Message-ID: <12759158.1075857599355.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT) From: john.arnold@enron.com To: fletcher.sturm@enron.com, scott.neal@enron.com, hunter.shively@enron.com Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: John Arnold X-To: Fletcher J Sturm, Scott Neal, Hunter S Shively X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \John_Arnold_Dec2000\Notes Folders\'sent mail X-Origin: Arnold-J X-FileName: Jarnold.nsf Just some feedback on our EOL discussion. Whalley had similar thoughts about how to address the ICE issue. His thoughts are that if we are 4/5 on EOL, we post 1/8 on ICE. If someone betters the bid to 1.5, a logic server automatically bumps up our bid to 1.75. If someone betters that to 2 bid, we immediately go 2.25 bid. So we are always the best market on ICE so long as it is not inside our EOL 2-way. Thus the only way our best market shows on ICE is if without us the market is 3.75/5.25, at which point our 4/5 market gets shown. If the 3.75 bid pulls out, so does our 4 bid. Our proposal was that if EOL was 4/5 we would always show ICE 3.75/5.25. Think about which system you like better. Whalley loved Fletch's idea of running tally of brokerage saved and that will be implemented shortly. I am going to call another EOL meeting for everyone on the gas floor managing a product this week. The purpose will be to communicate about the importance of winning the electronic commerce game through a combination of improving 2-ways and killing the broker markets.