[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

• From: "Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>
• To: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:34:50 -0500

So the data of note to the lawsuit (the interest rate) is in the
application, not the document exchanged in FpML.   

O The application is customized per location.

O Anyone looking for the evidence trail can't use the record
transactions per FpML

O FpML cannot be cited as the standard for regulated trading.

They do mean "private" trading. No wonder Italy and Greece are hosed.

Again, this is of interest to those who might claim the use of XML
ensures or enhances transparency and traceability per regulatory
constraints.  It can but the claims may not meet implementation
constraints.

Here are the Wikipedia claims (not authoritative, of course):

"All categories of privately negotiated derivatives will eventually be
included within the standard. The standard is managed by ISDA on behalf
of a community of investment banks that make a market in OTC
derivatives.

The FpML standard was first published by JP Morgan and
PricewaterhouseCoopers on 9 June 1999 in a paper titled "Introducing
FpML: A New Standard for E-commerce". As a result, the FpML standards
committee was founded.

As of October 2009 FpML 4.7 is the latest [Recommendation] version. The
core scope includes the products of Foreign Exchange (FX) Swaps and
Options, Interest Rate Swaps, Inflation Swaps, Asset Swaps, Swaptions,
Credit Default Swaps, Credit Default Swap Indices, Credit Default Swap
Baskets, Tranches on Credit Default Swap Indices, Equity Options, Equity
Swaps, Total Return Swaps, and many others. The core processes include
trading, valuation, confirmation, novations, increases, amendments,
terminations, allocations, position reporting, cash flow matching, a
formal definition of party roles, as well as trade notification between
asset managers and custodians."

The document likely (someone would have to look) contains the interest
rate but a constraint by reference to the governing laws through the
value list isn't there.  In principle, XML Schema 1.1 can do that.  In
practice, FpML doesn't.

Again, the rate of uptake of 1.1 relies on differences that make a
difference.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Welch [mailto:andrew.j.welch@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:55 AM
To: Len Bullard
Cc: G. Ken Holman; XML-Dev Mailing list
Subject: Re:  Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

> I may be ill-informed but I think FpML is used for derivatives.  Can
> FpML describe interest rate swaps?  If so:

Yep FpML is used for all types of swaps and other derivatives, but
there is nothing contract specific about it.  That's more likely to be
built into the trading system than the serialisation format.


-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com

• References:
  • Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
  • Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
  • Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
  • RE: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: "Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>
  • Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
  • RE: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: "Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>
  • Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>