[This message was posted by Zoltan Feledy of State Street Global Advisors <[email protected]> to the "Algorithmic Trading" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/31. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/3d849f0b - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Steve, If we were to undertake something like this, I would think that using something like what you propose, using the 4 digit institution code of a BIC, would definitely be preferred to maintaining anything like this on our own. Having said that, I can much more likely see independent algo providers without BICs than clashes in free text provider IDs. Again, I would strongly discourage going down this path. Is this a real life problem that you're dealing with or just diligent programming? As I said before, just one man's opinion - so Rick, Greg, Scott, Johnny, and other powers that be, if you are reading this, you may want to discuss this at a meeting or chime in here. Cheers, Zoltan > Zoltan, > Thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate the possible admin overhead. Just > to be clear, however, I am NOT proposing a register of algos, only a register > of algo providers. > Your point about use of the ISO standard for exchanges triggered a refinement > on the original suggestion - instead of creating a register, how about we > STRONGLY RECOMMEND that FIXatdl publishers include the first 4 characters of > their ISO 9362 (aka BIC) code as the providerID? > (Obvious question - do all global algo providers have a BIC code? My gut > feel is yes, but maybe others can comment.) > Thx - Steve. > > Steve, > > > > This is an interesting observation, likely born of a well thought out > > implementation. > > > > I must say that maintaining anything like this scares me a great deal. > > Brings back bad memories of us trying to maintain a list of codes for > > exchanges in FIX.4.2, which we then amended in the extension, and finally > > abandoned by FIX.4.4 when we went with an ISO specification which even > > though someone else now does the work of maintaining the data you are still > > responsible for getting the latest data sets. > > > > I find the algo space very competitive with people continuously inventing > > ever so creative names to brand their products. My only worry would be > > "Mary and Larry's Brokerage" trying to publish their VWAP algo in a copycat > > fashion as ML-VWAP in hopes that it may get confused with that of a bulge > > bracket firm. I do see the risk of the top 20 or so providers clashing as > > quite small. > > > > Perhaps an alternate solution would be to assign unique id's as you read > > through the file and adding that to your identifier (Strategy/@providerID, > > Strategy/@name) so that 1-ML-VWAP and 2-ML-VWAP could peacefully co-exist > > should it arise in reality. > > > > Just my thoughts... > > > > Cheers, > > Zoltan [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
