From: jefferson.sorenson@enron.com
To: mark.taylor@enron.com
Date: 2000-07-07 14:59:00+00:00
Subject: Re: new format

Do you have an answer to Carol's question.
Jeff
---------------------- Forwarded by Jefferson D Sorenson/HOU/ECT on 
07/07/2000 02:57 PM ---------------------------
   Carol St Clair                07/07/2000 02:48 PM

To: David P Dupre/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jefferson D Sorenson/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: new format  

David:  
Thanks for sending this to me.  Since I will be hear through next Friday at 
the latest, I would ask that once this chart has been completed that you 
contact Mark Taylor to see who from our group will take this project over 
while I am out.  Thanks.
Carol



	David P Dupre
	07/07/2000 02:27 PM
		
		 To: Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: new format

Hi,
Jeff asked me to forward the new report to you.

Here is the format of the new report and a brief description of each tab:

1. formerage-Willie's prior aging schedule. Do we want to see this for each 
c/p? I think it would be helpful
2. aging-Current aging schedule by year
3. STC-Dcaf-Current physical STC information from Dcaf
4. STC-Tagg-Current physical STC information from tagg
5. financial-Current and new format. If you move the lower bar to the right 
of the gray boxes, you will see the new columns
     which we've discussed.

I completed the master agreement column from the Lotus Notes database;

We are currently waiting on credit for the exposure information and their 
assessment (e.g. 'credit concern', 'good credit', etc.);

Tagg is able to provide term information for each counterparty, but since it 
is a time-intensive process, Ron Nolte is looking
into adding a button in tagg that will allow this and/or create a special 
customized ongoing report;

I am in the process of completing the remaining two columns (i.e. do they 
sign confirms?, if they don't, reasons why?)

Overall, I think that this new format, including my proposed aging schedule, 
will be a valuable 'tool' for all involved in our
follow-up work. 

Thanks
David




   Carol St Clair                07/06/2000 11:05 AM

To: David P Dupre/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: Project  

David:
Please keep in mind that we are not basing our decision on which 
counterparties to contact solely based on exposure and credit concern 
information, but rather based on all of the categories that Mark Taylor and I 
have asked you to compile with respect to each counterparty so I don't want 
the exposure numbers to be limited to any particular type of counterparty.

Carol St. Clair
EB 3892
713-853-3989 (Phone)
713-646-3393 (Fax)
carol.st.clair@enron.com



	David P Dupre
	07/06/2000 10:28 AM
		 
		 To: Veronica Espinoza/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carol St Clair/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Re: Project

Hi,
I don't know how this was settled between Carol and Russell, and  I don't 
understand why Russell would not
want to provide this exposure information to us.

As we discussed earlier last month, I think it would be good to select a 
date, let's say July 5th in this case, and then go forward.

I like your idea of identifying whether the c/p is a 'credit concern' or a 
'good credit', perhaps this could be listed in the 'status' column
on the following spreadsheet.

I have attached a list of updated counterparty names.


Thanks
David
---------------------- Forwarded by David P Dupre/HOU/ECT on 07/06/2000 10:09 
AM ---------------------------
To: David P Dupre/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Russell Diamond/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: Project  

How did things get settled between Carol and Russell?   Looking over the 
spreadsheet itself, I would be able to tell you right off which 
counterparties we consider "Credit Concerns", where you would then prioritize 
on your end.  Even though some counterparties may high high exposures, we 
consider them to be "Good Credits" (for example Duke).  Once again, financial 
exposures vary (sometimes very significantly) from one day to the next.  
Therefore the totals you'll have for current exposures will not be validated 
for more than a week, at the max.

Let me know how you want to go about this.  I think if I highlight which 
counterparties we feel you should look into, this would go a lot faster.

Regards--VE