[ Read it bottom up , BrownMan believes management doing armtwisting, making threats. The meeting Anna was trying to setup was regarding his rebuttal of mid year review thus indicating closure to pending case with HR and moving forward. But per BrownMan it was far from over since he had sent his 2nd letter and awaiting response to it. ]
Anna,
Considering the nature of my complaint I have put it all down in my letters or as email. Regarding further meetings, more than once, I have clarified to Christine that it's lacking transparency. I am not comfortable with all being verbal - Why don't we have a paper trail so that none can argue later that what was said was not said or vice versa. If you read my letters it's clear and rational why I don't want to report to Greg.I am not resigning.
regards,
BrownMan
----------------
BrownMan,
I have read through all your emails and have made 3 attempts to meet with yourself and Christine. I take such claims in my area extremely serious and have supported the efforts to get to the bottom of the issue. Your role at this point in time is reporting to Greg and that has not changed. To the extent that you no longer wish to report to Greg then you are free to resign.
Regards,
Anna
----------------
Anna,
I will not be able to report to Greg going forward. Until the dust fully settles I can report to you at best. I have expressed my thoughts in following email1 and email2. Please read if you have not. You simply dont understand the gravity of the situation or want to ignore it conveniently.
regards,
BrownMan
----------------
BrownMan,
I hope your family will soon be well.
All future notes regarding sick leave should be addressed to Greg Dillard as he is your direct manager. Thank you.
Regards,
Anna
----------------
Anna,
Family still sick, taking sick day today. Thanks.
BrownMan
----------------
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Stonewalled, so reaching upper management + CEO
To : brian.fay, bill.t.winters, jamie.dimon
cc : Christine.Eckert, Jocelyn.Donat, richard.clew, Mariela.Recio
dateTue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:37 PM
subjectCONFIDENTIAL - PLEASE READ
mailed-byjpmchase.com
Dear Sirs,
After 3 weeks of pursuing this matter I am reaching out to higher levels of management. I understand that you are all very busy people but I sincerely request your time and attention as soon as you can find some. Attached are 3 letters - It’s very important and a must to consider the human element - prejudice/racism - in the letters considering the core values of our firm. First is that letter attached in this email. Second is my response to the distortions, exaggerations and obfuscations that have appeared in my manager, Gregory R Dillard’s mid year comments about me. They were in direct contradiction to realities. My response appears in this font and interspersed and indented between his comments. HR came back with findings that lacked objectivity and transparency. I have expressed my concerns again in a 3rd letter. I request you all to consider these in totality. I have told the HR that I will not be able to continue to work and perform my best in this particular work environment any further. Thank you.
3 letters in the order mentioned above:
Supporting evidence/documentation:
regards,
BrownMan
cc : Christine.Eckert, Jocelyn.Donat, richard.clew, Mariela.Recio
dateTue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:37 PM
subjectCONFIDENTIAL - PLEASE READ
mailed-byjpmchase.com
Dear Sirs,
After 3 weeks of pursuing this matter I am reaching out to higher levels of management. I understand that you are all very busy people but I sincerely request your time and attention as soon as you can find some. Attached are 3 letters - It’s very important and a must to consider the human element - prejudice/racism - in the letters considering the core values of our firm. First is that letter attached in this email. Second is my response to the distortions, exaggerations and obfuscations that have appeared in my manager, Gregory R Dillard’s mid year comments about me. They were in direct contradiction to realities. My response appears in this font and interspersed and indented between his comments. HR came back with findings that lacked objectivity and transparency. I have expressed my concerns again in a 3rd letter. I request you all to consider these in totality. I have told the HR that I will not be able to continue to work and perform my best in this particular work environment any further. Thank you.
3 letters in the order mentioned above:
Supporting evidence/documentation:
regards,
BrownMan
Sending a rejoinder to 2nd Letter
Hello Christine,
Consider this as my addendum to the letter addressed to you earlier. This is specifically about Greg asking - “Why are some Indians Black and some White” on the first informal socializing event between us.
Apart from what I have already stated in my letter please understand that this is the number one issue that needs to be investigated, analyzed and disciplined about. Race and Color is big issue in America and it needs to be addressed giving it due importance.
