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 (46350)1/14/2002 2:03:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
"We see two opposing forces in the marketplace…"...

Excerpts from a recent conversation with Scott Schoelzel (Janus 20 Fund* Portfolio Manager)
December 2001

Key Takeaways

We're seeing many opportunities to buy great franchises at attractive valuations; want to only own franchises that are the best in their industry.
Moving gingerly to put cash to work; erring on the side of prudence given the continued uncertainty in the financial markets today, driven by the economic / political / military situation.
Closely evaluating which industries will benefit from today's environment to find the companies whose business prospects could be positively impacted going forward.

"Our job is to anticipate where the market is going next…"
Trying to separate the "contenders from the pretenders."
Thinking about how people's lives will change post September 11, and how this affects all industries. We want to be "at the tip of the spear," in looking for companies whose business prospects could be positively impacted by the new climate we live in today.
We want to be in position while business is soft and be there before signs of improvement start appearing.
We are selectively putting cash to work, seeking #1 franchises that are executing flawlessly in a very difficult marketplace. These companies are run by strong management teams, with large balance sheets that are able to aggressively buy back their own stock in the marketplace.
We have reduced the Fund's technology exposure given the continuing deceleration in the economy. We sold most of these positions in the late spring/early summer time period and many of them have declined another 50% to 80% since they were sold.
We put billions of dollars to work when the market re-opened on 9/17/01. We had a cash position of 37% as of September 10, 2001. The Fund was 79% invested as of October 31, 2001.

"We see two opposing forces in the marketplace…"
We have recently seen two opposing forces in the marketplace - aggressive stimulus offset by a weakening earnings outlook.
We're confident that the recent aggressive fiscal and monetary policy will stimulate the economy down the road - eventually boosting companies' bottom lines.
We see this time period as a "once-in-a-generation" bear market.
Although we are not sure when things will turn, we feel confident that 3-5 years out we will look back at the autumn of 2001 as the bottom of the market.

ww4.janus.com
_____________________
*Janus 20 Fund Characteristics (as of 11/30/2001):
Total Net Assets (billion) $15.3
Beta vs. S&P 500 1.54
Standard Deviation 31.23
Turnover Rate (10/31/2000) 27%
Price/Earnings Ratio 34.20
Median Market Cap (billion) $84.9
Capital Gains (12/15/2000) $1.7507
Dividends (12/15/2000) $0.0000



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46350)1/14/2002 2:52:51 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
United States: Defusing the Consumer Debt Bomb

by: Richard Berner (New York)
Jan. 14, 2002
The latest views of Morgan Stanley Economists
_______________________________________________

Concerns that a rising tide of consumer debt and bankruptcies will cripple consumer spending in coming months are overblown, in our view, for three reasons. First, despite two consecutive years of falling stock prices, rising asset values for the average consumer -- especially in real estate --have more than matched the run-up in debt, so household balance sheets are in better shape than is commonly perceived. Second, mortgage refinancing and low interest rates have arrested the growth in household debt service, especially for consumers at the lower rungs of the income and wealth ladder. Finally, while we have little doubt that this consumer credit cycle will continue to play out over at least the next several months, the financial burden of bankruptcies and defaults typically falls more on the lender than on the consumer. To be sure, a deeper recession likely would trigger both consumer retrenchment and create bigger credit problems. But unless lenders react to what we see as a garden-variety credit cycle by pulling back abruptly from consumer lending, eroding consumer credit quality by itself is unlikely to trigger a deeper downturn.

It's easy to see why the bears view us as complacent about consumer financial positions. There's no mistaking the rapid buildup in household debt by almost any metric over the past several years. For example, we estimate that debt jumped to 105% of disposable income by the end of last year, up more than ten percentage points in five years. Nor is there any denying the deterioration in aggregate household wealth during the past two years. Courtesy of protracted bear markets, and even allowing for the 10% fourth-quarter rebound, we reckon the value of household financial assets has tumbled $3.5 trillion or 10% from the peak in March, 2000. And consumers clearly haven't built a precautionary cushion of savings from current income, as it appeared that the market would do it for them. So going into the recession that began in March, consumers looked undersaved and overindebted -- in a word, vulnerable. Adding a pinch of significant job losses and a consequent stalling in income growth appeared to complete the recipe for a major retrenchment in consumer spending.

