Dear Mike,

Thanks for your insight.  In the past few months we have established a 
detailed approach to doorstep which includes interfacing with BRM.  Through 
my calls the past week, I've been trying to update you so we can determine 
how best to coordinate the Enron Europe work, as well as get an understanding 
of what resources you can supply for this global initiative.

My next step is to contact some of the people on the list you gave me to 
determine their skill set and what locations/commodities they'd be best to 
work on.

I'll send you an updated schedule once I've finalized this.

Thanks

Shona





Mike Jordan@ECT
10/11/2000 09:37 AM
To: Shawn Kilchrist/NA/Enron@Enron, Shona Wilson/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Transparently controlling the wholesale trading businesses - an 
internal approach to internal audit

Shawn / Shona

We have talked round this issue for some time so I thought I would try to 
take a brief stab at documenting what my preferred approach is (we will need 
to do a great deal of talking before we would circulate widely):-

Aims
Accountability for internal controls must rest with the commercial support 
teams and absolutely with the leaders of those teams.
A culture of control and operational risk assessment requires extensive 
on-going communication and a structure of measurement and tracking.
Any independent process of review such as Doorstep and BRM should fully 
leverage the work engaged by staff in the line and indeed should be focused 
by it
All elements of implementing, completing and reviewing internal control 
should generate defined output
We focus independently the review efforts for trading controls and 
origination controls (we have defined the control structure for trading 
offices, agency offices and origination offices and we must police our 
labelling for each office)
The output from Enron's perspective is appropriate risk issue lists to be 
discussed at control/governance meetings (eg at Sally/Ted/Fernley's level and 
at the audit committee level) - the important issue here is that every list 
must be extracted from an agreed database of issues - different lists have 
different amounts of filtering applied - judgementally by senior/experienced 
staff 
The output from AA's perspective is their internal controls audit opinion 
based upon our database and our review and management process of it

Trading Process - monthly
Routine judgemental self assessment on areas within the trading transaction 
cycle - rating made by business controller is red, amber, green - with trend 
indicator of static, improving or declining - see attachment 2 for full 
listing
Monthly metrics collected for key standards set for risk management - see 
attachment 1 (you will notice that this is a summarised version of attachment 
2 - and as a senior controller I would expect the metrics to underpin but not 
solely drive the judgement within the self assessment) - Shona, this is the 
work that Mike Moscoso is leading
Periodic review meeting between controller and commercial lead to discuss 
operational risk and areas of concern (red and amber) with agreement of 
action plans for such areas
Monthly review by controller/senior controller of database where all high 
(red) and medium (amber) risk issues are recorded.  Milestones for action 
plans revisited, reconfirmed or amended
Monthly meeting between remote office staff and controllers to identify if 
the risk rating for any remote offices has changed
All new information on issues raised by self assessment, doorstep review or 
BRM completion populated into database
Database utilised globally to report to various levels of governance and 
decision on whether original BRM and doorstep plans require amendment

Process - Yearly Planning
Checkpoint taken of
current operational environment (say end Oct)
proposed new offices for coming year or proposed changes to activity in 
office, and
IT development plans for next year
Prioritisation made for doorstep - which offices require a visit and what 
depth does report need to go to.  Note the doorstep review would be an end to 
end review for entire business unit and therefore is the independent review 
of the existing self assessment and would leverage the work by focusing the 
review effort on areas of concern, the actions plans in place and concluding 
on the 'mitigation of operational risk to an acceptable level'
Prioritisation made for BRM - which functions, NOT BUSINESS UNITS, require 
external independent review - highly leveraging the above self assessment and 
doorstep processes (could AA signoff simply by auditing our own internal 
governance process?) - most likely reviews completed on functions that 
assessed as concerns across multiple business - such as FX exposure 
management, cash management, credit exposure management, IT change management 
controls/process

Where are we NOW - if we all thought to do this immediately

We do not have bottom up operational risk assessment for all businesses - I 
am suggesting that we demand that all business controllers at the Houston 
offsite do this? 23rd Oct
The above would validate a high level operational risk summary that we as 
senior controllers could put together for the audit committee - last week Oct
We agree on a robust tracking process - throw out one of the BRM and Doorstep 
databases - November
Given AA have never historically risk rated their issues we should repopulate 
the database from scratch - November
Review Doorstep plan to check that our risk rating for business units and 
remote offices means that we have resource focused correctly - do we need to 
visit all? - November
Review all of the above and blend into risk based approach for BRM planning - 
end November to end December !!

Wow - lets chat about this

Mike

Attachment 1




Attachment 2 - the areas where a judgement should be proactively made by each 
business unit controller -

Business oversight
System development project and change management
People management - coaching and skills/headcount gaps
Model Review
Stress testing and business risk identification
Operational capacity assessment signoff
Error management

Control Cycle
Risk Management Control
Recognition of risk origination
Monitoring of trading activities - limit checking, trader mandates
Specific transaction analysis - DASH, CACS etc
Transaction capture - deal form analysis and risk management system input
Logistics support - delivery position analysis, incoming and outgoing invoice 
maintenance, post deal execution contract management
Portfolio edits - required amendments to previously transacted risk/contracts
Market risk/position signoff - both transaction specific and portfolio 
management
DPR production and signoff
Limit excession reporting
Market risk feeds to GRMS - review VAR applicability (backtesting?)
Credit risk review - liaison with RAC over provisioning for credit charges
Price input checking and verification
Reserving and income recognition issues
Weekly Executive Summary
Monthly Revenue Summary

Documentation
Documentation generation
Re-review of contract loading in risk management system
Affirmation chasing
Broker information reconciliation

Trade Accounting
General Ledger account ownership
Balance sheet to CPR reconciliation
Accounts receivable maintenance/monitoring
Accounts payable maintenance/monitoring
Monthly management accounts by profit centre/business segment
Inter company/inter entity reconciliation differences
Legal entity balance sheet analysis for Fin Ops

Settlements
Outgoing invoice generation
Incoming invoice reconciliation
Exchange statements reconciliation
OTC brokerage charges reconciliation and processing
Nostro reconciliations
Cash management liaison