Your short reply earlier makes me suspect that there is no sincere effort to investigate this, instead there is a hurry to cover it up. It’s not just me but several of my colleagues who are aware of this incident feel this way. Considering first two listed in the order of importance we spent relatively lot more time on less significant incident 3 ( name calling as “plad” ). Let me know when you want to call Sadath Mohammed, I want to be present during your call. If you have already called him, I want you to call him again in my presence so that it’s completely transparent.
Thank you.
Consider this as my addendum to the letter addressed to you earlier. This is specifically about Greg asking - “Why are some Indians Black and some White” on the first informal socializing event between us.
Apart from what I have already stated in my letter please understand that this is the number one issue that needs to be investigated, analyzed and disciplined about. Race and Color is big issue in America and it needs to be addressed giving it due importance.
Your short reply earlier makes me suspect that there is no sincere effort to investigate this, instead there is a hurry to cover it up. It’s not just me but several of my colleagues who are aware of this incident feel this way. Considering first two listed in the order of importance we spent relatively lot more time on less significant incident 3 ( name calling as “plad” ). Let me know when you want to call Sadath Mohammed, I want to be present during your call. If you have already called him, I want you to call him again in my presence so that it’s completely transparent.
Thank you.
Meeting with HR and 2nd Letter
Hello Christine,
Earlier I had expressed my concerns regarding HR investigation and about our one on one conversations that we have had so far as follows:
I am getting advice from people I have spoken outside work and an attorney friend of a friend that it's best to have these conversations as transparent as possible while still keeping it confidential. I expressed this concern yesterday also. This is a matter of such gravity and relevance that I am not at all comfortable being on one on one with you, I would rather talk to a panel of HR advisors. I would also like to have few people at my end also who can be in listening mode only. If not this way at least I need a paper trail, you send me questions and I will provide answers or clarifications or whatever needed through email. You will agree that this will lend more credence to this investigation process. Was it Ronald Reagan who said - "Trust in God, but lock your Car".
You said earlier that there will be some sort of "climate survey". How does this work? If I have to guess this right, this is about sending questionnaire to people in the group I work with. It's almost 3 weeks and I have not seen nor heard anything about this survey. On the other hand most people of Indian origin that were part of the group are no more here, two are on an extended leave because of personal matters, so I am not sure how much the survey will gauge the situation of the past and present, spanning my tenure here.
You replied:
Our meeting today will be to review the results of my investigation of your claim for prejudice at the workplace. I have booked a room for you at 1111 Fannin (Waco room) to contact me on my office phone. This is a private meeting, not disciplinary in content, therefore you are not permitted to have additional individuals attend the meeting. Kindly confirm if you wish to continue with our plans to speak one on one with me today at 1pm (2pm EST)
I replied:
Can I have a copy of results before the start of the meeting sent as an email. Also I did not see any response from you about "climate survey". Yes we are on based on your clarification. Thank you.
You replied:
I do not intend to share the results with you in writing. I will review them verbally with you today. I will respond to your questions about climate survey during that meeting.
So, with above concerns alive we still went ahead and had our one on one meeting last Friday (8/22) to discuss the result of HR findings. I made notes captured from our conversation. I sense a lack of objectivity in your findings and following are my concerns about the same.
In summary you said: “We have done the investigation and the result of the finding is that there is no prejudice”
I disagreed but kept quiet and was eager to know how you arrived at such conclusion. So I pointedly started asking about various incidents that was listed in my letter addressed to HR.
1. Greg asking - “Why are some Indians Black and some White” on the first informal socializing event between us.
You said: We investigated and found no prejudice
I asked: How do you know? Did you get a chance to speak to Sadath Mohammed?
You said: I cannot say that. Cannot say whether we have or we have not spoken to him.
That’s a non-starter. That’s going nowhere. If you have not spoken then there is no incident. He was the only witness to this incident. There is absolutely no transparency here. If you have spoken and he denied about the incident I can still understand his dilemma – he being contractor is more interested in extending his contract and such interests rather than being embroiled in all this. If you have spoken and he did agree about the incident then I would appreciate his courage to speak the truth.
2. Greg sending an unsolicited and the only web link he ever sent to me unrelated to work during my tenure of 2 years – about the plight of some Hindu widows in India.