A closer look at the facts, however, makes us more sanguine. For one thing, rising home values have consistently outpaced the increase in debt. Over the past five years, household real estate holdings jumped by $4 trillion; concurrently, household liabilities rose by $2.7 trillion. Over the past two years, of course, the decline in financial asset values has swamped the $2 trillion increase in real estate gains. But the aggregate statistics distort the picture of the average consumer. Aggregate data from the Federal Reserve's flow of funds accounts suggest that households' direct and indirect holdings of equities amounted to 126% of their real estate assets at the end of 2000. But data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) show that in 1998, the median household's total equity holdings amounted to $25,000, while the median value of the primary residence was four times that amount, and net of all debt, $66,700. So for the average household, the 17.4% rise in real estate values over the past two years has swamped the impact of falling stock prices on net worth. Small wonder that the average household has been willing to leverage those gains to finance consumption or home improvement.

Even in the aggregate, falling interest rates have muted the impact of the increase in debt on household cash flow. True, aggregate debt has risen faster than income, and many consumer lending rates haven't dropped much, so the aggregate household debt service burden -- payments of interest plus timely repayment of principal relative to income -- climbed to a record level by mid-2001. But refinancing has helped consumers lock in low mortgage rates, helping mortgage debt service level off. And low-interest-rate vehicle loans should bring down the burden of servicing other consumer credit. Roughly half the loans originated at Detroit's captive finance companies in October and November were at a zero interest, bringing the average rate below 3%. Here too, distribution matters: Mortgage refis haven't added enormously to aggregate household cash flow (see "The Death of Refis?" Global Economic Forum, December 13, 2001). But for the 8 million households whom we estimate refinanced their mortgages last year, it probably amounted to between 1.5% to 4% of their disposable income. The upshot is that debt service burdens are now probably falling in the aggregate and appreciably for some consumers. That will help defuse the burden of debt.

Finally, those households unfortunate enough to have serious credit problems clearly won't be able to finance a spending spree anytime soon, so they do not simply walk away from those difficulties. But the experience of past credit cycles suggests that lenders bear most of the burden of bankruptcy, default, and delinquency. Mortgage lenders often forbear rather than foreclose, giving consumers a chance to work out their difficulties. That's preferable to repossessing a house and incurring the costs of selling it. And many consumers with impaired credit quality are still able to keep their assets and income. But because credit problems typically lag well behind the cycle, my colleague Ken Posner, who analyzes the specialty consumer lending companies, anticipates that bankruptcy growth will peak with the unemployment rate at midyear (see "Surfing V: Waiting for the Next Wave," January 14, 2002).

What are the risks? Rising joblessness and falling home prices would be the biggest threats to consumer debt-service capacity. The jobless rate still seems likely to rise to 6.5% in a tepid recovery, and home price appreciation will probably slow to a crawl in the next two years. But that's the stuff of moderating growth, not retrenchment. As a result, we continue to believe that consumers' debt burdens are manageable, and that rising debt is unlikely to torpedo the recovery.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46350)1/14/2002 4:11:33 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
War? What war?...

By: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post 1/14/02

<<The only war getting big media play at the moment is the Beltway battle over Enron.

ABC's "This Week" devoted its entire program to Enron, a subject that dominated the other Sunday shows as well. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans – who got the we're-in-big-trouble calls from Enron boss and Bush buddy Ken Lay – made the rounds, saying there was nothing unusual or noteworthy about the calls.

Hey, Enron was only on the verge of the biggest bankruptcy in American history.

Much of the press didn't care all that much about Enron when it was only a gigantic corporate collapse that screwed thousands of employees out of their retirement money while top executives cashed in their stock. All that eye-glazing detail about deregulation and derivatives. But now that there's a link to the White House, the scandal machinery is clanking into action.

