SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/10/2002 5:07:40 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
More on Arthur Andersen...

- Arthur Andersen in June 2001 paid Waste Management $220 MIL in a settlement and $7 MIL in fines to the SEC for the same type of matter.

Here are some interesting articles on Arthur Andersen...

forbes.com

kellogg.nwu.edu



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/10/2002 5:22:40 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Justice Dept. to Form Task Force to Investigate Collapse of Enron

By KURT EICHENWALD with JONATHAN D. GLATER
The New York Times
January 10, 2002

Widening the potential scope of the criminal investigation into the Enron Corporation (news/quote), the Justice Department plans to form a special task force of prosecutors from across the country to conduct the inquiry into the company and its eventual collapse, government officials said yesterday.

At the same time, the decision will reduce the burdens going forward on Enron, which has been struggling with the demands from multiple civil and criminal investigations. By consolidating the criminal investigations, the company will have only one coordinated group of prosecutors seeking information, decreasing the potential demands for documents and limiting the number of officials to persuade of its position.

Legal experts said the decision to create such a task force on a white- collar case involving a single company was virtually unheard-of and signaled that the government might elevate the case to a level of significance usually reserved for investigations of entire industries.

The task force will bring together prosecutors from several United States attorneys' offices — including those in Houston, New York City and San Francisco — with all of them reporting through the department's criminal division, officials said. In addition, prosecutors from the fraud section, part of the criminal division, will be part of the task force.

"This is a case of national scope and national significance that is going to require coordination and manpower, and the task force is a way of achieving that," one official said.

Robert S. Bennett, a Washington lawyer who represents the company, said last night that he saw the department's decision as positive. "I'm pleased that there now appears to be some centralization and coordination, because it is very difficult and expensive to deal with half a dozen different entities," he said. "This is a company in bankruptcy, and it needs to be given a fair shot to come out of bankruptcy and increase the value for stakeholders. If we get caught in a cumbersome scandal machine, that may not happen."

While the decision to form the task force is final, many details have yet to be worked out, officials said. Some prosecutors involved in the case have not been notified of their specific roles in the task force, and other decisions about where the group will work and how the various strands of investigation will be coordinated have not been determined.

The Justice Department has formed numerous task forces in the past, but they have usually focused either on complex cases of violent crime or conducted inquiries into practices by entire industries.

Legal experts who have examined the Enron case said yesterday that by bringing together the disparate pieces of the sprawling criminal investigation of the company, the government is overcoming hurdles that might have hampered the inquiry if it was conducted in separate offices.

For example, while federal prosecutors in Manhattan have the most experience in investigating complex white-collar cases, they might face difficulty in meeting the requirement that potential crimes took place in their geographical jurisdiction. And while prosecutors in Houston, where Enron is based, would have no such problems, they do not have the same experience in white-collar cases.

By bringing the prosecutors together, while simultaneously adding the manpower from the department's fraud section, legal experts said, the government is raising the probability of indictments.

"Prosecutors tend to indict what they investigate," said John C. Coffee Jr., a law professor at Columbia University who has testified in Congress on the Enron case. "This kind of task force for an individual investigation is without precedent, and while it doesn't guarantee an indictment, it certainly raises the stakes."

But some past efforts by the Justice Department to take a more central role in a criminal investigation of a corporation with influence in Washington have raised concerns about potential political influence over the inquiry. For example, in the 1990's, when part of an inquiry involving the Archer Daniels Midland Company (news/quote) was assigned to the fraud section, some critics contended — to the vehement denials of Justice officials — that Washington was trying to protect Archer, the politically influential grain company. Enron, whose officers have been close to both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, has exercised similar political influence in the past.

In addition to the inquiry being conducted by the Justice Department, Enron's collapse is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and several Congressional committees.

Meanwhile, in Enron's bankruptcy proceedings, parts of the company are now up for auction to the highest bidder. For example, an auction of its trading business is scheduled to take place today, and a spokeswoman said it should be presented to the bankruptcy court at a hearing tomorrow. But a speedy approval by the court is not assured. Several creditors have filed objections to the auction because they are worried that they will not have time to evaluate whether all or parts of the business will be sold at a fair price.

Creditors have also expressed concern about what would happen to the proceeds from the sale. Creditors of Enron North America, the unit that owns the trading business, want to make sure that the money goes to them and is not distributed among all the company's creditors.

In Houston yesterday, in a suit filed by investors against 29 Enron directors and officers, a federal judge dealt a setback to plaintiffs by declining to freeze more than $1 billion that they say the directors and officers gained from the sale of Enron shares while hiding information about the company's decline. However, the judge also told defendants that she had the power to freeze the assets if necessary.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/10/2002 6:29:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Carlyle's Way

Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense, government and industry

redherring.com

By Dan Briody
January 8, 2002
The Red Herring

Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.