You said: Greg did not know your religious background when he sent the link
I said: But that was not appropriate to send
You said: Everyone has certain level of tolerance. I have discussed this with Greg and he is willing to discuss with you to better the working relationship.
You say as if it’s normal to you. If he had sent several links over variety of topics during my tenure then it would be close to normal, not normal but close. But that was not the case at all. He never sent me any links about ills of American/Western society, like,
a) Racial segregation of churches in America
b) History of Slavery in America or Civil rights movement
c) The confinement of original Americans in zoos called “reservations”
d) Teenage pregnancies, extreme infidelity, wife-swapping and such.
OK. So you get my point. Also, I am not convinced that Greg does not know about my religious background, in fact just the opposite, that’s exactly why he sent the link. He has lied to you. He not only sent the link to me, but to two other Hindus as far as I know. You can check the Lotus Notes ST server history for that particular day.
I have been thinking and you too would think the same if you were to step into my shoes, had the situation been reversed. It smacks of Eurocentrism. Many westerners do it either consciously or subconsciously. Please read about in detail anywhere but here’s a snippet to begin to gain some basic understanding.
“Eurocentrism is a variant of Ethnocentrism. In general, ethnocentrism puts the own ethnic, national, religious or linguistic identity as the norm to judge other countries and cultures, or even subgroups in the own society. Since the other cultures or groups can never fully conform to the standards or criteria defined by another group to apply to itself, it tends to imply a biased judgement about “good” and “bad”. The own cultural context is automatically perceived as positive, as good, and as the proper yardstick for everybody else, and any deviation from this yardstick will be interpreted as a weakness, as something “uncivilized”, or as morally inferior.Eurocentrism is a mental attitude to perceive non-Europeans (or today, non-Westerners) as less relevant, less modern, less civilized, and less than equal”
About your statement – “Everyone has certain level of tolerance” – It’s full of double standards and again smacks of Eurocentrism. The issue at hand is NOT about my level of tolerance but HIS level of INTOLERANCE. His right to swing his fist stops where my nose begins. But being a “manager” he thought he had the rights to do it and still get away with it. I am very tolerant person, but will not tolerate intolerance. Did you know this fundamental tenet of religious pluralism?
----------Tolerance should never tolerate Intolerance--------------
Your personal suggestion about his willingness to discuss with me seems like a deflection of issue at hand and again smacks of superiority complex. Let’s consider this. He’s the perpetrator of the crime and I am the victim, if he expressed his desire why did he not carry it through to fruition. Now I believe it’s too late to have the discussion. Discussion is like a patch, cleansing his mind with all sincerity is the true way to fix the problem. On two incidents anyway he has not showed any inclination to indulge in dialog and educate himself. There’s not much hope on that front.
3. Greg addressing me as “plad” on multiple occasions.
You said: You should have told Greg that you are not comfortable, don’t like it
That’s beside the point. Please don’t try to justify his behavior. He does not have the right to coin a new name and distort my identity. I have already stated in my letter that he knew better, with the “Sunny” example, and I had no reason to educate him again especially in the thick of important discussions going on about projects. It’s as simple as that. Will he ever do that for a Christian name? So, why the discrimination? Connect this with other issues related to calling names stated in my letter and his prejudice will become clear.
We did not get a chance to talk about “climate survey”. How was this accomplished? Apart from concerns that I already expressed before there are larger issues of relevance here. I am the only Indian Hindu employee reporting to him, another one is on medical leave. Other Hindu/Indian people in the work group are either contractors or do not directly report to him or both. They do not have direct stakes in career with the firm as much as I do and neither has Greg as much controlling influence on them as much as he has on me when it comes to performance management and such. On the other hand contractors are at the mercy of his good will to get their contracts extended. All this is relevant.
Earlier I had expressed my concerns regarding HR investigation and about our one on one conversations that we have had so far as follows:
I am getting advice from people I have spoken outside work and an attorney friend of a friend that it's best to have these conversations as transparent as possible while still keeping it confidential. I expressed this concern yesterday also. This is a matter of such gravity and relevance that I am not at all comfortable being on one on one with you, I would rather talk to a panel of HR advisors. I would also like to have few people at my end also who can be in listening mode only. If not this way at least I need a paper trail, you send me questions and I will provide answers or clarifications or whatever needed through email. You will agree that this will lend more credence to this investigation process. Was it Ronald Reagan who said - "Trust in God, but lock your Car".
