|
|
Enron Mail |
I agree with the exception of point 3 below. I plan for them to be one of
several authorisers of bills (in no case however, the only authorisers). Also, I spoke to Sally about the "agency" office and she agrees that in the short term, the agency plan is what we need to implement. However, a mentioned by both Ted and Sally, we need to discuss what the ultimate goal is for these offices (will they continue to exist?). Let's call what we plan to implement now "Phase I". Best regards To: Richard Sage/LON/ECT@ECT cc: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brent A Price/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, Naomi Connell/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Re: Trading v Origination Offices Thanks - I think this is a good start as far as roles go, but as I outlined to Shona last week, we should apply some basic rules to the process, (forgive me if obvious) for example: Rule 1: No confirmations issued, chased or matched by remote offices This should be done centrally and further all the customers of the remote office should be given contact numbers (e.g. fax) at the operations hub. That way any incoming confirmations etc go to the independent ops group. Rule 2: No cash payments or receipts in respect of transactions approved or reconciled by remote offices Operations hubs should reconcile cash movements to changes in position. Rule 3: No physical settlements or receipts in respect of transactions approved or reconciled by remote offices This splits the logistics process somewhat, but is essentially as with cash in that every movement of physical product should be approved (where necessary) and reconciled to movements in the position at operations hubs. The "initiation/optimisation" aspect of logistics could remain remote, since arguably it involves pseudo - trading. Not exhaustive but helpful I hope. DP Richard Sage@ECT 08/21/2000 03:40 AM To: Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brent A Price/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Naomi Connell/LON/ECT@ECT Subject: Trading v Origination Offices Sally, Brent, There are three MG offices in North America outside New York which, previous to the acquisition by Enron, acted much as trading offices. Shona and Naomi have worked with the people in New York to put in place extra controls so that they are not trading offices, for example having a trader in New York or London own each book and sign off on profit daily. This process has highlighted the fact that our non-trading offices are not all the same, and cannot reasonably all be the same. Some offices organise logistics things to happen on the ground, some originate, and some execute for Trading Offices. is a suggestion for how we can make this division explicit. All the cc above are bought in to this approach. What do you require to be comfortable so that we can put it up to Causey and Buy? It is worth noting that this approach would have caught Helsinki, except for the Contract-in-a-bottom-drawer, but no system of control can reliably catch that, as was evidenced by EOTT. Thanks, Richard
|