clickpaper . com confirming entity discussions over the last several days with legal and tax have resulted in a
change to the legal entity we ' ll use for the " trading " portion of
clickpaper . com activity .
as long as our business model is a one to many model the decision is . . . . . .
a . for click match activity clickpaper . com can still be used as planned .
simply , we ' ll only be invoicing for transaction fees .
b . for click trade activity the following will happen .
1 . physical trading that occurs at any north american hub developed by
clickpaper . com , enron north america , corp . ( ena ) will be the
confirming entity . i have asked legal to develop a simple recital statement
for the physical confirmation to indicate that the transaction originated as
a " clickpaper . com on - line transaction " .
2 . physical trading that occurs at any hub developed for the u . k . , latin
america , or asia , has not yet been finalized for legal entity purposes . my
desire is that we follow the legal entity structure used by eol on - line
trading for hubs in similar countries . we ' ll work that out soon .
strictly from an operational point of view the benefits are many but the most
significant is a much simplified mid / back - office effort in order to support
clickpaper on - line business . we no longer need to be concerned about setting
up more portfolio / book i . d . ' s for risk books as on - line deals can go into the
same risk books used today for pulp and paper . intercompany transactions
between clickpaper . com and ena are now eliminated for on - line trades which
simplifies the confirmation support as well as the downstream financial
reporting / reconcilation activity that would be required by using
clickpaper . com as the entity .
if our one to many model is successful , we move to a many to many model . at
that point , all of this changes . so for now , enjoy !
for now ,
jeff harbert
clickpaper . com confirming entity
discussions over the last several days with legal and tax have resulted in a
change to the legal entity we ' ll use for the " trading " portion of
clickpaper . com activity .
as long as our business model is a one to many model the decision is . . . . . .
a . for click match activity clickpaper . com can still be used as planned .
simply , we ' ll only be invoicing for transaction fees .
b . for click trade activity the following will happen .
1 . physical trading that occurs at any north american hub developed by
clickpaper . com , enron north america , corp . ( ena ) will be the
confirming entity . i have asked legal to develop a simple recital statement
for the physical confirmation to indicate that the transaction originated as
a " clickpaper . com on - line transaction " .
2 . physical trading that occurs at any hub developed for the u . k . , latin
america , or asia , has not yet been finalized for legal entity purposes . my
desire is that we follow the legal entity structure used by eol on - line
trading for hubs in similar countries . we ' ll work that out soon .
strictly from an operational point of view the benefits are many but the most
significant is a much simplified mid / back - office effort in order to support
clickpaper on - line business . we no longer need to be concerned about setting
up more portfolio / book i . d . ' s for risk books as on - line deals can go into the
same risk books used today for pulp and paper . intercompany transactions
between clickpaper . com and ena are now eliminated for on - line trades which
simplifies the confirmation support as well as the downstream financial
reporting / reconcilation activity that would be required by using
clickpaper . com as the entity .
if our one to many model is successful , we move to a many to many model . at
that point , all of this changes . so for now , enjoy !
for now ,
jeff harbert