That the Carlyle Group had its conference on America's darkest day was mere coincidence, but there is nothing accidental about the cast of characters that this private-equity powerhouse has assembled in the 14 years since its founding. Among those associated with Carlyle are former U.S. president George Bush Sr., former U.K. prime minister John Major, and former president of the Philippines Fidel Ramos. And Carlyle has counted George Soros, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin Laden's estranged family among its high-profile clientele. The group has been able to parlay its political clout into a lucrative buyout practice (in other words, purchasing struggling companies, turning them around, and selling them for huge profits)--everything from defense contractors to telecommunications and aerospace companies. It is a kind of ruthless investing made popular by the movie Wall Street, and any industry that relies heavily on government regulation is fair game for Carlyle's brand of access capitalism. Carlyle has established itself as the gatekeeper between private business interests and U.S. defense spending. And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up.

In running what its own marketing literature spookily calls "a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals" that operates within the so-called iron triangle of industry, government, and the military, the Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of conflicts of interest and stunning ironies. For example, it is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden's family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father's bank account. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management. But while successful in the traditional private-equity avenue of corporate buyouts, Carlyle has recently set its sites on venture capital with less success. The firm is finding that all the politicians in the world won't help it identify an emerging technology or a winning business model.

Surprisingly, Carlyle has avoided the fertile VC market in defense technology, which now, more than ever, comes from smaller companies hoping to cash in on what the defense establishment calls the revolution in military affairs, or RMA. Thus far, Carlyle has passed up on these emerging technologies in favor of some truly awful Internet plays. And despite its unique qualifications for early-stage funding of defense companies, the firm seems to have no appetite for the sector.

Despite its VC troubles, however, the Carlyle Group's core business is set for some good times ahead. Though the group has raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill in the past, the firm's close ties with the current administration and its cozy relationship with several prominent Saudi government figures has the watchdogs howling. And it's those same connections that will keep Carlyle in the black for as long as the war against terrorism endures.

For the 11th-largest defense contractor in the United States, wartime is boom time. No one knows that better than the Carlyle Group, which less than a month after U.S. troops began bombing Afghanistan filed to take public its crown jewel of defense, United Defense, a company it has owned for nearly a decade. That this company is even able to go public is testament to the Carlyle Group's pull in Washington.

United Defense makes the controversial Crusader, a 42-ton, self-propelled howitzer that moves and operates much like a tank and can lob ten 155-mm shells per minute as far as 40 kilometers. The Crusader has been in the sights of Pentagon budget cutters since the Clinton administration, which argued that it was a relic of the cold war era--too heavy and slow for today's warfare. Even the Pentagon had recommended the program be discontinued. But remarkably, the $11 billion contract for the Crusader is still alive, thanks largely to the Carlyle Group.

"This is very much an example of a cold war-inspired weapon whose time has passed," notes Steve Grundman, a consultant at Charles River Associates, a defense and aerospace consultancy in Boston. "Its liabilities were uncovered during the Kosovo campaign, when the Army was unable to deploy it in time. It is exceedingly expensive, and it was a wake-up call to the Army that many of its forces are no longer relevant."

But the Carlyle Group was having none of that. While it is impossible to say what U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was thinking when he made the decision to keep the Crusader program alive, people close to the situation claim to have a pretty good idea. Mr. Carlucci and Mr. Rumsfeld are good friends and former wrestling partners from their undergraduate days at Princeton University. And while Carlyle executives are quick to reject any accusations of them lobbying the current administration, others aren't so sure. "In this particular effort, I felt that they were like any other lobbying group, apart from the fact that they are not," said one Washington, D.C., lobbyist with intimate knowledge of the Crusader negotiations, noting the fine line between lobbying and having a drink with a old friend.

According to Greg McCarthy, a spokesperson for Representative J.C. Watts Jr. (R: Oklahoma), whose district is home to one of the Crusader's assembly plants, the Carlyle Group's influence was indeed felt at the Pentagon. "Carlyle's strength was within the DoD, because as a rule someone like Frank Carlucci is going to have access," says Mr. McCarthy. "But they have other staff types that work behind the scenes, in the dark, that know everything about the Army and Capitol Hill."

Perhaps even more disconcerting than Carlyle's ties to the Pentagon are its connections within the White House itself. Aside from signing up George Bush Sr. shortly after his presidential term ended, Carlyle gave George W. Bush a job on the board of Texas-based airline food caterer Caterair International back in 1991. Since Bush the younger took office this year, a number of events have raised eyebrows.

