No, we shouldn't. Show me one board member who publicly stands up and says "I didn't know what was going on and I should have. I now realize that. Having learned from the experience, I'm a much better director than anyone who hasn't had the sad though enlightening experience of of having lived through this debacle."
Before it is all over and done with, we might hear such a statement from those that served on Enron's board over the past years. At this point, it is still rather early in the process which by all reasonable accounts we should consider the topic as being "very complex". The world of de-regulation, derivatives and the out and out addition of deceit to the Enron picture compiles to have created a complex event.
No matter how much we speculate and demand that some scape goats step forward and explain it all - it is just too complex for that to take place at this point and please all those who need to be pleased. Even some of the best of the best of the best in the business
of uncovering balance sheet problems and warning signs within a company knew something at Enron looked to be not "kosher", but they could not put their finger on it and identify it. Those are the specialists that fine comb every hair of each financial statement and floss between every tooth after every meal and snack. They could not find it.
If we are to fully believe that Frank Savage had complete access to all of the off balance sheet partnership transactions and knew in detail of the deceit that was going on at Enron - then of course he should be outed as well. Considering how complex the scheme was at Enron and the ability of those who were in charge of hiding and protecting the off balance sheet deceit from the public and other employees within the organization - it is not a stretch to think that this could have easily been hidden from board members as well. Perhaps even from key management players. No matter how much information and what they demanded to see, it is not too difficult to consider that there could have been an infrastructure of deception set up so well that all the tracks were covered from key players and board members.
Of course, that is all speculation and there are many miles to go in the investigation before everyone is outed who did wrong, but until the guilt is proven and everyone knows exactly what happened - what's up with the witch hunt mentality currently permeating everything? I'm sure there are things that someone as close as our own spouse has done that no matter how much we think we know and trust - we will never find out. To think that a board member knows in detail every single aspect of the company well enough to have caught such a complex structure of deception which is more on the abnormal side of business than it is on the normal side remains to be proven to me. If it is proven the case, then I will gladly yield. At this point, no outcome would surprise me. However, I prefer to wait for the process to work itself out rather than drawing conclusions at this point that Savage is a bad egg and is too damaging to Qualcomm's future as a board member.
The problem is that I haven't heard of any Enron board member saying anything remotely close to that. Until they do, they don't deserve a seat on any board I want to invest in. That's not blacklisting. That's determining a criterion and seeing who meets it.
Then it appears your options at the moment are to let management know exactly how you feel about Frank Savage sitting on the Qualcomm board and if a resolution that meets your satisfaction is not met, there are plenty of other companies out there worthy of investment.
BB |
