In my response to Brent Price on the London Doorstep review I alluded to the 
incompleteness of the list of issues. As I outlined, the key point has been 
identified, but its knock - on effects are widespread and worrying, 
especially as they concern the Continental Power operation:

As of today the most recent finalised DPR for this business was for 11th May, 
and during the period between then and now we have seen (although in milder 
form) a repeat of the turmoil on the Amsterdam Power Exchange (APX) that we 
witnessed in January this year. This is not the time or the market to not 
know our position.

The business is soon to apply for higher limits to accommodate a new 
transaction on the Polish border. I am bound to comment that based on the 
state it appears to be in, I would not recommend higher limits.

To add insult to injury, as a result of the way this area has been allowed to 
develop, much of the know-how is in the heads (and spreadsheets) of certain 
key individuals who it seems are now bound rapidly for EBS. 

UK Gas seems to have slipped too. Yesterday they reported a $7m loss due to 
the value of a set of options which were part of a structured deal, booked 
"off-system" and not revalued for over a month. Worryingly, there seemed to 
be more time spent arguing over the nuances of a Loss Notification memo, than 
answering some fundamental questions about why it happened.

As a corollary, our process of performing "risk reviews" has become all the 
more important in identifying holes in our capture and treatment of market 
risk in the firm. I expect these to play a big part in our effort to 
stabilise these areas. 

DP


---------------------- Forwarded by David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron on 
05/17/2000 10:31 AM ---------------------------
   


From:  David Port                                                             
05/17/2000 09:30 AM	
	
	
	                           
	

To: Brent A Price/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve W Young/LON/ECT@ECT, Tani 
Nath/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Pickering/LON/ECT@ECT, Joe Gold/LON/ECT@ECT, James 
New/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Lewis/LON/ECT@ECT, Michael R Brown/LON/ECT@ECT, 
Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ted Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Re: Project Doorstep Responsibility Matrix  


Thanks for the summary. I was out last week so apologies if my comments 
arrive too late. Here they are anyway:


1 Socrates

I think it inappropriate for me, or anyone in RAC for that matter, to have 
primary responsibility for this system/project.

But if I were responsible the first thing I would want to know is why this 
project, which commenced in May 1998, as I recall, is still incomplete, given 
that it now contains possibly the largest energy derivative position in 
history, concentrated in a single commodity with a single counterpart.


2 Exhaustive ?

It doesn't look like an exhaustive list and I suspect it was not intended to 
be so - nevertheless we should ensure it is not viewed as such. 


3 Symptoms or Causes ?

Many of the points look like the former, and addressed as they stand will 
likely leave us with a Band-aid solution which will drop off when pressure is 
applied. 
In fact many of them look like they are a result of Point 5 : 

 "Prioritisation of system projects has resulted in a lack of certain control 
functionality..."

because that explains partly why models get built and forgotten, confirmation 
errors get made, deliveries go astray and trades get missed - usually bright 
people are simply too immersed in manual processes to have time to think 
about changing the way they work. And, for example, when those people move 
on, as they surely will, the institution has no memory of how to do what they 
did. 

I am still amazed at how much we pay relatively senior people to work on 
Microsoft Excel all day, everyday. 


4 Overall

I think this is a good exercise if we react to it in the right way. Rather 
than a list of irritating issues we have to do just enough to justify ticking 
off, we should use it as a tool to analyse the way we operate.

As a hypothesis, if most issues stem from Point 5, then I would ask why has 
prioritisation of system projects resulted in a lack of certain control 
functionality ?

DP





  

 






Brent A Price@ECT
05/08/2000 11:08 AM
To: Mike Jordan/LON/ECT@ECT, Steve W Young/LON/ECT@ECT, Tani 
Nath/LON/ECT@ECT, Mark Pickering/LON/ECT@ECT, Joe Gold/LON/ECT@ECT, James 
New/LON/ECT@ECT, Richard Lewis/LON/ECT@ECT, Michael R Brown/LON/ECT@ECT, 
Andrew Cornfield/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim Davies/LON/ECT@ECT, Rebecca 
Millerchip/LON/ECT@ECT, Kevin Sweeney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pablo 
Pissanetzky/LON/ECT@ECT, Gail Hill/LON/ECT@ECT, Eric Virro/LON/ECT@ECT, 
Richard Sage/LON/ECT@ECT, Tim Poullain-Patterson/LON/ECT@ECT, Ian 
Sloman/LON/ECT@ECT, David Port/Market Risk/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Fernley Dyson/LON/ECT@ECT, Sally Beck/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ted 
Murphy/HOU/ECT@ECT, John Sherriff/LON/ECT@ECT 

Subject: Project Doorstep Responsibility Matrix

Attached is a responsibility matrix for London - Project Doorstep action 
steps.  The listing consists of controls findings, action steps, proposed 
timelines, and proposed sponsors and responsibility assignments for the 
completion of the action steps.  The purpose of this matrix will be to review 
and monitor it on an ongoing basis to ensure that items are being 
appropriately addressed and completed.  Please take a moment to review all 
sections of the listing and communicate any comments or revisions you may 
have to me as soon as possible.  We would like to have a final version of 
this document in place by May 12.