This is the content of an email: TX SET, The Version 1.5 workgroup meet on Friday 2/01 in Austin. Here are the notes from that meeting. The following people have actions items. Please read the attached notes to see what you are action items are. Don Bender Susan Neel Johnny Roberts Paul McKinney Isabel Flores Cherly Mosley Dave Odle Sonya Howell John Hudson <<V 15_2_1.doc>> Also, Here is the 1.5 presentation that Susan Neel gave at RMS. <<Version 1.5latest.ppt>> If you have any comments or questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks

Subject: Version 1.5

This is the content of an email: Brent, I would like to illustrate the growth of our commodities to show why this a great business unit and why this is a big focus for wholesale. Also we will use all of this for the Jan analyst meeting. Please compile some facts on each business by 1. number of transactions 2. revenues 3. on line growth of each 4. size of each commodity; e.g. : number of barrels traded, tons of coal, tons of freight, etc. 5. other metrics that you think will illustrate the point Go back as many years as you can get data. Thanks,

Subject: EGM growth

This is the content of an email: I suppose my victory in this, our latest but not last competition, would be IMPLIED. Rather, I mean that my triumph could be INFERRED or even TACIT. My skill is UNDERSTOOD, my speed INSINUATED, and my nimble pairing of the two is INTIMATED by the fact that I won this competition. Now, I'll be sadly disappointed if you don't get this e-mail until later today, being that you have such a confusing and multi-layered e-mail situation, because I need for you to know that I got the answer first. So for the record, it is 8:45 a.m. on Monday. A side note: I also have The Great Gatsby in my possession. Kate

Subject: My superior intelligence and other IMPLICIT truths

This is the content of an email: The system is certainly not set up to accommodate that now but we could probably draft around it on a case by case basis. It strikes me that while we might be able to come up with a legal framework that would allow for this, the credit considerations are more problematic. I would guess that the back office will also be unhappy about having to manually rearrange all of the trades. This really seems like it is similar to the Aquilla problem in some respects. When we suggested allowing one entity to trade for another, Credit was quite concerned because the system wouldn't be able to check the appropriate headroom. I suppose Credit could just assign the lowest headroom for any of the eligible entities to the entire relationship - would that be acceptable to everyone? Another possibility is for the fund to set up a master trading entity which does the trades with us and then does back to back deals with whichever entities need the allocations. That would let them do a large transaction on EOL and then smaller transactions with the other entities. Of course, the master trading entity would need to qualify for credit on its own somehow. Guarantees from anyone other than the owner would be difficult (upstream guarantee problems).
Subject: One Password - multiple legal entities