"Burned!" says the cover of Newsweek, featuring a short-circuiting plug labeled Enron.

A good scandal, though, involves a clear quid pro quo. A company (Enron) gives lots of political money (to Bush and the GOP, mostly) and gets some government favors. But the evidence, as of now, is that the administration didn't do squat for Enron.

Ah – but could the administration have saved the employees' pensions? Could the administration have warned hapless investors? In other words, the scandal-seekers who would have decried any White House move to help Enron (say, by urging the all-powerful folks at Moody's not to downgrade the company's debt) now decry its failure to do anything.

"Should the administration have been more assertive in saying: What about the little guy?" Tim Russert asked Evans on "Meet the Press."

"There seems to be almost a see-no-evil, speak-no-evil atmosphere," Tony Snow told O'Neill on "Fox News Sunday."

"You cannot sit in the Oval Office and say 'I did not have financial relations with that corporation,' because he did," ex-Clinton aide Paul Begala chortled on "Late Edition."

The press picks apart the story from a variety of angles:

"Even though they mounted no formal effort to bail out Enron Corp., Bush administration officials are coming under fire for not publicly disclosing the extent of the company's troubles when they became aware of them," the Los Angeles Times says.

"Some legal experts contend the administration was in a position to sound a warning to the public or the Securities and Exchange Commission after a series of phone calls from Enron executives to Treasury Department officials last fall. The fact that they didn't, while Enron's financial situation grew darker and its stock price declined steadily, raises the specter of special treatment for a powerful corporation, congressional critics say.

"But the Bush administration, despite close ties to Enron, did not help the firm stave off bankruptcy as the federal government had done for failing enterprises such as Long-Term Capital Management, Chrysler Corp. and Lockheed Corp.

"Enron was different. Many experts on government-business relations say the company's relationship with the Bush administration made aiding it a potential political embarrassment. But others say the administration decided not to help the company because its failure did not threaten widespread damage to financial or energy markets and the economy as a whole."

The Boston Globe spotlights the long friendship between the president and the CEO:

"It was a curious bit of scheduling in the midst of a presidential campaign, but George W. Bush broke away from a trip to California on April 7, 2000, because of a pressing bit of business back home.

"The Texas governor had to get to Houston to attend the opening of Enron Field, a baseball park named after the energy-trading firm headed by his friend and biggest individual donor, Kenneth Lay.

"The $248 million stadium had been built by Halliburton Co., the Dallas oil-services and construction company that was run by Dick Cheney, whom Bush later picked as his vice presidential running mate.

"Such connections between Bush and the Houston energy company that last month became the largest US company to file for bankruptcy protection – devastating many of its retirees' pension plans in the process – have given Democrats the first whiff of scandal from an administration that has pledged to restore honor and integrity to the White House."

The New York Times looks at those who cashed in: "While investigators are focusing on how much money investors and employees lost in the Enron Corporation's collapse, some shareholders and lawmakers are now setting their sights on another target: the millions that Enron insiders received by selling their shares while the price was still high.

"As Enron stock climbed and Wall Street was still promoting it, a group of 29 Enron executives and directors began to sell their shares. These insiders received $1.1 billion by selling 17.3 million shares from 1999 through mid-2001, according to court filings based on public records. They continued selling just before Enron's stock started to tumble early last year and the company began its slide into bankruptcy protection.

"One of the biggest sellers was Kenneth L. Lay, who became prominent as the company's chairman and a leading contributor to President Bush. He was among more than a dozen Enron executives who received $30 million or more, including one who sold shares valued at $353.7 million."

The Washington Post says the Dems could be vulnerable as well: "Democrats are savoring the chance to use embattled Enron Corp.'s Republican ties to embarrass the Bush administration at upcoming congressional hearings. But Republicans might turn the tables, to some extent at least, because Enron has courted and supported prominent Democrats as well.