Shortly after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, he broke off talks with North Korea regarding long-range ballistic missiles, claiming there was no way to ensure North Korea would comply with any guidelines that were developed. The news came as a shock to South Korean officials, who had spent years negotiating with the North, assisted by the Clinton administration. By June, Mr. Bush had reopened negotiations with North Korea, but only at the urging of his own father. According to reports, the former president sent his son a memo persuasively arguing the need to work with the North Korean government. It was the first time the nation had seen the influence of the father on the son in office.

But what has been overlooked was Carlyle's business interest in Korea. The senior Bush had spearheaded the group's successful entrance into the South Korean market, paving the way for buyouts of Korea's KorAm Bank and Mercury, a telecommunications equipment company. For the business to be successful, stability between North and South Korea is critical. And though there is no direct evidence linking the senior Bush's business dealings in Korea with the change in policy, it is the appearance of impropriety that excites the watchdogs. "We are clearly aware that former President Bush has weighed in on policy toward South Korea and we note that U.S. policy changed after those communications," says Peter Eisner, managing director at the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., which has an active file on the Carlyle Group. "We know that former President Bush receives remuneration for his work with Carlyle and that he is capable of advising the current president, but how much further it goes, we don't know."

While the Center for Public Integrity looks for its smoking gun, others in Washington say hard evidence is unimportant. "Whether the decisions made by the former president are a real or apparent conflict of interest doesn't matter, because in the public's eye they're equally as damaging," says Larry Noble, executive director and general counsel of the Center for Responsive Politics. "Bush [Sr.] has to seriously consider the propriety of sitting on the board of a group that is impacted by his son's decisions."

And the controversy is expected only to increase as Carlyle's investments in Saudi Arabia are scrutinized during the war on terrorism. Mr. Eisner says that very little is known about Carlyle's involvements in Saudi Arabia, except that the firm has been making close to $50 million a year training the Saudi Arabian National Guard, troops that are sworn to protect the monarchy. Carlyle also advises the Saudi royal family on the Economic Offset Program, a system that is designed to encourage foreign businesses to open shop in Saudi Arabia and uses re-investment incentives to keep those businesses' proceeds in the country.

But the money flowing out of Saudi Arabia and into the Carlyle Group is of even more interest. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, reports surfaced of Carlyle's involvement with the Saudi Binladin Group, the $5 billion construction business run by Osama's half-brother Bakr. The bin Laden family invested $2 million in the Carlyle Partners II fund, which includes in its portfolio United Defense and other defense and aerospace companies. On October 26, the Carlyle Group severed its relationship with the bin Laden family in what officials termed a mutual decision. Mr. Bush Sr. and Mr. Major have been to Saudi Arabia on behalf of Carlyle as recently as last year, and according to reports, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently looking into the flow of money from the bin Laden family. Carlyle officials declined to answer any questions regarding their activities in Saudi Arabia.

But for all the questions, Carlyle has stayed clean in the eyes of the law. Lobbying laws in Washington, D.C., are ambiguous at best, requiring only that former politicians observe a one-year "cooling-off period" before they reënter the lobbying scene on behalf of industry. It is playing within this gray area that has given the Carlyle Group some of the best returns in the business.

After David Rubenstein, a former aide in the Carter administration, and William Conway Jr., former chief financial officer of MCI Communications, hooked up at New York's Carlyle hotel in 1987 to form the company, the Carlyle Group spent two lost years investing in a hodgepodge of companies. It wasn't until 1989, when the company brought in Mr. Carlucci, fresh off his two-year stint as U.S. secretary of defense, that Carlyle got serious in government. In 1991 the company made a name for itself by facilitating a $590 million purchase of Citicorp stock for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Shortly thereafter, Carlyle snatched up defense contractors Harsco, BDM International, and LTV, turning the companies around and selling them to the likes of TRW, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.

The Carlyle Group has diversified its holdings since then, investing in everything from bottling companies to natural-food grocers. In the process, it has become one of the biggest, most successful private-equity firms in business, with annualized returns of 35 percent. (Judging by the early numbers from some of their funds, however, like many other private-equity funds, 2001 will be a considerably less profitable year for Carlyle.) "They are the new breed of private equity, acting more like a large mutual fund of private companies," says David Snow, editor of PrivateEquityCentral.net, a Web site that tracks private-equity firms. The numbers are impressive: Carlyle employs 240 people, as opposed to the 10 or 12 typical of most private-equity firms. It has ownership stakes in 164 companies, which collectively employ more than 70,000 people. George Soros invested $100 million in the group's funds; the California Public Employees' Retirement System is in for $305 million.