You said earlier that there will be some sort of "climate survey". How does this work? If I have to guess this right, this is about sending questionnaire to people in the group I work with. It's almost 3 weeks and I have not seen nor heard anything about this survey. On the other hand most people of Indian origin that were part of the group are no more here, two are on an extended leave because of personal matters, so I am not sure how much the survey will gauge the situation of the past and present, spanning my tenure here.
You replied:
Our meeting today will be to review the results of my investigation of your claim for prejudice at the workplace. I have booked a room for you at 1111 Fannin (Waco room) to contact me on my office phone. This is a private meeting, not disciplinary in content, therefore you are not permitted to have additional individuals attend the meeting. Kindly confirm if you wish to continue with our plans to speak one on one with me today at 1pm (2pm EST)
I replied:
Can I have a copy of results before the start of the meeting sent as an email. Also I did not see any response from you about "climate survey". Yes we are on based on your clarification. Thank you.
You replied:
I do not intend to share the results with you in writing. I will review them verbally with you today. I will respond to your questions about climate survey during that meeting.
So, with above concerns alive we still went ahead and had our one on one meeting last Friday (8/22) to discuss the result of HR findings. I made notes captured from our conversation. I sense a lack of objectivity in your findings and following are my concerns about the same.
In summary you said: “We have done the investigation and the result of the finding is that there is no prejudice”
I disagreed but kept quiet and was eager to know how you arrived at such conclusion. So I pointedly started asking about various incidents that was listed in my letter addressed to HR.
1. Greg asking - “Why are some Indians Black and some White” on the first informal socializing event between us.
You said: We investigated and found no prejudice
I asked: How do you know? Did you get a chance to speak to Sadath Mohammed?
You said: I cannot say that. Cannot say whether we have or we have not spoken to him.
That’s a non-starter. That’s going nowhere. If you have not spoken then there is no incident. He was the only witness to this incident. There is absolutely no transparency here. If you have spoken and he denied about the incident I can still understand his dilemma – he being contractor is more interested in extending his contract and such interests rather than being embroiled in all this. If you have spoken and he did agree about the incident then I would appreciate his courage to speak the truth.
2. Greg sending an unsolicited and the only web link he ever sent to me unrelated to work during my tenure of 2 years – about the plight of some Hindu widows in India.
You said: Greg did not know your religious background when he sent the link
I said: But that was not appropriate to send
You said: Everyone has certain level of tolerance. I have discussed this with Greg and he is willing to discuss with you to better the working relationship.
You say as if it’s normal to you. If he had sent several links over variety of topics during my tenure then it would be close to normal, not normal but close. But that was not the case at all. He never sent me any links about ills of American/Western society, like,
a) Racial segregation of churches in America
b) History of Slavery in America or Civil rights movement
c) The confinement of original Americans in zoos called “reservations”
d) Teenage pregnancies, extreme infidelity, wife-swapping and such.
OK. So you get my point. Also, I am not convinced that Greg does not know about my religious background, in fact just the opposite, that’s exactly why he sent the link. He has lied to you. He not only sent the link to me, but to two other Hindus as far as I know. You can check the Lotus Notes ST server history for that particular day.
I have been thinking and you too would think the same if you were to step into my shoes, had the situation been reversed. It smacks of Eurocentrism. Many westerners do it either consciously or subconsciously. Please read about in detail anywhere but here’s a snippet to begin to gain some basic understanding.
“Eurocentrism is a variant of Ethnocentrism. In general, ethnocentrism puts the own ethnic, national, religious or linguistic identity as the norm to judge other countries and cultures, or even subgroups in the own society. Since the other cultures or groups can never fully conform to the standards or criteria defined by another group to apply to itself, it tends to imply a biased judgement about “good” and “bad”. The own cultural context is automatically perceived as positive, as good, and as the proper yardstick for everybody else, and any deviation from this yardstick will be interpreted as a weakness, as something “uncivilized”, or as morally inferior.Eurocentrism is a mental attitude to perceive non-Europeans (or today, non-Westerners) as less relevant, less modern, less civilized, and less than equal”
About your statement – “Everyone has certain level of tolerance” – It’s full of double standards and again smacks of Eurocentrism. The issue at hand is NOT about my level of tolerance but HIS level of INTOLERANCE. His right to swing his fist stops where my nose begins. But being a “manager” he thought he had the rights to do it and still get away with it. I am very tolerant person, but will not tolerate intolerance. Did you know this fundamental tenet of religious pluralism?
