Message-ID: <29662940.1075842001747.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:45:18 -0800 (PST) From: casey.evans@enron.com To: zhiyun.yang@enron.com Subject: RE: J9 issue Cc: w..white@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: w..white@enron.com X-From: Evans, Casey X-To: Yang, Zhiyun X-cc: White, Stacey W. X-bcc: X-Folder: \ExMerge - White, Stacey W.\Inbox X-Origin: WHITE-S X-FileName: stacy white 7-15-02.PST Z- I'm attaching a spreadsheet explaining how the true up should flow in the roll...give me a ring and we can discuss after you take a look at it.... Stacey - please correct me if I'm wrong?! Thanks! Casey -----Original Message----- From: Yang, Zhiyun Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:53 PM To: Evans, Casey Subject: J9 issue Hi Casey: Sorry we have to go through this J9 question so many times. I think it will help all of us if we can use an example. Let's assume we have a swap deal for 3 days: Sep 1, Sep 2, Sep 3, and the fixed price is 0 for simplicity. Again for simplicity assume the index price for the three days didn't change and stayed as $1. The only thing changed is the volume. On Sep 1 the volume is 12 MWH On Sep 2 we backdated the deal for Sep 1 as 10 MWH, and for Sep 2 as 10 MWH On Sep 3 we backdated the deal for both Sep 1 and Sep 2 as 15 MWH I'm trying to understand what should go into J9 on Sep 2 and Sep 3 respectively. Can you help me? In particular, should J9 on Sep 3 reflect the true-up for both Sep 1 and Sep 2? The current J9 formula (the wrong one that is) should shown the financial liquidation on Sep 2 as -2 (=10-12), and on Sep 3 as 10(15+15-10-10). Isn't that correct? Thanks a lot! - Zhiyun