Adding more criterias / options for Bank Rules and CPTY Bank Rules for Instrument types and CounterParty Types

Hi Pierre,

For full transparency, I want to briefly explain how we determine which ideas make it onto our roadmap.

• The age of an idea does not influence its inclusion on our roadmap. For any medium to large development requested by a client, the most important factor is the return on our development investment. Internally, we need to justify that investment in terms of future software revenue and sales. Both of these developments (there are actually two ideas mentioned on QNTM-I-1585) fall under this category. The exception to this ROI would be regulatory or market-wide changes that we have to support as a TMS.

• Development size is not the only factor we consider; we also look at other factors, including stakeholder feedback, which, of course, includes feedback from clients. This feedback comes from direct communication with clients and from the Ideas Portal. At the moment, neither of these features has enough client support to move them onto our roadmap and ahead of other scheduled features, such as current EWF enhancements or Cloud support enhancements.

• Finally, our development resources are extremely tight, with no indications that this will change in the near future. At the moment, there is simply no spare development capacity to take on one of these developments of this size, let alone both.

• That said, we have not ruled out considering these as future enhancements. If, for example, one or both of these receive numerous client votes (say 15+), then we may need to seriously consider scheduling one or both of these modifications sooner rather than later.

Until such time, it is highly unlikely either of these will make it onto our future development schedule in the short to medium term.

As for the next steps, the only suggestion is to add your votes to the two existing ideas mentioned in the previous comment and reach out to other clients to see if they are willing to do the same. At the moment, that is really the only way to move the needle on these two enhancements.

Regards,

Mark

[Minist�re des Finances]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

However, 1270 was opened 5 years ago and is in status future consideration. and 1530 have status unlikely to implement.

[cid:b4294aa7-ce5d-44ea-b288-6c26ecc8a084]

Our migration project will need more flexibility with those rules, as we have complexes rules to implement. if we don't have this flexibility, it will meen to implement one rules per instrument, so not use the rules so much.

What is the next step with this ?

Micheal, another situation to discuss.

Thanks

Pierre

Pierre Lepage

Charg� de projet principal, Architecture, int�gration et projets sp�ciaux

Minist�re des finances du Qu�bec

8 rue Cook,

2e �tage,

Qu�bec (Qu�bec), G1R 0A4

Cell: 418 261-2139

�pargne Placements Qu�bec

800 D'Youville, 20e �tage

Qu�bec (Qu�bec) G1R 5W3

This idea actually contains two modification requests. Please ensure that Idea only include one modification request.

Please also search for existing ideas that may cover your modification request. For example, I found two existing ideas that will probably cover both of these requests: QNTM-I-1270 and QNTM-I-1530. Duplicate ideas will be merged into one parent idea. If a duplicate idea exists, please vote for the existing idea instead of raising another