Carlyle has succeeded by raising money first, then finding the talent to manage it. For instance, it raised a fund for buying out telecom companies and hired William Kennard, the former U.S. Federal Communications Commission chairman, to run it. Accused early on of being nothing more than a bunch of Washington grip-and-grinners, Carlyle has proven its critics wrong. At a Salomon Smith Barney private-equity conference last March, a panel of professional investment managers were asked who the best fund managers are. Carlyle cofounder Mr. Conway was one of two managers chosen.

With its size and success, questions about the firm's ability to grow revenue has arisen. Carlyle has placed its bets for future growth on the VC markets, which it entered in 1996. But to date, it has found that venture capital is a game with far different rules than that of corporate buyouts. "They may be very established in private equity, but it seems to me that they don't really know the venture capital business," says one VC who has done deals with Carlyle. "In buyouts, you take over a company and fight the management, but in venture capital it's the opposite. You want to work with people."

Carlyle executives admit as much. As a result, the Carlyle Europe Venture Partners fund has been slow to commit its capital. So far, it has spent just more than 20 percent of its $660 million, and 3 of its original 17 investments have already folded. None has gone public or been acquired. As Jack Biddle, cofounder of Novak Biddle Venture Partners, dryly puts it, "I haven't been involved in a lot of venture deals where the participation of a president mattered that much. In venture capital, it's all about the technology."

For a firm that has made its money in highly regulated, politically charged industries, picking business-to-business plays is hardly second nature. While Carlyle has investments in highly regulated sectors like telecom and banking, it has avoided defense entirely, instead focusing on tech industries that have already gone flat. The firm's European fund alone boasts six B2B companies, two optical-networking companies, and Riot-E, a wireless media play. Jacques Garaïalde, managing director of the Europe fund concedes that expectations have been shifted. "Clearly, we can't make 100 times returns on B2B, but there are some situations in which we can make 3 times."

But the struggles in its VC business may be offset, at least temporarily, by the expected windfall from the war on terrorism. The federal government has already approved a $40 billion supplemental aid package to the current budget, $19 billion of which is headed straight to the Pentagon. Some of the additional government spending is likely to find its way into Carlyle's coffers.

The Bush administration isn't afraid to mix business and politics, and no other firm embodies that penchant better than the Carlyle Group. Walking that fine line is what Carlyle does best. We may not see Osama bin Laden's brothers at Carlyle's investor conferences any more, but business will go on as usual for the biggest old boys network around. As Mr. Snow puts it, "Carlyle will always have to defend itself and will never be able to convince certain people that they aren't capable of forging murky backroom deals. George Bush's father does profit when the Carlyle Group profits, but to make the leap that the president would base decisions on that is to say that the president is corrupt."
____________________________________
Additional reporting by Lawrence Aragon, Mark Chediak, Julie Landry, Christopher Locke, Eric Moskowitz, Mark Mowrey, and Michael Parsons.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/10/2002 10:23:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Andersen: Staff Destroyed Enron Documents

Thursday January 10 9:18 PM ET

By Deepa Babington

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Andersen said on Thursday its employees destroyed a number of documents related to its audit of energy trader Enron Corp. (NYSE:ENE - news), in a disclosure that experts said further clouded the outlook for the blue-chip accounting firm.

The No. 5 accounting firm, under fire in recent months for signing off on Enron's books, said a ``significant but undetermined'' number of electronic and paper documents and correspondence related to its handling of Enron's audit had been disposed of or deleted.

The disclosure could further deepen the accounting firm's woes, both on the legal and regulatory fronts, said experts. The company is already being sued over its handling of Enron's audit.

``It sounds pretty damning,'' said Arthur Bowman, editor of the widely read industry newsletter Bowman's Accounting Report. ''The ramifications could be huge. You can just imagine the litigation industry lining up to feast on Andersen's bones.''

Industry experts were stunned by Andersen's admission, as accountants rarely throw away any pieces of paper.

Most accounting firms keep their audit records for at least three to four years, said Bowman, who said it was the first time he had seen such a disclosure in the 22 years he has covered the industry.

The disclosure comes less than a month after Andersen Chief Executive Joseph Berardino told Congress that Enron had failed to provide its auditors crucial information that went to the heart of the energy trader's spectacular collapse. He also admitted that Andersen's audit team had made an error in how it accounted for one of Enron's several off balance sheet entities.

Enron, once a mighty energy trader, swiftly unraveled after it disclosed losses from partnerships kept off its balance sheet. In a few weeks, the company went from Wall Street darling to the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history.

Andersen, which was the No. 1 accounting firm before it split off its consulting arm, was immediately attacked by accounting experts and lawmakers for not explaining Enron's deals better. Critics also questioned whether the $27 million Andersen raked in from Enron for non-audit work in 2000 could have impaired its independence.

