Subject: Policy and Procedures regarding Trading
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:48:00 -0800 (PST)

The reason I feel compelled to put this in writing is that there is so much 
confusion regarding policy and procedures.  The distribution of practices 
around the firm is always surprising.  You are not being singled- there are 
just too many people who need to be informed to preclude a nice phone call 
from me.  This is not an exhaustive list, however, before we get on a sloppy 
road there are a few things that need to  be addressed immediately:

Only authorized traders may transact on behalf of Enron.  That means that the 
authorized trader memo is in my hands. 
Only Enron employees can be authorized traders.
All transactions will be done on recorded phone lines in Enron offices.
All transactions will be booked to the risk management system by the COB the 
day in which they are done.
All trades will be confirmed by us within 24 hours.
The person authorized by Greg and Rick to be in charge of the commodity group 
is responsible for the business front- to- back.  This includes p&l , 
position reporting, VAR, and systems.  As it relates to EnronCredit.com 
effort, this is Bryan Seyfreid.   

To clear up any confusion on this issue, Jeff, Rick and Greg have met 
extensively with Bryan and John and are fully supportive of the effort - as 
long as it continues to follow the rules and the "spirit" of the approval.  
The "spirit" , as I interpret it, is that the effort is to be complementary 
to the Financial Trading desk and RAC/Credit and not direct competition.  
That being said, in typical Enron fashion, there is enough grey for some 
overlap, so every one has to play nice.

While I do have as definitive an opinion on this as above, regarding the 
control of trading through certain funnels. it has been explicit practice to 
funnel certain types of transactions  through "central desks".   This is a 
good control mechanism even if it is a bit cumbersome.  MY preference is to 
put pressure on the "central desk" to provide execution services, structuring 
advice and operational help rather than building ones own.  As it relates to 
the Credit effort, it appears doubly important due to SFA considerations.  
Once again, I have a strong preference that we tread nowhere near the line 
and use the procedures established by Gary Hickerson's group to avoid any 
confusion and avoid an opportunity for erroneous human interpretation of 
complex issues.  Additional operational complexity does not appear to be 
sufficient justification for a more amorphous road map.

All comments are appreciated 
Ted