Message-ID: <27178101.1075858752743.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT) From: greg.piper@enron.com To: sally.beck@enron.com Subject: RE: Reconciliation Across Risk Applications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Piper, Greg X-To: Beck, Sally X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \SBECK (Non-Privileged)\Inbox X-Origin: Beck-S X-FileName: SBECK (Non-Privileged).pst Whatever happended to all this? Does Pickering have RisktRAC? GP -----Original Message----- From: Beck, Sally Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:26 AM To: Piper, Greg Subject: RE: Reconciliation Across Risk Applications This will require IT resources that support RisktRAC and source systems (ERMS, Enpower, London applications, etc.). Jeff Gossett and I have had a kick off meeting with Steve Stock, who nicely enough has all of the necessary resources under his direction, with the exception of the London resources. Steve is on board to make this happen. All of this took place while Beth Perlman was on vaction, so I will get with her this week to inform her of the effort and to get her support as well. The project that Wanda refers to came about as a result of my meeting with Rick Buy a few weeks ago. I suggested, and Rick heartily agreed, that we take ownership of a project to eliminate the disconnect between information in the sources systems (which Rick agreed is accurate) and information in RisktRAC (which is problematic due to the fact that when built, RisktRAC did not focus on how to get information completely, accurately, and efficiently from the source systems). Wanda is a little ahead of herself with the 60 to 90 day timeline. We do not have a firm timeline established yet. We have designated business and IT resources, and are in the process of discussing with London how they will be involved. Steve Stock is reviewing some diagnostics from his architecture group, and then we will be at the point of delineating milestones and timelines within the next 10 days. We do anticipate a relatively short timeframe for results on this effort, but that is not yet defined. Look for another response to Wanda's memo which I will copy you and Rick Buy on that will give more context to what Wanda wants (which is an excercise to simply document yet again the fact that source system data and RisktRAC don't always match). --Sally -----Original Message----- From: Piper, Greg Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2001 10:08 AM To: Pickering, Mark Cc: Beck, Sally Subject: FW: Reconciliation Across Risk Applications How is this being staffed technically? Thanks. GP -----Original Message----- From: Curry, Wanda Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:00 AM To: Buy, Rick; Piper, Greg Cc: Beck, Sally; Apollo, Beth; Wilson, Shona; Victorio, Tom; Murphy, Ted; Bradford, William S.; Port, David Subject: Reconciliation Across Risk Applications Rick and Greg, I met with Sally and Beth on August 24th to discuss the operational risk management initiative requiring a reconciliation across all major risk applications. This reconciliation is necessary to validate the transfer of all data from source systems, i.e. risk books, into risk applications which calculate VAR, provide credit exposures, feed Infinity with daily cash flows and ultimately the DPR. Sally and Beth, along with IT, have initiated a project to improve and monitor the accuracy and efficiency of these daily interfaces. The scope includes a review of the processes which impact the accuracy of information, timing of interfaces, production performance issues, inventory of books and improved controls over changes to book attributes, and the officialization process. They have agreed to add a requirement to provide, on a daily basis, this reconciliation across all major risk applications. The projected timeline to complete this project, including the reconciliation initiative, is 60 to 90 days. We will need to reassess the decision to combine these initiatives, if the GRMO timeline slips. This daily risk applications reconciliation will provide four key metrics not currently available: 1) the ability to track data "accuracy" in terms of the percentage of information which transferred and processed correctly, vs. just unique "failures". How complete is the data? 2) the ability to validate the accuracy of exception reporting (are all failures included on the exception reports?) 3) the ability to validate Infinity cash flows 4) Reconciliation of values (volumes, PRMA &PRML and cash flows), not # of books processed. Please call me if you would like to discuss. Wanda Curry