The revelations come just a week after rival Deloitte & Touche cited some shortcomings in its review of Andersen, including inadequate documentation of certain auditing procedures and insufficient communication with audit committees. Andersen was, however, given an overall clean bill of health in the peer review, which is part of the accounting profession's self-regulatory process.

The latest disclosure is also another blow to the firm's once envied reputation and credibility.

``Probably all the goodwill and reputation that Andersen had carefully built up all these years are being sacrificed at the altar of Enron,'' said Bob Willens, accounting analyst at Lehman Brothers. ``They were the gold standard those days. Now whenever you mention Andersen, you think of Enron.''

TIMING OF WHEN RECORDS WERE DESTROYED KEY

A key question surrounding Andersen's latest disclosure is when the Enron-related documents were destroyed, experts said.

Andersen said the documents were discarded before the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) had subpoenaed the accounting firm. After the subpoena was issued, the firm said it had issued instructions to preserve documents. It added that it didn't know whether that instruction had been violated.

Regulators, however, would adopt a tough stance against the firm if any documents were destroyed before the subpoena was issued, but after the SEC had begun looking into the case, said a legal source familiar with SEC procedures.

Andersen spokesman David Tabolt declined to comment on the issue.

In Washington, the SEC's enforcement chief, Stephen Cutler, said in a statement read by a spokesman that the destruction of documents was an ``extremely serious matter.''

``Putting aside the incredible amount of goodwill and reputation they have lost, I guess the big thing (Andersen) ought to be worried about is whether there'll be a suspension from the SEC, which I think is conceivable,'' said Lehman's Willens.

Apart from the SEC, Andersen also said it had notified the Justice Department (news - web sites), congressional committees and other agencies investigating Enron's collapse about the destroyed documents.

It said it had asked former U.S. Senator John Danforth to conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of the company's records management policy and to recommend improvements.

The accounting firm said its document policy -- which has now been suspended -- required in certain circumstances the destruction of certain types of documents.

Millions of documents related to Enron still exist, and the firm had successfully retrieved some of the deleted electronic files, it said.

``The shame of it all is that Andersen was one of the most respected firms for their standards and quality,'' said Bowman. ''To me, it shows how far Andersen has fallen down on the ladder of respect.''



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/10/2002 10:32:58 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Saudi Arabia's anti-American fiction

By Jeff Jacoby
1/10/2002
Boston Globe
(First of two parts)

SOME OF THE world's most offensive contemporary fiction is being produced by the government of Saudi Arabia.

Consider the mainstream Saudi newspaper Al-Jazeera, which recently asserted that terrorism against the United States does not stem from Islamist extremism with roots in Saudi Arabia.

On the contrary, the paper explained, ''the curricula in the Western schools ... show that the West itself trains terrorists.'' (The translation is by the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute, and can be found on its Web site, www.memri.org).

According to Al-Jazeera, which like all Saudi papers is government-controlled, many US and British schools assign ''a book called `The Mission,' put out by Express Publishing House in Britain.'' One chapter describes a ''scenario in which terrorists hijack a plane and crash it into a nuclear reactor. This made a director of a nuclear reactor in the US take a light plane and crash it into the reactor to see what would happen.''

What's more, the book describes ''an American research study in which anthrax was sprayed from the southern end of Manhattan.... Half of those exposed to the virus became ill, and half of those who became ill died. The number of victims exceeded 600,000.''

Planes crashing into nuclear plants? Anthrax ''research'' that killed 600,000 New Yorkers? Textbooks that teach terrorism? To Americans, this bizarre confection is laughable, and the claim that it is taught in US schools is absurd on its face. But it probably didn't seem absurd to the readers of Al-Jazeera, to whom it was presented as a factual rebuttal to a slur on Muslim honor. What does it say about the government of Saudi Arabia that it uses its mass media to disseminate such dishonest, anti-American trash?

More fiction: ''The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been at the forefront of international efforts in fighting terrorism and for combating money-laundering activities,'' announces a report released by the Saudi embassy in Washington. It expresses Saudi pride at having been a ''leader'' in the campaign ''to identify and freeze terrorist assets quickly through international cooperation.''

If brazenness were an Olympic event, the Saudis would win the gold. Far from having been ''at the forefront'' of freezing terrorists' access to money, they have been among the leading obstacles to doing so. Their recalcitrance was such a problem that delegations of senior American officials had to be sent to Riyadh last month to plead for Saudi cooperation. In its current issue, US News and World Report says that while some progress was made, ''it was like pulling teeth.''

