This analysis was another swag at p&l components.
We took the numbers from the daily position reports, backed out the big originations that we new about (e.g.
peakers sales) and the other "mistakes" (e.g.
the EES $700MM loss), then took out the curve-shift P&L from the backtest data, the balance we said must be some form of "new deal" P&L plus realised p&l etc.
It shows that 2000 was the prop trading year, whereas 2001 was mainly new deals.
Of course the whole thing is poisoned by reserve movements.

P/L Breakout
This analysis was another swag at p&l components.
We took the numbers from the daily position reports, backed out the big originations that we new about (e.g.
peakers sales) and the other "mistakes" (e.g.
the EES <CUR>000MM loss), then took out the curve-shift P&L from the backtest data, the balance we said must be some form of "new deal" P&L plus realised p&l etc.
It shows that <NUMBER> was the prop trading year, whereas <NUMBER> was mainly new deals.
Of course the whole thing is poisoned by reserve movements.
poisoned reserve movements trading year number analysis swag big originations new ees cur peakers sales mistakes curve shift backtest data balance components took