----------Tolerance should never tolerate Intolerance--------------
Your personal suggestion about his willingness to discuss with me seems like a deflection of issue at hand and again smacks of superiority complex. Let’s consider this. He’s the perpetrator of the crime and I am the victim, if he expressed his desire why did he not carry it through to fruition. Now I believe it’s too late to have the discussion. Discussion is like a patch, cleansing his mind with all sincerity is the true way to fix the problem. On two incidents anyway he has not showed any inclination to indulge in dialog and educate himself. There’s not much hope on that front.
3. Greg addressing me as “plad” on multiple occasions.
You said: You should have told Greg that you are not comfortable, don’t like it
That’s beside the point. Please don’t try to justify his behavior. He does not have the right to coin a new name and distort my identity. I have already stated in my letter that he knew better, with the “Sunny” example, and I had no reason to educate him again especially in the thick of important discussions going on about projects. It’s as simple as that. Will he ever do that for a Christian name? So, why the discrimination? Connect this with other issues related to calling names stated in my letter and his prejudice will become clear.
We did not get a chance to talk about “climate survey”. How was this accomplished? Apart from concerns that I already expressed before there are larger issues of relevance here. I am the only Indian Hindu employee reporting to him, another one is on medical leave. Other Hindu/Indian people in the work group are either contractors or do not directly report to him or both. They do not have direct stakes in career with the firm as much as I do and neither has Greg as much controlling influence on them as much as he has on me when it comes to performance management and such. On the other hand contractors are at the mercy of his good will to get their contracts extended. All this is relevant.
Eurocentrism and resultants of it are at odds with diversity related values of the firm where irrespective of race, gender, religion etc., everyone is expected to be treated equal and fairly. People of Indian origin account for about 50% of Houston location. 90% of them follow in various degree a way of life called Sanathan Dharma, also called Hinduism.
Considering all of the above I want to resubmit my complaint about Gregory R Dillard. This time around please consider above concerns of mine in terms of transparency. Have a panel of diversity experts with at least one Indian Hindu in the panel.
The investigation shouldn’t be all hogwash. I hope my worst fears are not going to come true either. If you protect the culprit and he goes scot-free then it will set a bad precedence for all those who can hope that they can receive justice under similar circumstances. And no one would ever come forward like the way I have done expecting nothing would happen anyway or worse fearing reprisal.
At the very least I expect to be mobilized out of this work group and provided an opportunity to continue my services at the firm with no baggage of the past to affect my future. Greg should be disciplined appropriately. Let the “white” man and the “brown” man treated equitably in a manner that rest of the employees can see that it’s been handled in a way that reflects the core values of the firm. Truly I have rendered a service to the firm by exposing these incidents, how will you otherwise identify rotten apples that will cause irreparable damage to the firm from inside?
His midyear comments that are distorted, exaggerated and obfuscated are a direct result of his prejudice. A lie told often enough becomes truth. Or a bunch of lies can get same job done. So it’s moot to talk about mid-year review comments and my rebuttal to the same until this whole matter is justly dealt with. In turn his “warning” is a result of those comments. As I stated earlier in good conscience I have not signed the warning note and reject it in entirety. I will never tolerate injustice. Ever since I made complaint to HR the group dynamics have subtly changed. Please note that my performance is doomed to suffer as long as I report to him in this group either in reality or affected by his prejudice.
Thank you
.
Friday, August 22, 2008
A phone call from a senior VP
BrownMan got a call one day from NY. The short conversation went like this
VP : Hi, You know you are doing the absolutely WRONG thing!
BM: Oh about that, you heard what’s going on? Why?
VP : Well, you know how this is going to end?