''First, the Saudis had balked at freezing bank accounts Washington said were linked to terrorists. Then they demanded proof that Saudi-funded charities were funneling money to terrorists. On Dec. 8, the first day of [one] delegation's visit, Prince Nayef, the interior minister, was telling reporters he still did not even believe that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis.''

Nayef, by the way, shows promise as an author of Saudi fiction. ''It's true that Saudi citizens were in the planes,'' he was saying more than three months after the mass murders in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, ''but who can be certain whether they were behind the attacks?''

The flying lessons those Saudis took argues for their innocence, Nayef claims. ''To pilot planes of this caliber,'' he told an interviewer, ''requires more than being a beginner.'' As for the will found in Mohamed Atta's luggage - the one exhorting the men to ''welcome death for the sake of Allah'' - it proves nothing, Nayef says. ''Almost every Muslim writes a will before embarking on a plane or a boat journey.''

The line from the Bush administration is that the Saudis are loyal allies who have been most cooperative in the war on terrorism. Diplomatic sweet-talk has its place in international affairs, but not when it becomes a substitute for clear thought. The Saudis are not loyal allies, and they have not been most cooperative. What does Washington gain by pretending otherwise?

The Saudi government seems quite unfazed by the fact that the savagery that sent so many innocents to their deaths on Sept. 11 was carried out by Saudi citizens, incubated with Saudi money, and rooted in Saudi religious extremism. On the three-month anniversary of those attacks, foreign leaders worldwide attended memorial ceremonies sponsored by American embassies. But in Saudi Arabia, Douglas Jehl reported in The New York Times, there was no public acknowledgement of any kind:

''The only event known to have taken place in the kingdom was a one-minute moment of silence late Tuesday afternoon at the United States Embassy in Riyadh, which no Saudi officials attended.''

For too long we have pretended that Saudi Arabia is our fast friend and a key to stability in the Middle East. In truth, it is neither. It's time we left the fictions to Riyadh, and adjusted our foreign policy to the real world.

Next: Time for an ultimatum

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/10/2002 11:14:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
The New Economy...

Message 16889975



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/11/2002 12:05:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
IMO, If Enron's CEO (Mr. Ken Lay) doesn't get some serious prison time then something's wrong with our system...

Message 16893180

So far only the tip of the iceburg has been exposed...

It's interesting that Lay has hired the high priced Bob Bennett as his lawyer -- this is the same attorney who defended Clinton during some of the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals...Lay must realize he's in HOT WATER...So far he has not admitted any wrongdoing...=)

Regards,

Scott



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/11/2002 12:54:36 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Lies and more lies! Arthur Andersen CEO May Have Given Inaccurate Information During Testimony

By JOHN EMSHWILLER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Arthur Andersen LLP Chief Executive Officer Joseph Berardino gave what now appears to be inaccurate information in testimony to Congress last month regarding a controversial Enron Corp.-related partnership, raising further questions about Andersen's role in auditing Enron's relations with the partnership.

The partnership in question is known as Chewco Investments LP. In Dec. 12 testimony before the House committee on financial services, Mr. Berardino said his accounting firm had recently discovered "possible illegal acts within" Enron in connection with Chewco. He added that Andersen had been kept in the dark about a crucial part of the Chewco arrangement that allowed Enron to improperly inflate its earnings by nearly $400 million between 1997 and 2000. Disclosure of Chewco's existence by The Wall Street Journal in late October helped precipitate the loss of investor confidence that led to Enron's Dec. 2 bankruptcy-court filing seeking protection from its creditors.

A person familiar with the matter said that in his testimony Mr. Berardino may have mischaracterized part of the Chewco arrangement and may have understated Andersen's level of knowledge about it.

Thursday, a spokesman for Andersen, David Tabolt, said that Mr. Berardino's testimony was truthful but based on incomplete information. "Given what we know now," the testimony would have been somewhat different, the spokesman said. But he added that the firm believed the testimony was accurate in its major points. Mr. Berardino told the congressional committee that Andersen, based in Chicago, was committed to learning from any mistakes it made in regard to Enron and to making any necessary changes.

Chewco was created in 1997 to help deal with a pressing problem confronting the fast-growing Houston energy concern. Chewco purchased from Enron a half interest in a limited partnership known as JEDI (for Joint Energy Development Investments), which the company had helped create several years earlier to invest in energy-related ventures. This deal helped Enron avoid having to book several hundred million dollars of JEDI-related debt to its own balance sheet. Enron routinely tried to keep debt off its balance sheet in order to protect the company's credit rating.

But Enron could avoid booking the debt only if Chewco was deemed an independent third party. Enron determined -- and its auditor Andersen concurred -- that it was.

