Maybe.   If we truly believe this is a credit starved industry with huge liquidity problems, then we should be able to dictate the terms for dealing with a AA entity........ end of story.
 
We should send this message early and often.   If we don't, the market will percieve that negotiating "one-off" terms for trading docs is acceptable.   I disagree with this approach from a long term philosophical standpoint.   We either believe our bullshit or we don't.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Belden, Tim 
Sent: Wed 1/2/2002 6:33 PM 
To: Presto, Kevin M. 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: GTC vs. Master



that's fine.  that's how eol worked.  it is a take it or leave it gtc from what i understand.  if people take it and we limit them to shorter term deals we should be fine.

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Presto, Kevin M.  
Sent:   Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:31 PM 
To:     Belden, Tim 
Subject:        FW: GTC vs. Master 

FYI - trumped already. 

 -----Original Message----- 
From:   Forster, David  
Sent:   Wednesday, January 02, 2002 3:37 PM 
To:     Presto, Kevin M. 
Subject:        GTC vs. Master 

Kevin, 

I was talking with Louise this afternoon and she said that she does not want us to put full master agreements online, but rather that we should proceed with streamlined GTC's in order to ensure that we are able to do as much business as possible without being delayed by negotiation of lengthy contracts.

This does not mean that we cannot ultimately get everyone onto a standardised long-form Master Agreement. EnronOnline is set up so that a negotiated Master Agreement will supercede the GTC.

Dave