BM: I know what you mean, what if I say I have factored that in.
VP : Then you are doing the absolutely RIGHT thing!
BM: Thank you, I am just doing the right thing anyway, JPMC will hopefully prove you wrong!
VP : Hi, You know you are doing the absolutely WRONG thing!
BM: Oh about that, you heard what’s going on? Why?
VP : Well, you know how this is going to end?
BM: I know what you mean, what if I say I have factored that in.
VP : Then you are doing the absolutely RIGHT thing!
BM: Thank you, I am just doing the right thing anyway, JPMC will hopefully prove you wrong!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Dear colleague, Please do the right thing!
[ BrownMan sent this out to his coworkers seeking cooperation after sensing work dynamics had changed for worse ]
Dear colleague,
This may seem like an odd email. I do not know how else to reach out, so please bear with me as I explain. For 2 years I have silently endured a hostile situation at my workplace and now I have been a victim of the same. I was hoping that it would never come to this but it did. In these 2 years I have closely interacted with you and probably know me that I value my work ethic and conform to the policies of our firm on a day to day work basis. Though in your capacity you cannot do much about this unsavoury state of affairs I have one request. Doing the right thing no matter what, I know you do.
I might be a little more pressed than normal when asking for confirmations - the usual ST chat or phone talk where we trust and agree on something usually need to be backed up by writing in email as confirmation. Please do not construe this as - "why doesn't he trust my word" thing. I might also press for work item delivery aspects/dates that are tied to mine as they are under special "scrutiny". There is also a possibility that my manager and others might influence you in ways that might affect your opinion about me. It has happened more than once. Please be wary of that. I could say more, but please do the right thing sticking to the core values of our firm rather than being swayed. Earnestly I hope you understand.
This is pertinent and important as my manager is "building a case" to support his prejudices which is under investigation by the HR as we speak. The same has spilled into him making distorted, exaggerated and obfuscated comments in his recent mid year review about me. So it has become complicated. Following is my letter to the HR in this regard which will give you a background of where I am coming from.
Thank you in advance.
Satyameva Jayate
regards,
BrownMan
Dear colleague,
This may seem like an odd email. I do not know how else to reach out, so please bear with me as I explain. For 2 years I have silently endured a hostile situation at my workplace and now I have been a victim of the same. I was hoping that it would never come to this but it did. In these 2 years I have closely interacted with you and probably know me that I value my work ethic and conform to the policies of our firm on a day to day work basis. Though in your capacity you cannot do much about this unsavoury state of affairs I have one request. Doing the right thing no matter what, I know you do.
I might be a little more pressed than normal when asking for confirmations - the usual ST chat or phone talk where we trust and agree on something usually need to be backed up by writing in email as confirmation. Please do not construe this as - "why doesn't he trust my word" thing. I might also press for work item delivery aspects/dates that are tied to mine as they are under special "scrutiny". There is also a possibility that my manager and others might influence you in ways that might affect your opinion about me. It has happened more than once. Please be wary of that. I could say more, but please do the right thing sticking to the core values of our firm rather than being swayed. Earnestly I hope you understand.
This is pertinent and important as my manager is "building a case" to support his prejudices which is under investigation by the HR as we speak. The same has spilled into him making distorted, exaggerated and obfuscated comments in his recent mid year review about me. So it has become complicated. Following is my letter to the HR in this regard which will give you a background of where I am coming from.
Thank you in advance.
Satyameva Jayate
regards,
BrownMan
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Upstream says EMMI feed is not the same as EMTS
[ This is 2nd supporting document, that was attached with mid-year rebuttal , with EMMI team explaining how EMMI is different from EMTS ]
There are differences expected at every level. Per EMMI team EMTS feed can not be considered as a benchmark.
Mark Yadid's comments regarding differences:
The source of the differences are:
1) switch of emphasis from sensitivity to price based
2) change in methodology for generation of sensitivities
3) poor quality of current sensitivity data sent to VaRs which EMMI is expected to solve
Alik Barg’s email about differences:
Diane,
I discussed the "EMTS feed vs Murex feed reconciliation" issue with BrownMan, Siddharth, and with other project participants individually and at our joint meetings:
I am strongly convinced that there are too many differences between the Murex and the EMTS that make the EMTS vs. Murex feed comparison questionable.
