– Many of the changes will be backward-incompatible– Backward-incompatible changes will need to be
addressed in a major release (i.e. FpML 5.0) due to FpML change control guidelines
– Recommendations and tools for instance document migration will be important
• If all recommendations are implemented– There will be substantial change to detailed FpML
element naming and detailed organization– There will be relatively minimal changes to overall
structure and organization in most areas– Many of the changes will be backward-incompatible– Backward-incompatible changes will need to be
addressed in a major release (i.e. FpML 5.0) due to FpML change control guidelines
– Recommendations and tools for instance document migration will be important
19
Product MTFProduct MTF
• Questions?• Questions?
20
Messaging MTFMessaging MTF
• Message Modeling Task Force– Seeks to identify and resolve issues with existing
FpML message framework that • Pose implementation difficulties• Prevent more widespread adoption of the standard
• Process– 1) Identify and agree on issues– 2) Discuss and agree solutions– 3) Define new or modified framework
• Status– Step 1 is done, 2 is in process, 3 is mostly not started
• Message Modeling Task Force– Seeks to identify and resolve issues with existing
FpML message framework that • Pose implementation difficulties• Prevent more widespread adoption of the standard
• Process– 1) Identify and agree on issues– 2) Discuss and agree solutions– 3) Define new or modified framework
• Status– Step 1 is done, 2 is in process, 3 is mostly not started
21
Messaging MTF – IssuesMessaging MTF – Issues
• Issues with the existing FpML Message Framework:– Completeness– Implementability– Consistency– Complexity
• Issues with the existing FpML Message Framework:– Completeness– Implementability– Consistency– Complexity
22
CompletenessCompleteness
• Not all messages needed to implement every business process have been defined in the standard– E.g. correction and cancellation messages not always
available for every request that should have them– Status return and error message types not always
available• E.g. matching/confirmation status messages for post-trade
events• Error messages for various cases, e.g. “Post trade event not
found”
• Not all messages needed to implement every business process have been defined in the standard– E.g. correction and cancellation messages not always
available for every request that should have them– Status return and error message types not always
available• E.g. matching/confirmation status messages for post-trade
events• Error messages for various cases, e.g. “Post trade event not
found”
23
ImplementabilityImplementability
• It’s not always clear how to use the existing messages to implement a business process– Expected/possible returns for a given message– Processing requirements for a message in every state– Linkage of several messages (e.g. correction/update
messages) together as part of a single business process
• It’s not always clear how to use the existing messages to implement a business process– Expected/possible returns for a given message– Processing requirements for a message in every state– Linkage of several messages (e.g. correction/update
messages) together as part of a single business process
24
Other IssuesOther Issues
• Consistency– Messages aren’t always named and defined
consistently, e.g. contractFullTermination vs. contractNovated
• Complexity– FpML has many messages, often similar– Some MTF members feel that this adds complexity– Other MTF members feel that each message should
be as simple and independent of others as possible
• Consistency– Messages aren’t always named and defined
consistently, e.g. contractFullTermination vs. contractNovated
• Complexity– FpML has many messages, often similar– Some MTF members feel that this adds complexity– Other MTF members feel that each message should
be as simple and independent of others as possible
25
Messaging MTF GuidelinesMessaging MTF Guidelines
• The group has discussed and is refining guidelines in several areas, including– Documentation– Message Naming– Correlating messages– Identifying business objects– Defining roles of message senders and receivers– Number and types of messages
• The group has discussed and is refining guidelines in several areas, including– Documentation– Message Naming– Correlating messages– Identifying business objects– Defining roles of message senders and receivers– Number and types of messages
26
Number and types of messagesNumber and types of messages
• Most contentious area relates to granularity. Topics include– Corrections – Cancellations– Status return messages– Failure/rejection messages– Similar requests on different business objects
• Most contentious area relates to granularity. Topics include– Corrections – Cancellations– Status return messages– Failure/rejection messages– Similar requests on different business objects
27
Decisions to DateDecisions to Date
• Documentation• Identification• Corrections• Cancellations• Correlating messages• Error Returns
• Documentation• Identification• Corrections• Cancellations• Correlating messages• Error Returns
28
DocumentationDocumentation
• We’ve been working to define what documentation/diagrams etc. are needed to define business processes, with a good degree of consensus, e.g.– Overview trade lifecycle activity diagram to provide
context– State transition diagrams/tables– Documentation of expected action by state, and
return messages
• We’ve been working to define what documentation/diagrams etc. are needed to define business processes, with a good degree of consensus, e.g.– Overview trade lifecycle activity diagram to provide
context– State transition diagrams/tables– Documentation of expected action by state, and
return messages
29
IdentificationIdentification
• We’ve agreed that key business objects (e.g. trades, events) that can be communicated and modified…– Need a single explicit primary identifier– This identifier can’t change– Any number of alternative identifiers can be added