"According to internal Enron documents and the recollections of former employees, Chairman Kenneth L. Lay had the ear of top Democrats in the 1980s and '90s. He and his colleagues used that access to promote the company's interests with the Clinton administration and key congressional Democrats.

"In a White House meeting in August 1997, for example, Lay urged President Clinton and Vice President Gore to back a 'market-based' approach to the problem of global warming – a strategy that a later Enron memo makes clear would be 'good for Enron stock.'

"The following February, Lay met with Energy Secretary Federico Peña to urge White House action on electricity legislation favored by Enron. Peña 'suggested that President Clinton might be motivated [to act] by some key contacts from important constituents,' according to another Enron memo. Taking the cue, Lay, one of 25 business executives on Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development, wrote to the president the same day."

In a followup this morning, The Post reports that "Democratic lawmakers are divided about how aggressively to investigate the White House's relationship to the implosion of Enron Corp., with an increasing number of party officials warning their colleagues against overreaching or showing too much glee in attacking a popular wartime president.

"White House officials said over the weekend that they believe Democrats could provoke a severe backlash by pushing the issue too hard. These officials said they will continue to issue frequent reminders about the ties Enron had to Democrats and that they will argue that if there were regulatory failures, the crucial ones occurred under President Bill Clinton."

What a novel concept: Blame Clinton.

Time uncovers the first smoking gun: "Just four days before Enron disclosed a stunning $618 million loss for the third quarter – its first public disclosure of its financial woes – workers who audited the company's books for Arthur Andersen, the big accounting firm, received an extraordinary instruction from one of the company's lawyers. Congressional investigators tell Time that the Oct. 12 memo directed workers to destroy all audit material, except for the most basic 'work papers.'

"And that's what they did, over a period of several weeks. As a result, FBI investigators, congressional probers and workers suing the company for lost retirement savings will be denied thousands of e-mails and other electronic and paper files that could have helped illuminate the actions and motivations of Enron executives involved in what now is the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history."

Andrew Sullivan is in the no-big-deal camp: "I'm still trying to figure out what this Enron thing is all about. The key thing with scandals like this, it seems to me, is to ask yourself: what's the worst accusation that could be made? With Whitewater, the worst possibility was that it was a petty, sweetheart deal. It was easy to see that, even if this were true, it wasn't that big a deal.

"Surely, from what we know now, it's even less of a deal with Enron. I haven't seen any argument yet that takes us beyond the line that many in the Bush administration were close to Enron, that Enron helped bankroll Bush's campaigns, and that therefore there is some sort of guilt by association.

"If that's it, it's not pleasant but, like Whitewater, not that damaging either. If it isn't, and some in the administration knew of the improprieties or in any way gave Enron special treatment in concealing them, then they deserve any payback they get. So far, the opposite appears to be the case – that Enron asked for help and none was forthcoming. The golden rule for Bush is to get everything out now. Bush's and Cheney's tendency toward secrecy in these matters is by far the biggest danger."

National Review's Byron York sees no comparison to one Clinton scandal:

"Beyond the strong desire of some Clinton loyalists to suggest equivalencies between the Clinton and Bush administrations, there is scant evidence that Enron equals Whitewater. Yes, they each set off a quickly forming critical mass of Washington media interest, but the same could be said of all sorts of news stories. In contrast to Enron, interest in Whitewater was ignited by events deep inside the White House; the story mushroomed at the end of 1993 and beginning of 1994 after revelations that Clinton aides removed documents from the office of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster on the night of his suicide.

"That news in turn revived long-dormant press interest in the Whitewater real-estate investment, in which Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared to have received special treatment from their two business partners, both later convicted of felonies. Later, the story involved the investigation of whether the president lied about that special treatment under oath.

"None of that seems to be the case in Enron. Yes, there are reports of missing documents, but the Whitewater comparison would become much more apt if those documents were later discovered in the White House residence. So far, the only real similarity to past Clinton scandals is the almost eerie reappearance of Robert Bennett, the former Clinton lawyer who is now representing Enron."...>>



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46350)1/14/2002 4:57:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Some Enron Highlights from Dow Jones News Wires...

