That sounds fine - in fact, I think in this case that Sean Crandall just hit 
the wrong counterparty name. Since this looks like it might be a problem for 
you guys in creating confirms, I'll let the traders know to be sure of which 
NCPA shortname they're choosing.

Kate


   
	
	
	From:  Sharen Cason                           01/26/2001 07:09 AM
	

To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Re: NCPA #505486 and 505487

If it doesn't make any difference, I will change these to the other CP name.  
This one is not attached to templates and would need some database changes to 
prepare a confirmation under this name.  If this is not ok, let me know.

Thanks!
---------------------- Forwarded by Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT on 01/26/2001 09:04 
AM ---------------------------
   Kate Symes                01/25/2001 04:25 PM

To: Sharen Cason/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: NCPA #505486 and 505487  

I checked with Heather, and it turns out this second NCPA counterparty 
shortname was set up to distinguish between two different SC numbers. But 
it's only for internal use - both counterparty names have the same billing 
information, etc. So Heather said the deals are fine as they are. I'm going 
to find out more about this after the afternoon rush dies down - just so 
we'll know for the future when to use which shortname.

Kate


   
	
	
	From:  Sharen Cason                           01/25/2001 02:04 PM
	

To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: NCPA #505486 and 505487

These two deals are entered with a special counterparty name that looks like 
it may have been set up for some special deal.  There is another counterparty 
name out there that looks just the same only without the very last series of 
letters.  I will check here and see if anyone knows the difference.  There is 
a note in the Global System that says Heather Dunton had this CP set up.  If 
you could check with her and see if it should be used for these deals or if 
the other CP should be used.

Thanks!