|
|
Enron Mail |
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!
|