I. Use Case Description | |
Use Case Name | Exchange Instrument Data Offering |
Use Case Identifier | SEC-02 |
Source | FBC/SEC Content Team |
Point of Contact | Elisa Kendall, Tony Coates |
SEC-Creation / Revision Date | 6/10/2019 |
Associated Documents | Requirements documentation, traceability matrix if applicable |
II. Use Case Summary | |
Goal | There is no single publicly available model for instrument reference data for market traded instruments. FIBO should provide the core content for such a model, which is needed across the industry, including EDMC member institutions. While there are a number of proprietary models, such as those of data vendors, there is no general consensus. This use case is focused on a fictitious offering of securities instrument data to users by an exchange, to establish a constrained baseline for the overarching use case defined in SEC-01. |
Requirements | Specify the essential securities instrument information needed for core securities master data management, specifically the subset that an exchange might publish. |
Scope | In order to constrain the scope further, in this use case we will focus on (1) equities and (2) bonds. |
Priority | This is high priority in order to (1) provide a much-needed reference model for securities master data management and (2) demonstrate how to use an ontology successfully and in a cost-effective way as the basis for other work inside an institution. |
Stakeholders | Primary stakeholders include any exchange that might publish instrument related information, consumers of that information including traders, front and back office personnel as well as compliance officers at institutions whose portfolios include this information, other individual investors interested in the information, and various systems supporting all of the above. |
Description | There are a number of organizations that publish certain master data elements that we can use as the basis for coming up with a composite view, including OpenFIGI, the DTCC Security Master Data File (including intra-day), various exchanges including the NYSE and Nasdaq, and possibly CME. The purpose of the use case is to show how one might leverage data coming from multiple sources to manage security master data using FIBO. There are several JIRA issues around accomplishing this goal. SEC-74, for example, is about representing a share of stock as listed in a specific exchange. That particular issue represents a subset of what we want to do in this use case, but is a starting point. |
Actors / Interfaces | List actors: people, systems, knowledge bases, repositories, and other data resources, services, sensors, or other “things” outside the system that either act on the system (primary actors) or are acted on by the system (secondary actors). Primary actors are those that invoke the use case and benefit from the result. Identify the primary actor and briefly describe role.
Any actor that is external to or outside the control of the use case owner should be further described under Resources, below. |
Assumptions |
|
Open Issues |
|
III. Usage Scenarios
Our primary usage scenario is that an exchange decides that it would like to offer instrument master data directly to their end users. They choose the FIBO instrument master format because vendors support it, which reduces the onboarding cost for end users and increases the changes for uptake by those end users.
There are two important content areas to consider:
- Terms of the instruments themselves (contract terms), including the risks involved in having such a product on one’s books
- Terms regarding the entity that issued the instrument (reference data about the instrument)
We will use this overarching scenario as the basis for several subordinate usage scenarios since it is the simplest. Ultimately we need to demonstrate how to represent the combination of the reference data (market data) for pricing as well as information about the issuers, including a number of different identifiers for the issuer. We have a few example individuals already in FIBO/FBC for publicly traded banks (holding companies)that we can use as a starting point.
The following smaller scenarios are considered building blocks for this.
A. Equities
- How would a user map the data published by Bloomberg via their OpenFIGI site for the common stock issued by a given issuer?
(a) Go to OpenFIGI (openfigi.com), select Wells Fargo and then filter by ( i ) Wells Fargo & Co, ( ii ) Security Type of Common Stock, and ( iii ) Market Sector of Equity, and export the following spreadsheet:
(b) Map the general Wells Fargo & Co share class level equity instrument as well as a specific Wells Fargo & Co exchange-specific share (e.g., issued on the New York Stock Exchange) to FIBO and create example individuals (see https://spec.edmcouncil.org/fibo/ontology/SEC/Equities/EquitiesExampleIndividuals) manually to make sure that we can do so and that all of the relationships work as intended. These examples only represent what is available publicly in OpenFIGI, not everything one would want to know about a given equity that could be published as instrument master data. Run two reasoners to make sure that the resulting examples are logically consistent.
(c) Automate generation of the remaining individuals extracted from OpenFIGI based on these hand-crafted individuals to demonstrate the feasibility of doing so.
2. How would a user map the data published by the DTCC in their Security Master Data File for the common stock issued by a given issuer?
B. Bonds / Fixed Income Instruments
- How would a user map the data published by Bloomberg via their OpenFIGI site for a bond issued by a given issuer? Note that some bonds are issued by a holding company, such as IBM, and others might be issued by a subsidiary. In this case we want to show (1) an example issued by the highest level corporate holding company, and (2) an example issued by a subsidiary, showing the relationship between the two. One example is to show bonds issued by IBM (corporate holding company), IBM Credit, and Telelogic AB (at least one of each). Red Hat bonds are not listed under IBM on OpenFIGI yet, but we could add that example with the corporate structure included as well. Include listing information for the same bonds from the NYSE and Nasdaq.
IV. Competency Questions
Provide at least 2 competency questions that you will ask of the vocabulary/ontology/knowledge base to implement this use case, including example answers to the questions.
Describe at least one way you expect to use the semantics and/or provenance to propose an answer to the questions. Include an initial description of why the semantics and/or provenance representation and reasoning provides an advantage over other obvious approaches to the problem. (optional – depending on the use case and need for supporting business case).
V. Resources
Knowledge Bases, Repositories, or other Data Sources
Data | Type | Characteristics | Description | Owner | Source | Access Policies & Usage |
OpenFIGI | online resource | Bloomberg | openfigi.com | freely available | ||
DTCC Security Master Data | online resource | See Documents, sample data for securities master file and intra-day securities master file | requires login, but available after that |
IX. References and Bibliography
List all reference documents – policy documents, regulations, standards, de-facto standards, glossaries, dictionaries and thesauri, taxonomies, and any other reference materials considered relevant to the use case
X. Notes
There is always some piece of information that is required that has no other place to go. This is the place for that information.