I think that there may be a slight misunderstanding here.

Here are the major differences between Cross-Desk and Cross-Portfolio deals...

Cross-Desk deals are:
? Flagged as desk-to-desk
? NOT scheduled

Cross-Portfolio deals are:
? Flagged as NON-desk-to-desk
? scheduled depending on the deal type (e.g. Forwards are scheduled, 
Emissions are not)

The new deals in question are entered into the system as Cross-Portfolio 
deals because of the WEST - ENAEXEC portfolio relationship.  Because these 
deals were scheduled, they were showing up in Real Time.  By the way, I think 
I was talking to Carla (not Cara) about Real Time.  I apologize about the 
error.  I cannot explain why the deals are not showing up in Forward 
Obligation.

As you said, perhaps Duong Luu can resolve the issue later this week.

Thanks,
Will

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Lande, Monica  
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 10:47 AM
To: Will Smith/HOU/ECT@ENRON
Cc: Sabo, Valarie; White, Stacey
Subject: RE: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk

Will,

I talked to Cara, and she does not agree with what you have stated below.  
She said that cross-desk deals should never show up in real-time position 
manager.  Stacey is also correct,  we have always been able to see 
cross-desks in Forward Obligations - this is not a new development.   Duong 
Luu will be in the Portland office Thursday and Friday,  perhaps we can 
resolve this issue at that time.

Thanks,
Monica


To: Will F Smith/ENRON@enronXgate @ ENRON
cc: Monica Lande/PDX/ECT@ECT, Valarie Sabo/PDX/ECT@ECT 
Subject: RE: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk   << OLE 
Object: StdOleLink >> 

I do not understand why they would not show up in forward obligation.  
Currently, forward obs reads from Deal Entry and if they choose the region / 
delivery point that these deals are entered under they should automatically 
show up.  Maybe the forward obs is not recognizing the new portfolio.

Stacey


From: Will F Smith/ENRON@enronXgate on 02/05/2001 03:08 PM
To: Monica Lande/PDX/ECT@ECT, Stacey W White/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: RE: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk

Since I am not sure we have resolved this issue yet...

If EnPower is not recognizing the change from WEST-EAST to WEST-WEST... 
EnPower needs to be fixed.  We can manually fix any deals that are still in 
error.

Recently there has been the addition of ENAEXEC.  And some WEST-ENAEXEC deals 
have been created.  
? Should these deals appear in scheduling (according to Cara, they should at 
least show up in Real Time)?  
? Should these deals show up in Forward Obligations?  This is something that 
Portland has hinted at wanting.

Please let me know how we should start handling these new deals.

Thanks,
Will


 -----Original Message-----
From:  Lande, Monica  
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:02 PM
To: White, Stacey
Cc: Smith, Will F.
Subject: Re: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk

Stacey,

I think what happened was that originally this deal was entered into with 
ST-NW as the desk and LT-MGMT as the counterparty.  Since LT-MGMT is either 
in the East or Financial Portfolio (I'm not sure - is that Lavorato's book?), 
and ST-NW is in the West Portfolio, it originally showed up as an outside 
counterparty in scheduling.  When the desk got changed to LT-WMGMT (West 
Portfolio), it should have flipped to an interdesk, which does not show up in 
scheduling.  Evidently, it didn't.  

If Enpower won't automatically recognize the change in counterparty 
correctly, I guess we will have to kill the deals and rebook them, rather 
than change the desk.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Monica


To: Monica Lande/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc: Will Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk

Can you talk to Cara and see why this is a problem for her?

Stacey
---------------------- Forwarded by Stacey W White/HOU/ECT on 01/18/2001 
10:42 AM ---------------------------
Will Smith   01/18/2001 07:05 AM
 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 
To: Stacey W White/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk

Stacey,

Were you able to talk with Cara about cross-portfolio deals?

Will Smith
x37486


----- Forwarded by Will Smith/HOU/ECT on 01/18/2001 07:04 AM -----

	Cara Semperger 01/09/2001 05:45 PM 	  To: Will Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT  cc: Diana 
Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT  Subject: Re: 487392 showing 
up as Phys when it is a cross-desk << OLE Object: StdOleLink >> 



wsmith 10-Jan-01:
Sent email to Stacey asking her to explain the difference between cross-desk 
and cross-portfolio deals.

Yes, this is coming up as a consistent problem, these cross-portfolio deals 
are throwing us off balance.  Why are they marked physical? There is no 
delivery.

I don't think these should be marked physical.

c




Will Smith   01/09/2001 03:44 PM
 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 
To: Cara Semperger/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  
Subject: Re: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a cross-desk   << OLE 
Object: StdOleLink >> 

Cara,

I noticed that this deal was since changed from cross-portfolio to 
desk-to-desk.  Is there still an issue here?
FYI, all cross-portfolio deals are entered with the scheduled flag set to 
"yes".

Will






	Duong Luu 01/02/2001 06:05 PM 	   To: Will Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kroum 
Kroumov/Corp/Enron@ENRON  cc: Nadine Costanzo/Corp/Enron@Enron, Laura 
Aldis/NA/Enron@ENRON  Subject: 487392 showing up as Phys when it is a 
cross-desk



Will,

Please research and fix this problem

dluu

----- Forwarded by Duong Luu/HOU/ECT on 01/02/2001 06:09 PM -----

	Cara Semperger 01/02/2001 04:06 PM 	   To: Duong Luu/HOU/ECT@ECT  cc: Donald 
Robinson/PDX/ECT@ECT, Diana Scholtes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sean Crandall/PDX/ECT@ECT, 
Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT, Michael Tully/PDX/ECT@ECT  Subject: 487392 showing up 
as Phys when it is a cross-desk



please Check that Deal_Schedule_yn flag to no on this.  

We need to fix the underlying bug when we get a chance.  I think it is more 
related to the cross desk deals done with EPMI LT WMGMT instead of EOL

c