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 : The Amateur Traders Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tom Hua who wrote (18347)1/13/2002 8:24:04 PM
From: Roger A. Babb  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 19633
 
Tom, I had a discussion with a securities lawyer today who seemed very certain that both Enron executives and Andersen crossed the line and will be held liable to both the debt holders and shareholders. He thought the case was so strong that a quick settlement is likely so as to avoid criminal prosecution. (Maybe my 401k will recover a few of the lost bucks)

He did not think the Bush administration has any liability and that the excessive Enron campaign donations would have the opposite of the intended effect. Bush will be tough on Enron in order to prove that he was not influenced.

From our point of view as traders, it again confirms the theory that we should sell alongside the CEO when he is dumping huge parts of his position.



To: Tom Hua who wrote (18347)1/13/2002 8:39:10 PM
From: Roger A. Babb  Respond to of 19633
 
An Enron Consequence: The next time a large company gives off a bad smell, its stock will go to zero suddenly as funds will not take the risk of being caught with "another Enron" and everybody dumps. Company crashes, deserved or not, will be sudden affairs with little warning.