re : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline sorry i am so late in replying ! it would seem that the mtm issue is
bridgeline ' s decision and would solely be based on whether or not they are ,
in fact , trading as defined in eitf 98 - 10 . there are about 4 pages of
criteria set forth in that document . that may be a question you want to ask
trevor mihalik , but i do know that initially they did not meet 98 - 10
criteria . their business may well have changed by now .
i am confused by your suggestion about whether or not to involve commercial .
i may not understand , but we do already have a means to track our 40 % . we
can certainly mark 60 % of any business we do with bridgeline , but the other
40 % should be treated as affiliate business .
wes
brent a price
05 / 23 / 2000 06 : 07 am
to : wes colwell / hou / ect @ ect
cc : steve jackson / hou / ect @ ect
subject : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
wes - are we still anticipating that bridgeline will be allowed
mark - to - market status at some point in the future ? if so , what criteria must
bridgeline meet and what is the expected timeline on it ? if this is going to
happen soon , i would suggest that we avoid getting commercial involved and
developing a process to track our 40 % portion of bridgeline .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by brent a price / hou / ect on 05 / 23 / 2000 05 : 57
am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : steve jackson 05 / 19 / 2000 12 : 29 pm
to : brent a price / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
fyi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by steve jackson / hou / ect on 05 / 19 / 2000 12 : 28
pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : georgeanne hodges 05 / 01 / 2000 04 : 11 pm
to : steve jackson / hou / ect @ ect
cc : wes colwell / hou / ect @ ect , mary lynne ruffer / hou / ect @ ect
subject : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
steve ,
aa has indicated that our proposal with regard to transactions done between
ena and bridgeline sounds ok . they did bring up a good point about how the
40 % would be shown for purposes of position and loss limits , which under our
scenario of just using schedule ' c ' to defer the 40 % we would effectively be
showing the 100 % for all other measures . i told them that we would monitor
for materiality before putting a manual process in place .
i think we should now meet with the commercial folks to explain the real p \ l
impact . would you take the lead on deciding who that should be and get a
meeting set up ?
thanks
re : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
sorry i am so late in replying ! it would seem that the mtm issue is
bridgeline ' s decision and would solely be based on whether or not they are ,
in fact , trading as defined in eitf 98 - 10 . there are about 4 pages of
criteria set forth in that document . that may be a question you want to ask
trevor mihalik , but i do know that initially they did not meet 98 - 10
criteria . their business may well have changed by now .
i am confused by your suggestion about whether or not to involve commercial .
i may not understand , but we do already have a means to track our 40 % . we
can certainly mark 60 % of any business we do with bridgeline , but the other
40 % should be treated as affiliate business .
wes
brent a price
05 / 23 / 2000 06 : 07 am
to : wes colwell / hou / ect @ ect
cc : steve jackson / hou / ect @ ect
subject : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
wes - are we still anticipating that bridgeline will be allowed
mark - to - market status at some point in the future ? if so , what criteria must
bridgeline meet and what is the expected timeline on it ? if this is going to
happen soon , i would suggest that we avoid getting commercial involved and
developing a process to track our 40 % portion of bridgeline .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by brent a price / hou / ect on 05 / 23 / 2000 05 : 57
am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : steve jackson 05 / 19 / 2000 12 : 29 pm
to : brent a price / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
fyi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by steve jackson / hou / ect on 05 / 19 / 2000 12 : 28
pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : georgeanne hodges 05 / 01 / 2000 04 : 11 pm
to : steve jackson / hou / ect @ ect
cc : wes colwell / hou / ect @ ect , mary lynne ruffer / hou / ect @ ect
subject : accounting for transaction done with bridgeline
steve ,
aa has indicated that our proposal with regard to transactions done between
ena and bridgeline sounds ok . they did bring up a good point about how the
40 % would be shown for purposes of position and loss limits , which under our
scenario of just using schedule ' c ' to defer the 40 % we would effectively be
showing the 100 % for all other measures . i told them that we would monitor
for materiality before putting a manual process in place .
i think we should now meet with the commercial folks to explain the real p \ l
impact . would you take the lead on deciding who that should be and get a
meeting set up ?
thanks