• We’ve agreed that key business objects (e.g. trades, events) that can be communicated and modified…– Need a single explicit primary identifier– This identifier can’t change– Any number of alternative identifiers can be added
30
Corrections and CancellationsCorrections and Cancellations
• We’ve agreed that– Corrections should be indicated by a correction
indicator within a request message, rather than by a separate message
– Only certain types of requests require corrections (others can just be resubmitted)
– Cancellations will continue to be supported with a separate message for each request
– A mechanism (documentation and/or validation script) will be adopted to ensure that cancellation messages are provided where necessary
• We’ve agreed that– Corrections should be indicated by a correction
indicator within a request message, rather than by a separate message
– Only certain types of requests require corrections (others can just be resubmitted)
– Cancellations will continue to be supported with a separate message for each request
– A mechanism (documentation and/or validation script) will be adopted to ensure that cancellation messages are provided where necessary
31
Chaining/Message CorrelationsChaining/Message Correlations– Correction and cancellation messages should be
linked to the original request based on the business object’s primary identifier
– Requests that must support correction and/or cancellation will require the sender to specify a business object identifier for subsequent linking
• E.g. to modify or cancel a report request, you must provide an ID for the report in the initial request
– Correction and cancellation messages should be linked to the original request based on the business object’s primary identifier
– Requests that must support correction and/or cancellation will require the sender to specify a business object identifier for subsequent linking
• E.g. to modify or cancel a report request, you must provide an ID for the report in the initial request
32
Alternative Flow ReturnsAlternative Flow Returns
• No final decision made, but group is leaning toward consolidating application level failure returns (e.g. “Trade Not Found”) into a single message or a small set of messages – Maybe use MessageRejected, – Maybe defined a new message (e.g. Message
Processing Status)– Define a scheme with various reason codes
• MTF hasn’t yet reached complete consensus• Your input is welcome
• No final decision made, but group is leaning toward consolidating application level failure returns (e.g. “Trade Not Found”) into a single message or a small set of messages – Maybe use MessageRejected, – Maybe defined a new message (e.g. Message
Processing Status)– Define a scheme with various reason codes
• MTF hasn’t yet reached complete consensus• Your input is welcome
33
Request GranularityRequest Granularity
• No final decision made, but group is leaning toward consolidating requests of the same type on different objects into one set of messages– Instead of RequestTradeConfirmation,
RequestNovationConfirmation, etc. …– Now there would be just Request Confirmation
containing a trade, novation, etc.
• Responses would also be consolidated similarly• MTF hasn’t yet reached complete consensus• Your input is welcome
• No final decision made, but group is leaning toward consolidating requests of the same type on different objects into one set of messages– Instead of RequestTradeConfirmation,
RequestNovationConfirmation, etc. …– Now there would be just Request Confirmation
containing a trade, novation, etc.
• Responses would also be consolidated similarly• MTF hasn’t yet reached complete consensus• Your input is welcome
34
Remaining WorkRemaining Work
• Remaining Message MTF work includes:– Review proposals against other standards (FIX, ISO,
etc.) to validate them– Define documentation format to be followed for each
business process– Gain consensus on the changes to be made– Develop a revised message framework schema to
support the various recommendations– Working with various WGs (eg. BPWG, PRWG),
update the message set based on the new framework
• Remaining Message MTF work includes:– Review proposals against other standards (FIX, ISO,
etc.) to validate them– Define documentation format to be followed for each
business process– Gain consensus on the changes to be made– Develop a revised message framework schema to
support the various recommendations– Working with various WGs (eg. BPWG, PRWG),
update the message set based on the new framework
35
Questions?Questions?
• Questions on Message MTF?• Questions on Message MTF?
36
Relation of MTF to version 5.0Relation of MTF to version 5.0
• Some MTF recommendations can be implemented in 4.x– E.g., adjusting schema type derivations where there is
no impact on instance documents
• Most MTF recommendations will need to be implemented in a major version
• We plan to try to implement most of the recommendations in 5.0.
• Some MTF recommendations can be implemented in 4.x– E.g., adjusting schema type derivations where there is
no impact on instance documents
• Most MTF recommendations will need to be implemented in a major version
• We plan to try to implement most of the recommendations in 5.0.
37
38
ConclusionsConclusions• The MTF recommendations are intended to make
FpML easier to implement by making it more – Consistent– Complete– Clearly documented
• The MTF recommendations propose the most substantial number of changes to existing FpML since 1.0
• The product recommendations mostly change small details rather than overall structures.
• The message recommendations affect completeness, implementability, and consistency more than business content
• The MTF recommendations are intended to make FpML easier to implement by making it more – Consistent– Complete– Clearly documented
• The MTF recommendations propose the most substantial number of changes to existing FpML since 1.0
• The product recommendations mostly change small details rather than overall structures.
• The message recommendations affect completeness, implementability, and consistency more than business content
39
QuestionsQuestions
• Questions on any aspect of the Modeling Task Force?
• Questions on any aspect of the Modeling Task Force?