Commercial Loan Working Group: 19th June 2007, 1000 – 1130EST

Attendees

Bhavik KatiraUBS - Chair LOANWG

Brian PowersUBS

Dean HalseyRBS

Ellen HefferanLSTA

Francoise MassinSwift

Henri PegeronDTCC

Hillel CaplanDeloitte

Irina YermakovaISDA

Ken KatzMisys

Marc LindoDB

Oleg StarovoitovUBS

Pat Loret de MolaTrade Settlement Inc

Ryan ChurchJPMorgan FCS Corp

Solomon RoytshteynDeloitte

Sarah WagnerJPMorgan FCS Corp

Tania NeildTrade Settlement Inc

Xun ZhangJPMorgan

Agenda

  1. Explanation of the various working groups – Karel Engelen.
  2. Introduction to the general FpML message structure – Irina Yermakova.
  3. Updates from the last Business Meeting.
  4. Rollover – as defined by constituent complex types.
  5. Interest Payment.
  6. Publication of the FpML message structure created to represent the Drawdown Notice Message type – Oleg Starovoitov.
  7. AOB

Minutes

  1. Item skipped – to be covered in a future meeting.
  1. Introduction provided by Irina. Covered the basic Notification and Request Response message types.
  1. Feedback from the business meeting provided by Bhavik. The interest payment notice was discussed in the last meeting and a review of the first version of the specification is expected on 20th June. An initial attempt to list the fields of the repayment notice was also conducted but this will be documented for the next meeting.
    It was also decided that the rollover action within a loan is a combination of various other events which should be defined initially. The rollover will now be captured once the underlying events have been modeled in the specification.
    Action – Bhavik Katira/Ellen Hefferen: Distribute an updated version of the business working group specification once updated to reflect the changes as agreed on the 20th June business meeting.
  1. A walkthrough of the initial schema design of a drawdown notice provided by Oleg. All complex sub-structures were discussed. Feedback was as follows:
    - CUSIP in formation whilst vital should not preclude the inclusion of core instrument static data. It is vital for the buy-side organizations to still receive key Deal/Facility related static data to avoid having to reference external static data (at a cost). It was also noted that this information is also (a) not readily available and (b) not always accurate. Within the loan market, the agent bank can provide the “most reliable” form of data.
    - It was mentioned by the DTCC that the working group should look into the Contract Creation and/or Trade messages that have already been defined within FpML. It may be possible to reuse some of these structures within the loan domain.
    Action–Bhavik Katira/Oleg Starovoitov/ISDA/DTCC Representative: Investigate the potential use of these FpML schemas to represent a drawdown notice and report results back to the working group.
    - It was also agreed to understand the CUSIP licensing model
    Action – Ellen Hefferen : Investigate the CUSIP licensing model and providing pricing details.
    - An Id field is definitely preferable to maintain at the drawdown level. It should be a required field so that recipient systems can process these messages efficiently.
  1. Logistics: Is it possible for the working group to have some kind of webex type presentation organized when we have technical walkthroughs…? (Deloitte volunteered to host it).

Action – Bhavik Katira: Investigate possibility with ISDA.

General Action – Working Group: Review and provide further feedback to the documents sent out on the working group mailing list. Suggestions are most welcome