4:30pm 01/14/02 [ENE] ENRON TOLD LAWYERS NOT TO 'SECOND GUESS' AUDITS

4:27pm 01/14/02 [ENE] LAWMAKERS SAY NEW EVIDENCE RAISES 'TROUBLING QUESTIONS'

4:25pm 01/14/02 [ENE] ENRON EXEC SAYS PARTNERSHIPS WERE 'VEIL OF SECRECY'

4:22pm 01/14/02 [ENE] ENRON EXEC QUESTIONED ACCOUNTING PRACTICES -LAWMAKERS

______________

These Enron Execs & Board Members need to be held accountable...We need a THOROUGH and COMPREHENSIVE investigation. Ken Lay and his executive team should be punished so severely that other corporate execs around this country will think long and hard about breaking laws and committing fraud. The Enron bankruptcy clearly demonstrates a pervasive failure of GOOD corporate governance.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46350)1/14/2002 7:03:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 65232
 
Fed's Moskow Says Economy Will Gain Momentum in 2002

(Update2)
01/14 17:26
By Brendan Murray and Andrew Ward

Chicago, Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy will gather momentum and recover later this year as companies boost spending to replenish inventories, said Michael Moskow, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

While the recession that began in March will end this year, ``the signs are still preliminary and the timing uncertain,'' Moskow told a business group in Chicago. ``The natural forces for recovery will eventually lift capital spending and inventory investment.''

Inventories are low, government spending will increase and the economy probably will benefit from ``moderate gains'' in spending on household items, Moskow said. A decline in business investment may be ending, though many firms still are skittish about buying new equipment, he said.

The recovery is likely to be gradual ``with activity gaining momentum as we move through the year,'' Moskow said. ``We have already seen some scattered signs of improvement, although the data are mixed.''

Moskow is a non-voting member of the Fed's policy-setting Open Market Committee, which is scheduled to meet next on Jan. 30. His comments suggest Moskow may agree with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said in a speech Friday in San Francisco, that the economy faces ``significant risks in the near term.'' It's premature to conclude that the downturn is over, Greenspan said.

Treasury Yields

The yield on the 5 percent Treasury note that matures in August 2011 rose a basis point today following Moskow's remarks and those of other Fed officials. The note's yield fell 11 basis points Friday after Greenspan's comments suggested that Fed officials may lower interest rates at the end of the month.

``The pattern of recovery is difficult to know at this time, but we anticipate that activity in the second half of the year will be better than the first half,'' Moskow said.

Three other Fed officials today joined Moskow with conditional outlooks for a rebound this year.

The consensus among economists is for recovery ``in about the middle of the year, which is a very nice hedge, so they don't have to say the second or third quarter,'' said Fed Bank of New York President William McDonough in a speech.

``There's a difference of opinion as to whether the recovery will be sort of strong, fairly strong, or very strong,'' McDonough said at the Institute of International Bankers. ``The fact is, I don't know the answer to that question, either.''

The difficulty is know what will propel the recovery, he said. ``In order to come out the recession, if the consumer can't lead the way we need business fixed investment to come back,'' McDonough said.

Concerns About Business Spending

Cathy Minehan, president of the Fed Bank of Boston, said in Manchester, New Hampshire, that ``the real question is whether the consumer will stay the course long enough to revive business investment.''

Gary Stern, president of the Fed Bank of Minneapolis, said consumer spending will pace a return to growth in the second quarter. The rebound ``may not be generally recognized before the third quarter,'' he said. ``My guess is that it will take a little time before people become convinced about the economy.''

He added that a revival of business investment in plant and equipment ``might be some time off,'' adding that the ``prognosis is difficult to pin down.''

Fed policy makers cut the benchmark overnight bank lending rate 11 times since the beginning of last year to a 40-year low of 1.75 percent.

