QUESTION: Today I'm going my GE's offices, so I'll be in late. If the deals I'm working on permit (3 are supposed to close next week), I would like to take as much time as possible off the week of and after Christmas. I won't take off all that time. Thanks,
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: Today, holidays
Marty, looks like this nut may have some fruit. I look forward to continuing our discussions from 2000 on how we can be better together - I am committed to doing this the right way as I know you are. Regards
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Enron Direct Canada-First Deal
Please use the PEP system on your computer to suggest reviewers by the end of the day tomorrow at the latest. It is important that your reviewers have enough time to fill out the reviews and the system closes for that purpose at the end of next week. If you have any questions or are having trouble accessing the system, please let me know.
Answer: Year End Performance Reviews
Here is an email: Hi Andy. Here's my suggestion (actually it was yours): Product 1 Fin Power Swap Web Visible Offered Qty: 50 Qty Increment: 5 Min Qty: 5 (or whatever you want to use as a minimum) Product 2 Fin Power Swap Ghost Product - not web visible Offered Qty: 200 Qty Increment: 1 Min Qty: 1 Base Link to Product 1 with Bid = 0, Offer = 0, Offset to Last trade of 0 with reset qty of 200 NOT Auto-hedged to Product 1 Product 3 Fin Power Option Auto-hedged to Product 2. Here's what will happen: Suppose the option is traded and to hedge it requires a qty of 15. The actual hedge will be against Product 2. Product 2 offered qty will reduce to 185. Since Product 2 is not auto-hedged to Product 1, there will be no impact on the main swap. The prices for Product 2 will always be exactly those of Product 1 since the bid and offer are 0. Note: Eventually, the offered qty for Product 2 will reduce below the amount needed for hedging a particular trade (for instance, if every trade required a hedge qty of 15, then after 13 trades, your remaining qty would be 5). This is not a problem. The hedging model for options allows for not enough volume being available on the swap. The next trade would simply get fully hedged and pop the qty back up to 200. Since it has an offset to last trade of 0, the bid and offer prices would still be those of Product 1. Also Note: We will have to make sure the power IT guys are prepared to get essentially the same swap (Product 1 and Product 2) under two different product ids. Does this make sense?
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: solution for hedging options that doesn't decrement swap volume
Q: Hello, I feel like I am in a bad dream and when I wake up all this merger stuff will be a joke. Why Dynegy? The culture is so different. I had the opportunity to work for Dynegy and there where many racial and uncomfortable events that happen for many employee's. We lost our name with this Merger as well as the pride. I truly believe another solution will come to surface. Hopes and Prays can developed us all from this disappointment. Thanks,
Propose a subject line
A: Merger
Here is an email: There were several questions left for legal/regulatory to work on at the close of our meeting today. I'll try to restate them, and add my initial thoughts, so we can all be sure to focus on the correct problems. Q 1. Can TW use "negotiated rate" agreements for its new 150 mm/d expansion? A. Yes. Independence, Guardian, and other new pipeline projects were certificated on the basis of negotiated rate contracts. The only restriction is that we need to always offer cost-based recourse rate service as an alternative to negotiated rates. We hope to use negotiated rate agreements for the entire 150 mm of capacity, but we won't know until the contracts are executed how much of it will be negotiated rate contracts and how much of it will be under recourse rate contracts. I guess that means that in the cert. app., we just tell the commission that we will be 100% at risk and that given the huge interest in the open season, we have no doubts about our ability to sell the full 150. We should also tell the Commission we expect to sell the capacity using negotiated rate contracts or recourse rate contracts or a combination of both. Q 2. Can we give prospective customers a "cafeteria style" menu of options (to steal Jeff's term), like the following: 1. 5 yr. neg. rate deal at a locked in $.60 plus fuel and surcharges (or whatever number we decide on) 2. 10 y. neg. rate deal at a locked in $.45 plus fuel and surcharges 3. 15 yr. neg rate deal at a locked in $.35 blah blah 4 . 15 yr cost based recourse rate plus fuel and surcharges (importantly this option is not locked in and will float with TW's actual rate levels and fuel retainage percentages) A. I think the answer here is "yes." Whatever options we come up with for 1, 2, and 3, we will always have to offer 4 as well. Susan and Steve Stojic: please confirm that we have the right to define specific negotiated rate options and stick to them. Otherwise, this negotiated rate approach could get completely unstructured such that we end up with some guys taking our specific options and other guys custom tailoring weird variations (like a 7 yr, 231 day contract at $.51764, for example). I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, but we need to think about it. We need to be sure we can tell a customer "no" and make it stick if he tries to mix and match by asking for the 5 yr term and the $.35 rate, for example. I think we can lay out options of our choosing and then enforce a "no substitutions" policy (this is sticking with the "cafeteria" theme) but we need to be sure. Q.3. If we can use the "cafeteria options" approach, how much flexibility do we have in structuring the options? A: This one is hard. We need to be sure that the price and term we choose to offer for options 1-3 is solely within our discretion. We don't want to be second guessed by FERC as to whether we should have offered option 1 at $.58 instead of $.60. Susan and Steve: if you guys confirm that we have discretion in how to structure our negotiated rate options, does that mean we can slant the economics of the negotiated rate options so they are a better deal than the recourse option (for most shippers)? I.e., could we deliberately incent shippers to sign on for the short term deals--i.e., by
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A:
TW Expansion