JEAN BAPTISTE ZIADE removeAbusiveConditions-PerformancePayout

[regnosys-prod-user]

No description provided.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for finos-cdm ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	58598bb
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/finos-cdm/deploys/66912cc23c3da700083f403e
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3040--finos-cdm.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[JBZ-Fragmos]

business need to remove these 2 conditions that should not have been implemented at the time when we (mostly Fragmos-Chain based on JPM business case) designed the PortfolioReturnTerms and attached it to PerformancePayout also with such abusive conditions.

rationale why removing - examples, business cases :

• blockers when at some point in lifecycle a Portfolio might involve only 1 underlier in position (that is to say when only 1 unique PortfolioReturnTerms leg may exist at some point in time, which is not permitted with current condition)

• prevent larger usage of PortfolioReturnTerms - for instance for representing Dispersion Strategy involving multiple individual components vs. single index component (no Basket is involved in such case, so current conditions would prevent it, though PortfolioReturnTerms was notabky designed to encompass this type of strategy)

[JBZ-Fragmos]

@dshoneisda @lolabeis @nicholas-moger

i assume such minor fix can be pushed without requiring discussion/validation with the Group, right ?

[dshoneisda]

@lolabeis @Oblongs please can you review this item on my behalf

[LionelSG-REGnosys]

@lolabeis @Oblongs please can you review this item on my behalf

The change itself looks relatively straightforward - removing two conditions on one data type - however this pull request seems to be corrupt as there are 1600+ files recorded as having been changed. This needs to be fixed.

[dshoneisda]

thanks
@JBZ-Fragmos can you look at the multiple file issue/re-submit if necessary

[JBZ-Fragmos]

have (re)checked and confirmed there is no other change in my contrib other than removing the two conditions, so believe cannot help in regards to the issue you mentioned, looks like something technical beyond my scope... ***@***.*** From: dshoneisda ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 12:02 PM To: finos/common-domain-model ***@***.***> Cc: Jean-Baptiste Ziadé ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [finos/common-domain-model] JEAN BAPTISTE ZIADE removeAbusiveConditions-PerformancePayout (PR #3040) thanks @JBZ-Fragmos<https://github.com/JBZ-Fragmos> can you look at the multiple file issue/re-submit if necessary - Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3040 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWFL2PN6H2SGI5R3UQQEE73ZMTVRPAVCNFSM6AAAAABKY5JKZGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEMZQGUYDINJYHA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[LionelSG-REGnosys]

looks like something technical beyond my scope

Have raised to the team to investigate

Update Has been fixed

[JBZ-Fragmos]

@Oblongs @lolabeis @dshoneisda

reading comment history about this proposal, also considering it is really minor technical one, which requires only 1 approver, kindly let me know if this could be pushed to Prod in coming days

thanks
JB

[JBZ-Fragmos]

Background :

• agreed with DPBE : CDM Derivatives Products and Business Events Working Group - November 6th, 2024 #3210
• this particular PR is part of a list of multiple other PRs, referred to in DPBE minutes as "wish list" submitted to the group

Target :

• merge any agreed components into Dev, before next major release that will incorporate such changes into Prod

[JBZ-Fragmos]

@Oblongs @lolabeis @dshoneisda

reading comment history about this proposal, also considering it is really minor technical one, which requires only 1 approver, kindly let me know if this could be pushed to Prod in coming days

thanks
JB

[LionelSG-REGnosys]

JB This needs approvals from the Maintainers – and I am not one of them! https://github.com/orgs/finos/teams/cdm-maintainers Lionel. Head of Client Services | REGnosys | +44 (0)20 3778 2040 <tel:+442037782040> | +44 (0)7388 529858<tel:+447388529858> From: JBZ-Fragmos ***@***.***> Sent: 11 November 2024 09:24 To: finos/common-domain-model ***@***.***> Cc: Lionel Smith-Gordon ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [finos/common-domain-model] JEAN BAPTISTE ZIADE removeAbusiveConditions-PerformancePayout (PR #3040) @Oblongs<https://github.com/Oblongs> @lolabeis<https://github.com/lolabeis> @dshoneisda<https://github.com/dshoneisda> reading comment history about this proposal, also considering it is really minor technical one, which requires only 1 approver, kindly let me know if this could be pushed to Prod in coming days thanks JB — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3040 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BC7P7AQN533ZJJXFZWOJLR32ABZRTAVCNFSM6AAAAABKY5JKZGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDINRXGYZTQMRWGE>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[JBZ-Fragmos]

hello, @lolabeis @dshoneisda @hugohills

Could you please review this PR ?
that is a technical one in my view, so should not need review with DPBE, just need 1 approval...

FYI, i regret having myself drafted/introduced these conditions at the time had designed the "portfolio" component wihout nobody asking about such conditions to exist, and now i'm asking to remove them, after having clarified with JPM also in regards in some particular business cases that these conditions are actuallu restricting business usage of the "portofolio" component...

[manel-martos]

Hi @JBZ-Fragmos ,

We’ve reviewed the changes and confirmed that they do not impact the CDM product qualification logic or the DRR reporting model.

Given the minor technical nature of the change and its alignment with the clarified business requirements, we’re happy to approve it. Could you please confirm whether this should be applied to the latest CDM 5 production version, or if it suffices to be included in the latest development version?

[JBZ-Fragmos]

@manel-martos thanks for your feedback, no need to implement in Prod, moreover knowing that Dev 6 will become the next Prod in few days, so kindly release this in Dev 6

[LionelSG-REGnosys]

It won't make CDM6-dev now, as that is being prepared for release. But when we have CDM6-prod, this item can be lined up as release to that.

Having said that, you will need to update the logic in the conditions to work with the new underlier in PerformancePayout. It may be cleaner to prepare a new Contribution in Rosetta?

[LionelSG-REGnosys]

Sorry, accidentally clicked wrong button and closed