Message-ID: <20639945.1075858340321.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:44:00 -0800 (PST)
From: jeffrey.gossett@enron.com
To: kathy.reeves@enron.com
Subject: Re: Canada p&l
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Jeffrey C Gossett
X-To: Kathy Reeves
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Robin_Rodrique_Jun2001\Notes Folders\Canada
X-Origin: Rodrique-R
X-FileName: rrodri2.nsf

Kathy -

What p&l reports did you receive in the past?  We have never changed a p&l 
down here 3 months after the fact,  so I am surprised that would take place 
at all.  I would think that if there were any entry so far in the past that 
it would need to be done by accounting.  I'm not sure what you want done 
about this.  FYI...We have tied out to the dollar with the DPR.




Kathy Reeves
01/11/2001 03:40 PM
To: Jeffrey C Gossett/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Canada p&l

Jeff,
I just wanted to let you know that I do not think that the p&l reported for 
Canada in the management reports was correct for 2000.  The correct p&L for 
Canada by trader is as attached.


I believe that problem stems from Q1 origination adjustment which never made 
it to Executive reports.
I will forward the Email I sent originally regarding this issue.  I believe 
it was dealt with correctly at the time based on the p&l summaries I used to 
receive but it is no longer correct based on what Robin has sent me.

Kathy
---------------------- Forwarded by Kathy Reeves/CAL/ECT on 01/11/2001 02:33 
PM ---------------------------


Robin Rodrigue
01/11/2001 01:29 PM
To: Kathy Reeves/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Canada p&l  

Kathy,

The 2000 DPR is closed.  Therefore no more changes can be made.  As I stated 
in my earlier email, either the 4.1 million adjustment was never actually 
made to the DPR or it is included in our number because the trading and 
origination p&l that I am reporting ties with what the DPR is reporting.

Robin




Kathy Reeves
01/10/2001 04:57 PM
To: Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Canada p&l  

Robin,
$4.1 M was to have been reduced from our Q1 trading income to break out the 
origination correctly.  It looks like this was never done in your report.  I 
thought it had been based on previous Emails.  I don't think the p&l in your 
report is correct as it is $4.1M too high.  This is what our trading income 
at Dec 31 should be.  Note:  the DPR was never adjusted because the LTD and 
YTD numbers do not exclude orgination income.  It also looks like the break 
out by trader is not quite right

Kathy





Robin Rodrigue
12/08/2000 10:58 AM
To: Kathy Reeves/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Canada p&l  

Kathy,

I am attaching a copy of the NGPL that was reported as of this morning.  If 
you look at the by Trader P&L, we are off from your spreadsheet by 
approximately $3.6 million USD for December and approximately $7.6million 
year to date.  The $7.6 consists of the December variance and the $4 million 
variance that we discussed earlier (originations).  However, I spoke with the 
Chris Able from the Controls group, what we are reporting for originations 
and for Canadian p&l ties to the DPR.   This leads me to believe that either 
our number already includes the origination adjustment or the origination 
adjustment was never made to the DPR.  To help resolve the December variance, 
I have added a tab to your file to show what we have reported each day for 
December.  

Remember the p&l we are reporting by trader excludes originations.  Give me a 
call when you have time and we can try to resolve these variances.


 

Thanks,
Robin





Kathy Reeves
12/07/2000 06:46 PM
To: Robin Rodrigue/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Canada p&l

Robin
I would like to make sure before year end that the p&l being reporting for 
Canada ( trading profits only) equals what I think it is as per attached:



Would you let me know what you are currently reporting for Canada.

Thanks
Kathy