Laurent-Olivier Labeis Cashflow generation for settlement payout #3288
Conversation
Cashflow generation for settlement payout
✅ Deploy Preview for finos-cdm ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
| @@ -211,7 +211,10 @@ type TransferState: <"Defines the fundamental financial information associated w | |||
| transfer Transfer (1..1) <"Represents the Transfer that has been effected by a business or life-cycle event."> | |||
| transferStatus TransferStatusEnum (0..1) <"Represents the State of the Transfer through its life-cycle."> | |||
|
|
|||
| type Transfer extends TransferBase: <"Defines the movement of an Asset (eg cash, securities or commodities) between two parties on a date."> | |||
| type Transfer extends CashflowBase: <"Defines the movement of an Asset (eg cash, securities or commodities) between two parties on a date."> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be a transfer of securities, so it does not really make sense for it to extend CashflowBase.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think CashflowBase now allows to represent securities. Also TransferBase has been deleted
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a transfer is performed on a non-cash trade (i.e. using other securities as collateral and not cash) then there is no cash so this would not affect the cash flow.
I'm more querying the change from TransferBase to CashflowBase as Transfer is not only used for cash transfers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chrisisla Thank you for your review.
You are right, CashflowBase does represent more than the transfer of cash, it represents the transfer of any asset. And so does Cashflow now.
Aligning the name of the common base class to Cashflow rather than Transfer isn't perfect and results from a trade-off. This base class is now in the (lower level) product rather than the (higher level) event namespace, but the former doesn't know about the Transfer concept. In other words, it would have been strange to position TransferBase in product and Transfer in event.
What about potential alternatives, and their cons?
- Migrate
Transferand all its associated concepts inproduct--> the scope creep is worrying, although maybe that's the right target state? - Rename
Cashflowto something more generic, now that we're extending its behaviour (AssetFlow?) --> this would be an "invented" name, and possibly duplicative vs. "transfer". It was raised at the DPBE, but inconclusive.
In short, we remain a bit saddled by the legacy of Transfer and Cashflow having been developed separately, but hope this goes in the right direction. Further inputs welcome :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HI @lolabeis ,
Apologies, I missed your Issue explaining this change, and I can't attend the DPBE and could not attend the CRWG earlier this week as I was involved in a different cross association call. So this is the first time I have seen this proposed change.
By extending CashFlowBase we are now saying that Transfer is a type of Cashflow[Base], which it won't be if there is no cash, which is the most common type of stock loan. I've read through your powerpoint and I'm also still not really clear as to why we need this change at all? A Transfer is an event so why does it need to move to product?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @chrisisla Following our conversation last week:
I have adjusted this contribution and replaced CashflowBase by AssetFlowBase - although I have kept the name Cashflow unchanged (to minimise impact). This means Transfer now extends AssetFlowBase.
Can you please confirm that you're happy with this adjustment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a massive fan of AssetFlowBase either but it is more aligned to what we're describing than CashFlowBase was!
Changed CashflowBase to AssetFlowBase
Add a description
No description provided.