|
Collective Investments
< Previous Next >
re: Leaves Quantity for By Value orders
merlin beake / reuters
3 Aug 2001 4:41AM ETIf all interested parties are agreed that Funds trading should never result in partial fills (and hence no need to keep track of LeavesQty),
I would actually prefer to make it explicit in the protocol that LeavesQty should not be sent with Funds trades. Having a value of "0"
seems to leave open the possibility of confusion.
For example, a LeavesQty of "0" on an execution in normal circumstances would mean that it had filled; but in the case of Funds, it could
also mean that it is a busted execution (if LeavesQty is always sent as "0" for Funds trading.)
Abstractly, it seems confusing (having a Leaves of 0 on a trade which is unfilled), and might even cause validation failure in some systems.
Removing LeavesQty from the protocol for Funds trading makes it clear what is intended.
merlin
> What should LeavesQty (tag 151, compulsory on Execution Reports) be for By
> Value orders (those which use CashOrderQty, not OrderQty)?
>
> Partial Fills should *not* arise when trading Fund Units directly with Fund
> Managers (who create and cancel Units to meet demand) - so I believe LeavesQty
> should always be 0.
>
> (Apologies for typo in previous response.)
>
re: Leaves Quantity for By Value orders
merlin beake / reuters 3 Aug 2001 4:41AM ET
|
