Message-ID: <30975428.1075841441545.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:57:07 -0800 (PST) From: m..presto@enron.com To: tim.belden@enron.com Subject: RE: GTC vs. Master Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Presto, Kevin M. X-To: Belden, Tim X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \ExMerge - Presto, Kevin M.\Sent Items X-Origin: PRESTO-K X-FileName: kevin presto 2-7-02.pst Maybe. If we truly believe this is a credit starved industry with huge liquidity problems, then we should be able to dictate the terms for dealing with a AA entity........ end of story. We should send this message early and often. If we don't, the market will percieve that negotiating "one-off" terms for trading docs is acceptable. I disagree with this approach from a long term philosophical standpoint. We either believe our bullshit or we don't. -----Original Message----- From: Belden, Tim Sent: Wed 1/2/2002 6:33 PM To: Presto, Kevin M. Cc: Subject: RE: GTC vs. Master that's fine. that's how eol worked. it is a take it or leave it gtc from what i understand. if people take it and we limit them to shorter term deals we should be fine. -----Original Message----- From: Presto, Kevin M. Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:31 PM To: Belden, Tim Subject: FW: GTC vs. Master FYI - trumped already. -----Original Message----- From: Forster, David Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 3:37 PM To: Presto, Kevin M. Subject: GTC vs. Master Kevin, I was talking with Louise this afternoon and she said that she does not want us to put full master agreements online, but rather that we should proceed with streamlined GTC's in order to ensure that we are able to do as much business as possible without being delayed by negotiation of lengthy contracts. This does not mean that we cannot ultimately get everyone onto a standardised long-form Master Agreement. EnronOnline is set up so that a negotiated Master Agreement will supercede the GTC. Dave