While declining to predict the timing of a rebound, Moskow said the Fed's rate cuts would eventually benefit the economy. ``There is a good deal of monetary stimulus in the pipeline,'' he said, a comment echoed by McDonough today and others.

Inventory Investment

Production in the U.S. may be poised to rise after falling demand in 2000 and 2001 left companies with excess inventories, he said. Manufacturers cut production, helping tip the economy into recession.

``Inventory stocks probably are lean enough that firms will no longer be able to maintain the recent pace of liquidation and still keep up with demand,'' he said. ``Accordingly, inventory investment will likely turn from a negative factor to a source of growth for production.''

The economy fell into recession in March and contracted at a 1.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter of last year. It will probably grow at a 0.7 percent pace in the first three months of this year after contracting at a 1 percent rate in the fourth quarter, according to the January Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of more than 50 economists.

For consumers, Moskow said he expects ``moderate gains'' in spending on household purchases. Low inflation, tax cuts, falling energy prices and wage increases have helped support real income growth, and consumer confidence is improving, he said.

Unemployment May Impede Recovery

One potential drag on a recovery may be higher unemployment, Moskow said. The jobless rate rose to 5.8 percent in December, the highest in more than 6 1/2 years, and companies shed the largest number of workers last year since 1982.

``If this cycle is like previous ones, unemployment rates may continue to rise for a time even after the recovery has begun to take hold,'' Moskow said. ``Resulting income losses then would likely hold down spending somewhat.''

For businesses, the picture isn't so clear, Moskow said. Firms ``remain relatively risk averse,'' which could ``continue to weigh on discretionary spending and capital outlays,'' he said.

``Nevertheless, recent orders data suggest that the contraction in business spending is at least moderating,'' he said. ``Even if business investment simply stops falling, this would be a significant improvement relative to the large declines of 2001.''

Productivity

In the Midwest, some manufacturers' business isn't deteriorating as rapidly as it did last year, he said. ``They may be bottoming out in some areas,'' he told reporters after the speech. ``These anecdotes are encouraging, but they are by no means definitive'' in showing a recovery is under way, he said.

Moskow told reporters that once the recovery gets under way, he expects worker productivity to return to 2 percent at an annual pace. Productivity grew in the third quarter at a 1.5 percent annual rate.

A strong rate of productivity in the U.S. is one reason the euro probably won't replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, Moskow said.

``If you look at the stability of our political system, it's very high. If you look at our productivity, it's the highest in the world,'' he said in response to a question from the audience. `` When people look at the U.S. as a place to invest or a place to hold our currency, they view it as very positive and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.''



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46350)1/14/2002 8:33:18 PM
From: Cactus Jack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 65232
 
JW,

You like any precious metals? Gold stocks in particular?

jpgill



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46350)1/15/2002 4:33:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
*Enron's Chairman Received Warning About Accounting

The New York Times
January 15, 2002
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. with ALEX BERENSON

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - A senior Enron
employee explicitly warned the company's
chairman in August that several years of improper
accounting practices threatened to bring down the
company, Congressional investigators said today.

"I am incredibly nervous that we will implode in a
wave of accounting scandals," the employee,
Sherron S. Watkins, wrote in an unsigned seven-
page letter to Kenneth L. Lay, Enron's chairman
and chief executive. Excerpts from the letter were
released today by the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, one of five Congressional
committees investigating Enron's collapse.

The company, which once had a market value of
$70 billion, filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 2 after
acknowledging that it
had overstated its profits by nearly $600 million.

The seven-page letter suggests that Mr. Lay had been warned about the company's
accounting problems at a time when he was assuring employees and investors that
Enron's stock would rebound. Disclosure of the letter came as a lawyer for Mr. Lay
said that he had used company stock to repay a loan, raising questions about
whether Mr. Lay shed some holdings as the stock declined.

The letter could also bring significant new problems for Enron; its accounting firm,
Arthur Andersen; and Vinson & Elkins, the company's law firm, at a time when the
Justice Department has dispatched dozens of prosecutors and federal investigators
to Houston, where a federal task force's wide-ranging criminal inquiry will be
based.

