P
PeteCresswell
Bond trading system.
Parent accounts have child accounts.
E.G. ABC parent has "Mr Smith" under it.
"Mr Smith" has purchased/sold multiple securities under the umbrella
of ABC.
Users want to move Mr Smith over to XYZ, but they want to maintain his
trading history under ABC.
Yet they want his ABC balances to be available for sale under XYZ.
Proposed Scheme:
1) Create two new trade types (in addition to Buy, Sell, Paydown,
Payment, Maturity... and a few others)
+ TransferOut, which is analogous to a Sell in that it decrements
the account's holdings
+ TransferIn, which is analogous to a Buy in that it increments
holdings
2) Add a column to the tblTradingAccount (Mr Jones...) table:
TradingAccountID_TransferFrom, which
points to Mr Jones' old account under ABC.
3) When the user pulls the trigger on an account transfer:
+ Set up a new account for Mr. Smith under XYZ
+ Create a series of TransferOut transactions sufficient to zero
out Mr Smith's balance under ABC
+ Create a series of corresponding TransferIn transactions under
Mr Smith's new account under XYZ.
Each TranferIn record has a column that points to the TradeID
of it's corresponding TransferOut
and vice-versa.
Seems like technically the link pointer really only has tb at the
account level.... and not the transaction level.... but it also seems
simpler/more auditable to also have one at the transaction level.
Anybody been here?
If so does the above architecture hold water?
Parent accounts have child accounts.
E.G. ABC parent has "Mr Smith" under it.
"Mr Smith" has purchased/sold multiple securities under the umbrella
of ABC.
Users want to move Mr Smith over to XYZ, but they want to maintain his
trading history under ABC.
Yet they want his ABC balances to be available for sale under XYZ.
Proposed Scheme:
1) Create two new trade types (in addition to Buy, Sell, Paydown,
Payment, Maturity... and a few others)
+ TransferOut, which is analogous to a Sell in that it decrements
the account's holdings
+ TransferIn, which is analogous to a Buy in that it increments
holdings
2) Add a column to the tblTradingAccount (Mr Jones...) table:
TradingAccountID_TransferFrom, which
points to Mr Jones' old account under ABC.
3) When the user pulls the trigger on an account transfer:
+ Set up a new account for Mr. Smith under XYZ
+ Create a series of TransferOut transactions sufficient to zero
out Mr Smith's balance under ABC
+ Create a series of corresponding TransferIn transactions under
Mr Smith's new account under XYZ.
Each TranferIn record has a column that points to the TradeID
of it's corresponding TransferOut
and vice-versa.
Seems like technically the link pointer really only has tb at the
account level.... and not the transaction level.... but it also seems
simpler/more auditable to also have one at the transaction level.
Anybody been here?
If so does the above architecture hold water?