Message-ID: <32836759.1075855892616.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: brent.price@enron.com
To: sally.beck@enron.com
Subject: For Discussion: Implementing Definition of Trading Office
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Brent A Price
X-To: Sally Beck
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sally_Beck_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Price, brent
X-Origin: Beck-S
X-FileName: sbeck.nsf

this is the memo I was referring to - 

---------------------- Forwarded by Brent A Price/HOU/ECT on 21/06/2000 17:02 
---------------------------


Richard Sage
21/06/2000 13:38
To: Brent A Price/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: For Discussion: Implementing Definition of Trading Office

i.e. very draft!
What are your thoughts?
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Sage/LON/ECT on 21/06/2000 13:40 
---------------------------


Richard Sage
21/06/2000 07:35
To: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT, Naomi 
Connell/LON/ECT@ECT, Phil Redman/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim 
Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: For Discussion: Implementing Definition of Trading Office

I was going to write that the buying and selling of physical commodity 
locally was OK, but that hedging had to be done with Regional Hub. The 
problem with this model is that it describes Helsinki before the bust!

Another possiblity is the agency model, where the local trader acts under the 
direction of the hub trader. This is where Helsinki currently is (although we 
also have an independent manager on site). However, I am not so happy with 
this, and Rick Causey certainly does not like it. Perhaps we should recommend 
independent Risk Managers in every office, but all correspondence and 
settlement with regional hub?