Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Enron - Natural Gas Industry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rupers who wrote (457)	11/8/2001 8:07:48 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 1433

Enron Restatements Don't Go Far Enough By Peter Eavis Senior Columnist 11/08/2001 06:40 PM EST Enron (ENE:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) still hasn't come clean on the shadowy deals that led to many of the company's problems. The battered power giant restated more than three years' worth of financials Thursday because previous numbers failed to take into account complex deals with a number of affiliated entities. As a result of the restatements, annual recurring earnings in the 1997-2000 period are now 10% to 25% lower than originally reported. However, the picture could be even worse. The restatements of recurring earnings left out nearly $1 billion of losses suffered by a related entity called LJM2 in 2000 and 2001. Losses suffered by a similarly structured entity called LJM1 were factored into the restatement, while LJM2's were not. Enron didn't comment, but the press release detailing the restatements appears to argue that LJM1 was too thinly capitalized and, as such, it should always have been consolidated in Enron's core numbers. The inference, therefore, is that LJM2 losses weren't included because the entity was better capitalized than LJM1. But that explanation isn't holding water in many quarters. In fact, the exclusion of LJM2 could be a source of further controversy for Enron. Enron fell 64 cents Thursday to $8.41. Read on: thestreet.com

To: rupers who wrote (457)	11/8/2001 9:02:34 PM
From: rupers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1433

Apparently, those fired weren't THE Corporate General Counsel and Treasurer ... just a General Counsel and Treasurer for one of ENE's Divisions (as well as a couple of other "non-senior" corporate reps). I guess it was a "me too" frenzy on those off balance sheet dealings with special partnerships. SEC is going to have a frenzy with this mess. This would all be too comical, except that many investors lost good, hard-earned cash on what was perceived to be a pillar of strength among energy companies.

To: rupers who wrote (457)	11/8/2001 9:28:10 PM
From: Softechie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1433

This is becoming messier as the days gone by. I believe more skeletons will be pulling out of closets sooner or later. I'm holding on purchasing it now and looking at $5 as starting long position.

To: rupers who wrote (457)	11/9/2001 6:24:07 AM
From: opalapril	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1433

"The bottom line from my perspective is that Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and the board seemed to be aware (of Fastow's dealings with the LJM partnerships" Good grief! "Seemed"? How about "confessed"? For at least two or three weeks ENE's web site has been carrying for all the world to see a press announcement flatly stating that the entire board "approved" these shenanigans. (Well, they don't call them 'shenanigans' but that's what they mean.) Someone should have told the board members that they have a constitutional right to take the 5th Amendment and not say anything that would tend to incriminate them all.