|
ECNs, Exchanges
< Previous Next >
Re: ClOrdID [11] value in trade capture reports
Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems <>
23 Jul 2010 9:56AM ET I have a very clear view on this issue. The field ClOrdID has two meanings on the order handling side (order entry/modification/deletion and execution report). It is a message (request) identifier as well as an entity identifier.
It no longer has both meanings when used on a TCR where it can only be used as an entity identifier pointing to the entity that was traded. This can only be the value carried in the Execution Report at the time of the match and not a new ClOrdID value assigned to the order due to modification requests submitted after the match.
Clearly, ClOrdID is inferior to OrderID when linking trades back to orders as the latter may theoretically also change but is typically kept stable during the lifetime of the order.
Regards,
Hanno.
> The incentive is to come up with the best practice in regards to usage of ClOrdID [11] in trade Capture Reports.
>
> The issue is described above, where there are at leat two approaches for populating ClOrdID in Trade Capture Reports.
> 1) Refer to ClOrdID [11] value in the matching Execution Reports
> 2) Refer to the current ClOrdID [11]
>
> Each have pros and cons, as already outlined.
>
> Note. The issue is unrelated to usage of OrdId [37], which is a valid reference. However, for all transactions related orders submitted electronically ClOrdId [11] must be provided - this is a principle that is used in trading. I will argue that this is a valid requirement in post trading.
Re: ClOrdID [11] value in trade capture reports
Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems 23 Jul 2010 9:56AM ET
|
