[This message was posted by Vincent Vandemeulebrouck of ULLINK <[email protected]> to the "Allocations" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/13. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/5e997f5b - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> I think there's a separate question as to why you'd need to regular > allocation block on the new order multi-leg message (it seems somewhat > duplicative to have both), so if you can think of a reason for that, then let > me know. I wouldn't actually recommend removing it, instead adding > clarififying comments to the specification to indicate that only one or the > other should be used. There is a need to be able to allocate legs differently. If the strategy legs are on different exchanges, with different clearing houses, the instructions sent to the clearing houses will be different. Also, the trading of a strategy may be to cover the risk taken by a client, so the first leg may be allocated to a client account, and the second leg on an internal account. [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.
