re : research sign off i totally agree . what you list is all we are after .
steven leppard
29 / 01 / 2001 15 : 45
to : james new / lon / ect @ ect
cc : tani nath / lon / ect @ ect , ted murphy / lon / ect @ ect , vince j
kaminski / hou / ect @ ect
subject : re : research sign off
james
i agree with what you say - my view is that research can :
- assess a model ;
- state what the model does ;
- give a view of how closely the model achieves its objectives ;
- assess what the risks of using the model are .
it is for rac to determine whether enron is prepared to accept this risk . i
discussed this issue with ted , and he seems to agree with this broad
splitting of responsibilities .
steve
james new
29 / 01 / 2001 13 : 59
to : steven leppard / lon / ect @ ect
cc : sharad agnihotri / lon / ect @ ect , tani nath / lon / ect @ ect , ted
murphy / lon / ect @ ect , vince j kaminski / hou / ect @ ect
subject : re : research sign off
steve ,
i understand your comments but the ' sign off ' is a cross functional thing and
research are effectively only being asked to sign off their part which is
broadly as you describe below . if you have doubts as to the interpretation of
a research sign off then it should be qualified to state what you are
prepared to sign off on . other functions should be asked to do like wise for
their area which will mean that when all areas have signed off their part
the picture is complete . somebody needs to coordinate this and usually in
london it is the risk management guy .
does this make sense ?
steven leppard
24 / 01 / 2001 09 : 42
to : sharad agnihotri / lon / ect @ ect
cc : tani nath / lon / ect @ ect , ted murphy / lon / ect @ ect , james new / lon / ect @ ect ,
vince j kaminski / hou / ect @ ect
subject : research sign off
hi sharad
i note from our discussion earlier this morning that you ' ve been asked to
sign off a calculation from another group , which is something we ' re asked to
do from time to time .
i take the view that we in research can assess a computation in terms of what
it achieves with respect to its requirements , what its shortfalls are , and
therefore what the risks associated with using this method are . we cannot
provide an opinion on whether these risks are acceptable to enron , which i
feel falls firmly within rac territory .
this then raises the question of can research sign off anything for other
groups after all ? to " sign off " means to accept something , which our opinion
in itself cannot do . it is most appropriate for us to provide a technical
note outlining the methodology , risks and shortcomings of a method , leaving
the formal " sign off " to those best placed to assess these risks for our
company . the alternative is for multiple groups each to have their own view
on what is acceptable risk for the company .
steve
re : research sign off
i totally agree . what you list is all we are after .
steven leppard
29 / 01 / 2001 15 : 45
to : james new / lon / ect @ ect
cc : tani nath / lon / ect @ ect , ted murphy / lon / ect @ ect , vince j
kaminski / hou / ect @ ect
subject : re : research sign off
james
i agree with what you say - my view is that research can :
- assess a model ;
- state what the model does ;
- give a view of how closely the model achieves its objectives ;
- assess what the risks of using the model are .
it is for rac to determine whether enron is prepared to accept this risk . i
discussed this issue with ted , and he seems to agree with this broad
splitting of responsibilities .
steve
james new
29 / 01 / 2001 13 : 59
to : steven leppard / lon / ect @ ect
cc : sharad agnihotri / lon / ect @ ect , tani nath / lon / ect @ ect , ted
murphy / lon / ect @ ect , vince j kaminski / hou / ect @ ect
subject : re : research sign off
steve ,
i understand your comments but the ' sign off ' is a cross functional thing and
research are effectively only being asked to sign off their part which is
broadly as you describe below . if you have doubts as to the interpretation of
a research sign off then it should be qualified to state what you are
prepared to sign off on . other functions should be asked to do like wise for
their area which will mean that when all areas have signed off their part
the picture is complete . somebody needs to coordinate this and usually in
london it is the risk management guy .
does this make sense ?
steven leppard
24 / 01 / 2001 09 : 42
to : sharad agnihotri / lon / ect @ ect
cc : tani nath / lon / ect @ ect , ted murphy / lon / ect @ ect , james new / lon / ect @ ect ,
vince j kaminski / hou / ect @ ect
subject : research sign off
hi sharad
i note from our discussion earlier this morning that you ' ve been asked to
sign off a calculation from another group , which is something we ' re asked to
do from time to time .
i take the view that we in research can assess a computation in terms of what
it achieves with respect to its requirements , what its shortfalls are , and
therefore what the risks associated with using this method are . we cannot
provide an opinion on whether these risks are acceptable to enron , which i
feel falls firmly within rac territory .
this then raises the question of can research sign off anything for other
groups after all ? to " sign off " means to accept something , which our opinion
in itself cannot do . it is most appropriate for us to provide a technical
note outlining the methodology , risks and shortcomings of a method , leaving
the formal " sign off " to those best placed to assess these risks for our
company . the alternative is for multiple groups each to have their own view
on what is acceptable risk for the company .
steve