As you know EMTS feed can not be considered as a benchmark.
Mark Yadid in his email sent today remarks that there many differences on the individual position level.
The source of the differences are
1) switch of emphasis from sensitivity to price based
2) change in methodology for generation of sensitivities
3) poor quality of current sensitivity data sent to VaRs which EMMI is expected to solve
I can add at least several other reasons that make me liken the EMTS vs Murex comparison to the apples-oranges comparison:
EMTS feed carries duplicated positions;
EMTS does not handle correctly dual currencies;
Murex introduces forward bond positions;
Murex aggregates trades by positions and the EMTS sends individual trades;
Any measure - VAR, or LMV, or quantities, or instruments, etc. - one would like to use for the feeds reconciliation is to be distorted by these factors.
As I expressed prior, in my opinion dealing with such reality it would be more prudent to approach to the Murex feed as to a new one.
The relationship between the EMTS and the Murex is only that one should assure:
the completeness of the EMTS to the Murex position migration;
the correctness of the position;
that required positions are being included in the VARS feed fully and correctly;
that feed has a proper format for the further processing;
I believe that the first two conditions were fulfilled during EMTS->Murex migration, which have been accompanied by multiple reconciliations and by business sign-offs. I don't think there is a reason to go through this process again. Items ##3,4 we were working on the last several months and did our best to satisfy them too.
I hope that we'll find a middle-ground in our approach and we'll accomplish this our mission soon.
Thank you.
Regards,
-Alik
P.S. Quantities in the feeds won't match because of duplicating issue in the EMTS. I did reconcile quantities sent in the feed vs Murex DB data.
Christian's comments:
Multiphase bonds were incorrectly calculated in EMTS
EQTY positions are not migrating from EMTS to EMMI feed
There are differences expected at every level. Per EMMI team EMTS feed can not be considered as a benchmark.
Mark Yadid's comments regarding differences:
The source of the differences are:
1) switch of emphasis from sensitivity to price based
2) change in methodology for generation of sensitivities
3) poor quality of current sensitivity data sent to VaRs which EMMI is expected to solve
Alik Barg’s email about differences:
Diane,
I discussed the "EMTS feed vs Murex feed reconciliation" issue with BrownMan, Siddharth, and with other project participants individually and at our joint meetings:
I am strongly convinced that there are too many differences between the Murex and the EMTS that make the EMTS vs. Murex feed comparison questionable.
As you know EMTS feed can not be considered as a benchmark.
Mark Yadid in his email sent today remarks that there many differences on the individual position level.
The source of the differences are
1) switch of emphasis from sensitivity to price based
2) change in methodology for generation of sensitivities
3) poor quality of current sensitivity data sent to VaRs which EMMI is expected to solve
I can add at least several other reasons that make me liken the EMTS vs Murex comparison to the apples-oranges comparison:
EMTS feed carries duplicated positions;
EMTS does not handle correctly dual currencies;
Murex introduces forward bond positions;
Murex aggregates trades by positions and the EMTS sends individual trades;
Any measure - VAR, or LMV, or quantities, or instruments, etc. - one would like to use for the feeds reconciliation is to be distorted by these factors.
As I expressed prior, in my opinion dealing with such reality it would be more prudent to approach to the Murex feed as to a new one.
The relationship between the EMTS and the Murex is only that one should assure:
the completeness of the EMTS to the Murex position migration;
the correctness of the position;
that required positions are being included in the VARS feed fully and correctly;
that feed has a proper format for the further processing;
I believe that the first two conditions were fulfilled during EMTS->Murex migration, which have been accompanied by multiple reconciliations and by business sign-offs. I don't think there is a reason to go through this process again. Items ##3,4 we were working on the last several months and did our best to satisfy them too.
I hope that we'll find a middle-ground in our approach and we'll accomplish this our mission soon.
Thank you.
Regards,
-Alik
P.S. Quantities in the feeds won't match because of duplicating issue in the EMTS. I did reconcile quantities sent in the feed vs Murex DB data.
Christian's comments:
Multiphase bonds were incorrectly calculated in EMTS
EQTY positions are not migrating from EMTS to EMMI feed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)