IN: This is an email
All - In preparation for another round of Trading Track interviews for the ENA group, please be aware of the following dates... October 10 - October 16 : Initial phone interviews by two traders for External candidates. October 24, 3:00 - 6:00pm : Final interviews for internal and external candidates. Please send either Karen Buckley or me the names of internal individuals who you feel would be a great candidate for the ENA Trading Track. We look forward to your active participation. Kind regards,

What is the subject?

OUT: ENA Trading Track Interviews
QUESTION: TEAM: PLEASE SEE THE NEW SCHEDULE FOR NOVEMBER. I MADE A FEW CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRAINNING SCHEDULE FOR DERIVATIVES II AND "TRICKS OF THE TRADE MATH." BERT MEYERS
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS: NOVEMBER SCHDULE
Steve, I think you may have heard a request last week re working closely with Dynegy. I think we just need to treat them like other counterparties. Basically, West Power would like to enter into arms length physical power and service transactions with Dynegy. My understanding is that Dynegy is a separate, unrelated party until the merger closes. Therefore, we can not "collaborate" with them commercially and our transaction policy is dictated by customary credit, legal and risk management procedures. Is this correct? If so, how do you feel about the following? An Enron customer wants to buy power and related services for one year. The customer requires Enron to post collateral. Enron does not want to post collateral but suggests that Enron can provide the product/services to Dynegy and Dynegy can then sell to the customer. The Enron marketer calls the Dynegy marketer and proposes a "back to back" transaction. Dynegy adds a small service fee, the Enron/Dynegy contract is executed and a Dynegy/Customer contract is executed. This type of deal happens frequently - it is usually driven by the third party having better credit, transmission access or a complementary service. We could do this with anyone, but the obvious choice is Dynegy - customers think it makes sense, and ultimately if we merge we have retained a customer. Do you think this works? Regards,
Q: What is a potential subject line for this email?
answer: Potential Dynegy Transactions
Luanne: I made a mistake on the language that we sent you on MAC. On the last part where it talks about a failure to be rated, my understanding from our discussions is that a MAC would only be triggered if a party's credit support provider failed to be rated by either S&P or Moody's so that if it lost one rating but maintained the other rating a MAC would not be triggered. For this reason the amendment should read ...or its Credit Support Provider shall fail to have a rating from either S&P or Moody's. Please confirm that this is your understanding and sorry for the confusion.
Answer: MAC Language
Here is an email: Dear Mr. Lay, I am sure no one could imagine the worry and mental anguish you have had to endure these past weeks. I pray for you that you will continue to have the strength to move forward during these trying times. Mr. Lay, I'm really a "nobody". I started my career back in 1972 with Northern Petrochemical in Morris Illinois. I worked there for two years then quit to return to college to earn my engineering degree. I graduated in 1979 at the age of 29. Upon graduation, I hired back with Northern Natural Gas in Liberal Kansas. I continued my career with Enron until January 15 this year. I had been expat with EE&CC until Nov. 14, 2000. When I returned to Houston, I found out that I had been "redeployed". To my disappointment, I was unable to find another position and was severed on Jan. 15, 2001. As you can imagine, by saving my money, working hard, and receiving stock options, I had accumulated enough money to go ahead and retire. I was feeling good about my career, my life with Enron, the years of sacrificing time and effort for the betterment of the company. (You know, in spite of what's happened since Jan. 15, I still feel good about all the years I dedicated to the company.) You know what else, I still have the upmost respect and confidence in you. I really hope your self confidence is not slipping. You've accomplished great things with this company. You can continue to lead us through these trying times. I know you can! In closing, I just want to say "thanks". Thanks for
What is a potential subject line for this email?
A: Keeping the Faith
QUESTION: Mark - Just a few quick notes from yesterday's staff meeting (items you should know about): Enron Direct - Appears to be really ramping up. Currently using TaletTree and Saliens (sp?) (temp/consulting agencies) for sales personnel to lower end of mkt. Goal by 10/15 to have all commodity/tariff curves in EES database Looking to also load customer profile information for approx. 22K customers In sync with Canadian efforts and looking at Toronto as a bigger mkt than Calgary Beth pointed out Corp. contractual commitment to Ernst & Young of $60MM annually and suggestion to consider them for consulting services. Currently Corp. spend is approx. $40MM annually. Pipeling software products - Have contract with Luminent for marketing Enron gets 100% of license fees and continues to own products (including all enhancements) Luminent gets opportunity to do all integration Product price is $500,000 Jay indicated Kiodex transaction data fee is up and ready for operation. Waiting for Kiodex to be ready to go live. The Kiodex product will appear as a "Risk Report" button inside of EOL. Mention was made of the "layoffs" in Europe, but Greg indicated it may not be much of an impact on ENW personnel presuming the level of support for existing businesses remains constant. Nothing else in particular was discussed. Tom and I did have an opportunity to speak about some CommodityLogic items subsequent to the staff meeting. His big concern remains the speed with which we are able to produce amendment documents for counterparties, especially in light of the fact that Greg now wants weekly reports on the progress of these amendments - from Tom. I worked with Brent, Bob and Kathryn Cordes yesterday on a possible short term solution that may at least enable the CommodityLogic marketing personnel to put a base amendment form (not to be signed) in front of counterparties. The base amendment form would clearly indicate that additional information was necessary before an agreement was reached. This would be followed up by the actual "guts" of the legal confirm language. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Mark
Propose a subject line for this email?
ANS:
Staff Meeting 10/4