But a number of things about Chewco weren't routine. For one thing, Chewco was being run by an Enron executive named Michael Kopper. Mr. Kopper, who has since left Enron, has consistently declined to be interviewed and couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

In his December testimony, Andersen's Mr. Berardino said that in 1997 his firm had agreed that Enron could treat Chewco as independent because there was a sufficiently large equity investment from an outside party. Mr. Berardino identified the outside party as a "large international financial institution," but didn't name the institution.

In his testimony, Mr. Berardino said Andersen hadn't been told about a crucial feature of the Chewco deal. Enron had agreed with the financial institution to effectively guarantee half of the equity investment by putting up cash collateral of about $6 million, Mr. Berardino said. That separate guarantee agreement meant that Chewco didn't have enough outside equity to be considered independent of Enron, he added.

Andersen says it didn't discover this side deal until November of last year, when Enron was in a full-blown crisis that had been sparked in large part by disclosures concerning Chewco and other partnerships run by Enron executives. The discovery forced Enron to retroactively fold Chewco and JEDI into its own financial statements going back to 1997. This, in turn, added hundreds of millions of dollars to Enron's reported debt and reduced previously reported earnings by nearly $400 million, or more than 10%, for that period.

The side guarantee on the Chewco equity investment and the apparent hiding of its existence was what prompted Andersen to report possible illegal acts to Enron's board last November, Mr. Berardino said in his testimony.

The international financial institution in question is Barclays PLC, the large British banking group, according to the person familiar with the matter. A Barclays spokesman declined to comment.

It turns out Mr. Berardino was incorrect in saying that a large financial institution was the equity investor in Chewco. Barclays, which in 1997 had existing banking ties with Enron, according to the person familiar with the matter lent about $11.4 million to two limited-liability companies called Big River and Little River. Those two entities made the crucial equity investment. A check of public records didn't come up with any information that appeared to be related to Big River or Little River.

Additionally, the person familiar with the matter said, Barclays had in 1997 been told by Enron officials that Arthur Andersen had reviewed the Chewco financing structure, including the cash collateral aspect, and approved it.

Thursday, Mr. Tabolt, the Andersen spokesman, reiterated the firm's position that it didn't know about the collateral agreement until November. However, he did acknowledge that Mr. Berardino had incorrectly identified the Chewco equity holder in his congressional testimony. Now, the firm believes Big River and Little River were the equity holders, though Mr. Berardino wasn't aware of that fact at the time he testified, Mr. Tabolt said.

Andersen's professed misunderstanding of the ownership issue itself raises questions about how Andersen could have given its blessing to the Chewco arrangement in 1997 without knowing the identity of all the parties. The Andersen spokesman said the audit firm is "still looking into" questions surrounding the ownership issue.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/11/2002 3:06:31 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
CROSSCURRENTS...

cross-currents.net



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/11/2002 4:46:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 65232
 
What can we learn from Enron's fall?

In hindsight, this collapse seemed so inevitable

12/10/2001

By JIM MITCHELL / The Dallas Morning News

Business schools will study Enron's rise and accelerated fall as diligently as scholars probed the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert and the junk bond market in the 1980s.

In disaster, there is knowledge, albeit sometimes short-lived, on how not to repeat mistakes of the past.

No one can yet say for sure how Enron spun out of control. But I suspect when the forensic studies are completed, the death certificate will read: self-induced.

To be lauded as the biggest anything is to be saddled with a lofty, difficult-to-honor reputation. Marry that intoxication with Enron's "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" corporate culture, and in hindsight Enron's fall seems so inevitable.

Enron wasn't a household name outside energy circles but within the energy club, its name was as well known as IBM and AT&T are to the rest of the world. Enron was the world's biggest energy trader, and as such, occupied the rarified air that sometimes induces corporate executives and others riding the coattails of boundless success with a false sense of invulnerability. It's this decade's Bonfire of the Vanities.

Last year, Enron was the nation's seventh-largest corporation, ahead of IBM, and behind only Citigroup, General Electric, Ford Motor, General Motors, Wal-Mart, and No. 1 Exxon. Today, Enron's legacy will be as the world's largest bankrupt corporation, a collapse that is unmatched in U.S. business history.

The questions about Enron have to begin with what its board knew and wanted not to know about complex partnerships that inflated the company's financial performance. Questions also swirl over the role of Enron's independent auditor, Arthur Andersen. Did the complexity of the transactions simply elude accounting oversight, or did the $27 million in fees Andersen drew as a consultant to Enron encourage the auditor to ignore accounting red flags? And, of course, did Andersen actively set up any of the Enron practices now under investigation?

Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted controversial new rules to require greater public disclosure of accountant-client relationships. But in the face of industry opposition and sketchy evidence of audit failures, the SEC declined to erect a solid firewall between a firm's auditing and consulting roles. The SEC also is trying to work out some kinks in its requirements to encourage fair and timely disclosure of "material" financial information.

If indeed accounting conflicts of interest are found to have contributed to the Enron debacle, then another look may be warranted. And, of course, anything that facilitates timely and complete exchanges between companies and investors is welcome. The real solution has to come from within.

Corporations are made up of people who collectively embody a corporate culture. They set boundaries of what is right, wrong, or unduly risky. When boundaries are stretched without accountability, credibility, which is arguably a corporation's most valuable currency, craters. Enron's collapse was particularly swift because its trading partners and potential white knight had lost confidence in Enron. Character counts.

The tragedy is when oversight failures occur, be they the result of innocent mistakes or the result of brutal deception, the entire investment community must ask "could it happen here?" and take steps to make sure it does not. In the past, some corporate governance experts have suggested that corporations create a self-policing office of business practices similar to government's inspector general to deter fraud and integrity violations. Some have advocated that audit firms be subjected to a more rigorous review of their audit performance.

Specific remedies aside, investors must have assurances that financial statements have been reviewed with impartial, trained eyes, and that company directors are looking out for shareholder interests. And it must come from financial statements and public disclosures that are designed to inform and not mislead investors.

Nothing happened to Enron. Enron happened to itself.

___________________________
Jim Mitchell is an editorial writer and columnist for The Dallas Morning News.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46148)1/11/2002 10:32:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Biz School Blindness Sank Enron

By JOHN LEBOUTILLIER
From: News and Views | Opinion |
The Daily News
Wednesday, January 09, 2002

Harvard Business School: It's called the West Point of capitalism. In fact, the school's bottom-line-only philosophy has had a poisonous effect on American business practices. The Enron disaster is the most recent — and spectacular — manifestation.

To illustrate my point, let me take you back to a classroom at the school in the late winter of 1978. The course was productions and operation management, taught by Chip Bupp, a thoughtful and serious man.

On this particular day, the case study involved a company that manufactured a product that might be harmful, even fatal, to the consumer. The question was, what should you do, if you were the company's CEO, in such an ambiguous but potentially dangerous situation?

Several students offered suggestions, none of which galvanized the class. Then a hand shot up, and Bupp said, "Jeff, what would you do?"

Jeff, with his thinning blond hair, wire-rim spectacles and slight Southern drawl, was one of the brightest members of the class and a natural leader. When he talked, as the commercial used to say, everyone listened.

"I'd keep making and selling the product," Jeff said. "My job as a businessman is to be a profit center and to maximize return to the shareholders. It's the government's job to step in if a product is dangerous." Several heads nodded.

Neither Jeff nor those who agreed with him seemed to care about the potential effects of their cavalier attitude. What if the product really did harm consumers? How about the company's employees? Were they in danger during the manufacture of the product? What would happen to the company if the CEO's decision was wrong?

Few in the classroom that day dared to raise these questions. At Harvard Business School — and business schools nationwide — you're considered soft, a wuss, if you dwell on morality or scruples.

As the years went by, Jeff had a meteoric career. He became a partner in the McKinsey consulting firm. From there he joined Enron and was soon promoted to president and chief executive officer.

Jeff is Jeffrey Skilling, who resigned under unexplained circumstances in August after only six months on the job.

In two stock sales before and after his departure, he cashed out $30.6 million worth of Enron stock.

Skilling and other senior managers encouraged employees to buy and keep Enron stock, even when things started to sour, while they were hurriedly selling huge blocks of their own stock. And now Enron has collapsed, "the largest bankruptcy case in American history," according to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

One analyst told CNBC, "It's the biggest insider trading scandal ever." Another observer said, "Enron was run to benefit the top executives. They literally looted the company."

Yet Skilling proclaims total ignorance of any problems. "I had no idea the company was in anything but excellent shape," he has said.

Articles about Skilling written since the demise of his company cite his arrogance and cold-heartedness. But as I witnessed sitting in that Harvard Business School classroom nearly 24 years ago, the seeds of his destruction grew out of a gross misunderstanding about the role of a business leader in our society. In his view, it is to be "a profit center" and to "maximize return for the shareholder," no matter the peril to consumers or employees.

Harvard and other business schools must pay more than lip service to the gross ethical blind spots that the Enron case has exposed. Starting with an admissions policy that selects potential students for ethics and character as well as brains, these institutions need to return to the goal of teaching their students to be good citizens first and moneymakers second.

America can't afford many more Enrons — or Jeffrey Skilling-like CEOs.
_________________________________________
LeBoutillier graduated from Harvard Business School in 1979.
He is the author of "Harvard Hates America."