re : trading v origination offices i agree with the exception of point 3 below . i plan for them to be one of several authorisers of bills ( in no case however , the only authorisers ) . also , i spoke to sally about the " agency " office and she agrees that in the short term , the agency plan is what we need to implement . however , a mentioned by both ted and sally , we need to discuss what the ultimate goal is for these offices ( will they continue to exist ? ) . let ' s call what we plan to implement now " phase i " . best regards to : richard sage / lon / ect @ ect cc : sally beck / hou / ect @ ect , brent a price / hou / ect @ ect , fernley dyson / lon / ect @ ect , mike jordan / lon / ect @ ect , shona wilson / na / enron @ enron , ted murphy / hou / ect @ ect , naomi connell / lon / ect @ ect subject : re : trading v origination offices thanks - i think this is a good start as far as roles go , but as i outlined to shona last week , we should apply some basic rules to the process , ( forgive me if obvious ) for example : rule 1 : no confirmations issued , chased or matched by remote offices this should be done centrally and further all the customers of the remote office should be given contact numbers ( e . g . fax ) at the operations hub . that way any incoming confirmations etc go to the independent ops group . rule 2 : no cash payments or receipts in respect of transactions approved or reconciled by remote offices operations hubs should reconcile cash movements to changes in position . rule 3 : no physical settlements or receipts in respect of transactions approved or reconciled by remote offices this splits the logistics process somewhat , but is essentially as with cash in that every movement of physical product should be approved ( where necessary ) and reconciled to movements in the position at operations hubs . the " initiation / optimisation " aspect of logistics could remain remote , since arguably it involves pseudo - trading . not exhaustive but helpful i hope . dp richard sage @ ect 08 / 21 / 2000 03 : 40 am to : sally beck / hou / ect @ ect , brent a price / hou / ect @ ect cc : fernley dyson / lon / ect @ ect , mike jordan / lon / ect @ ect , shona wilson / na / enron @ enron , ted murphy / hou / ect @ ect , david port / market risk / corp / enron @ enron , naomi connell / lon / ect @ ect subject : trading v origination offices sally , brent , there are three mg offices in north america outside new york which , previous to the acquisition by enron , acted much as trading offices . shona and naomi have worked with the people in new york to put in place extra controls so that they are not trading offices , for example having a trader in new york or london own each book and sign off on profit daily . this process has highlighted the fact that our non - trading offices are not all the same , and cannot reasonably all be the same . some offices organise logistics things to happen on the ground , some originate , and some execute for trading offices . is a suggestion for how we can make this division explicit . all the cc above are bought in to this approach . what do you require to be comfortable so that we can put it up to causey and buy ? it is worth noting that this approach would have caught helsinki , except for the contract - in - a - bottom - drawer , but no system of control can reliably catch that , as was evidenced by eott . thanks , richard