Enron Mail

From:chonawee.supatgiat@enron.com
To:richard.dimichele@enron.com, key.kasravi@enron.com
Subject:Re: calculating bid-ask prices
Cc:stinson.gibner@enron.com, martin.lin@enron.com, jim.fallon@enron.com,vince.kaminski@enron.com
Bcc:stinson.gibner@enron.com, martin.lin@enron.com, jim.fallon@enron.com,vince.kaminski@enron.com
Date:Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:57:00 -0700 (PDT)

Rich, Thanks for your response. Sorry for the long e-mail. I did not expect
to be this long but it kept getting longer and longer while I wrote it. We
can set up a meeting to discuss about it instead of reading this long e-mail.

You know, any individual product has two risk components---unique risk and
market risk. Most products in energy industry have very high market risk and
very low unique risk. (For example, a price of gas produced from Texas is
highly correlated with the Henry Hub spot price.) Since the market risk plays
an important role in the energy commodities' prices, people buy and sell
commodities or their derivatives mainly for "hedging" purpose---to reduce
their market risk.

However, the movie market is quite different than other commodity markets.
The Gross Box Office receipt of "The Little Mermaid" has low correlation with
the sum of Gross Box Office receipts of all movies releasing at the same
period. An individual movie has very high unique risk and very low market
risk. If you remember, the consultant last Friday said that if we own about
15 movies, their combined total revenue would be pretty much accurately
forecasted. That means movies' market risk is low and "hedging" is not
important comparing to "diversification".

Since the unique risk plays an important role in the movie market, I would
expect that most of our customers would buy and sell for "diversification"
purpose, not for "hedging" purpose. The producer of some movies would sells
part of their movies and buy part of the other movies to diversify their
unique risk.

I think we are going into the right direction by creating this movie market
so people who long on a small set of movies can sell part of them and buy
some parts of other movies. The buyers and sellers in this market can all
just be the people who naturally long on some slates of movies. They will
sell some of their own and buy some of others.

I think the idea on grouping a small number of movies to increase liquidity
is good but we need to make sure that diversification can still be done
through this market.

If Enron wants to take some position, I would recommend that we must be
diversified enough (15+ movies as the consultant said). We should avoid
taking a position on a small number of movies. Otherwise, we will be just an
"inefficient" gambler. (Like putting all the money into only one or two
stocks. We could have made the same expected return with a lot less risk by
investing in S&P500.)

For your questions about the bid-ask pricing system that I proposed in the
previous e-mail, if there are no buyers, the tentative bid-ask prices would
be very low. So we tell the seller to reduce their selling price to this
level if they still want to sell to us. (We can set our bid price to be low
enough by subtracting its unique risk premium---insurance premium--so now we
can take this position and behave like an insurance company. But we need to
have (or expected to have) a significant numbers of similar deals of other
movies.)

I agree that leaving open orders for several days might be a problem. We can
set the "bidding period" to be just only 1 day (e.g. every Monday) and
everything is cleared at the end of the day.

I have not seen other markets using this dynamic bid-ask pricing system and
the idea was just came up by myself, so I believe it is new. I plan to write
a memo explaining the details of this system and send it to you.

Dear everyone, please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks,
-Chonawee



From: Richard DiMichele@ENRON COMMUNICATIONS on 04/25/2001 01:46 PM
To: Chonawee Supatgiat/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc: Key Kasravi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications

Subject: Re: calculating bid-ask prices

Chonawee:

Thanks for your input. This is similar to what I was thinking. Our prices
would be "indicative" only. We could take positions, but initially would try
to find the other side of any deal we'd do. That's why we've been spending a
lot of brain cells trying to come up with an exhaustive list of the "natural"
buyers and sellers. To the extent we make the product more generic (e.g., a
slate of movies as opposed to an individual picture) we may drive out more
liquidity.

I'm a little unclear on the settlement. What if there are no buyers - do we
tell the sellers they didn't get done? Also, a buyer or seller would have to
give us an open order (which might be okay). However, leaving an order open
for several days might be a problem. Are you aware of any other markets
which trade in the way you suggest?

Rich




Chonawee Supatgiat@ENRON
04/24/01 07:40 PM

To: Richard DiMichele/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Chonawee Supatgiat/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cynthia Harkness/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Greg Wolfe/HOU/ECT@ECT, James
Ginty/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Jim Fallon/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Kelly Kimberly/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Kevin Howard/Enron Communications@Enron
Communications, Key Kasravi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications,
Kristin Albrecht/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Kristina
Mordaunt/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Martin
Lin/Contractor/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Paul Racicot/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Zachary McCarroll/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications, Martin Lin/Contractor/Enron
Communications@Enron Communications
Subject: calculating bid-ask prices


I think we should let the price float with the market instead of trying to
forecast it. Otherwise, if our forecast is not consistence with the market,
we may have an imbalance in the bid-ask orders and we may end up taking some
positions. You know, as Russ and Martin pointed out, we cannot fight with the
studio and exhibitors because they have inside information and can game the
price easily.

One way to ensure the balance of the bid-ask orders is to embed an exchange
system inside our bid-ask prices front end. Each week, we have a trading
period. During the period, instead of posting bid-ask prices, we post
"tentative" bid-ask prices, then we ask our customers to submit their
acceptable buying or selling price. These "tentative" bid-ask prices get
updated and are shown to the public. Of course, customers can revise/withdraw
their bids anytime during the trading period. At the end of the period, we
calculate and post the final bid and ask prices. The seller who submits lower
selling price than our final bid price gets paid at the bid price. The buyer
who submits higher buying price than our final ask price pays at the ask
price. Next week, we repeat the same process.

This way, we can manage our positions easily and we can also behave like a
broker where we don't take any position at all. We make profit from those
bid-ask spread. We don't have to worry about forecasting accuracy and
insiders' trading because we don't have to take any position. Let the market
be the one who decides the price.

If we maintain our net position as zero, at the end, when all the actual
gross box office numbers are reported in those publications, our customers
with open long/short positions are perfectly matched. Using the
mark-to-market charge can reduce credit risk.

Thanks,
-Chonawee



---------------------- Forwarded by Chonawee Supatgiat/Corp/Enron on
04/24/2001 07:24 PM ---------------------------


Chonawee Supatgiat
04/20/2001 04:31 PM
To: Richard DiMichele/Enron Communications@Enron Communications, Key
Kasravi/Enron Communications@Enron Communications
cc: Martin Lin/Contractor/Enron Communications@Enron Communications

Subject: some more input

Hi Rich and Key,
Again I think your idea is very good. I think that we, as a market maker, can
reduce our credit risk (risk of default) if we do the "mark-to-market"
charging. That is, each week when we release a new expected value of the
gross box office receipt, we balance all the opening positions the same way
as in a regular future market. This way, we can give margin calls to the
couterparties who are expected to owe us a lots of money.
In the last paragraph, I think the gross box office can also be determined
from the market itself (i.e., if there are lots of buyers, our offer price
should go up.)
We can offer other derivative products such as options as well.
-Chonawee