The letter from Ms. Watkins, a vice president of corporate
development, was sent to Mr. Lay between Aug. 14, when
the company's chief executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling,
suddenly resigned, and Aug. 31. In an Aug. 21 letter, Mr.
Lay sought to reassure Enron employees that the
company was on solid footing, writing, "One of my highest
priorities is to restore investor confidence in Enron. This
should result in a significantly higher stock price." At the
time, Enron shares were trading at almost $37. By late
November, it was trading as low as 30 cents a share.

After receiving the letter, Mr. Lay asked Vinson & Elkins
to investigate the issues raised in it. But the company
insisted that the law firm limit its investigation to a review
of whether the letter contained new factual information,
not a wider inquiry into whether Enron was properly
accounting for its profits and losses. On Oct. 15, Vinson &
Elkins found that Enron had committed no wrongdoing,
lawyers involved in the matter said.

Ms. Watkins could not be reached for comment today. Her
husband, Richard Watkins, referred phone calls to a
lawyer.

In the letter, Ms. Watkins raised concerns about Enron's
accounting practices and asked whether company
partnerships were being used to hide losses and inflate
the company's stock price. These are among the issues
now being investigated by the Justice Department, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of
Labor and members of Congress.

Federal investigators are trying to determine whether Enron executives, armed
with inside information about Enron's financial condition, sold their own stock
before the improper accounting methods were publicly disclosed in October.
Thousands of Enron employees, who were barred from selling the stock for six
weeks in the fall, lost vast amounts of their retirement savings.

In her letter, Ms. Watkins expressed anguish about the accounting practices of four
Enron partnerships and the involvement in one deal of the company's former chief
financial officer, Andrew S. Fastow. She also complained to Mr. Lay that several
senior Enron employees had repeatedly raised questions and concerns about
Enron's accounting methods to senior Enron officials, including Mr. Skilling.

Philip H. Hilder, Ms. Watkins's lawyer, said in an interview tonight that Ms.
Watkins worked for Mr. Fastow, who ran two of the partnerships that Enron
allegedly used to inflate its profits, between July and September. After September,
Ms. Watkins "asked to be reassigned," Mr. Hilder said.

He said he did not believe the company retaliated against her for writing the letter.
He would not comment on whether investigators had contacted her.

Excerpts of the letter were released today by Representative Billy Tauzin, the
Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, and Representative James C. Greenwood the Pennsylvania Republican
who is the head of the investigations subcommittee.

People who have reviewed the full text of her letter said Ms. Watkins wrote Mr. Lay:
"I have heard one manager-level from the Principal Investments Group say, `I know
it would be devastating to all of us, but I wish we would get caught. We're such a
crooked company.' "

Ken Johnson, a committee spokesman, said today, "Obviously this is an explosive
new development in our investigation that clearly shows that top Enron executives
were warned of serious financial problems months before the company reduced
shareholder equity."

Robert S. Bennett, Enron's Washington lawyer, protested the committee's release
of excerpts from the letter. "I think it's very unfair for committees of Congress who
profess to be conducting fair and objective investigations to be selectively releasing
documents with their spokespeople putting spins on them," he said.

He said Mr. Lay acted "very, very responsibly" and was concerned about the issues
raised by Ms. Watkins and referred them to Enron's outside law firm for
investigation.

Congressional investigators who have reviewed the full text of her letter said Ms.
Watkins began it with two prescient questions: "Has Enron become a risky place to
work? For those of us who didn't get rich over the last few years, can we afford to
stay?"

She then went on to express deep concerns about the accounting practices used
by Arthur Andersen involving three partnerships by the names of Condor, Raptor
and Whitewing.

Ms. Watkins complained about the opaque structure of the Enron partnerships
that were used to conceal losses. "Is there a way our accounting gurus can unwind
these deals now?" she asked. "I have thought about how to do this, but I keep
bumping into one big problem - we booked the Condor deals in 1999 and 2000,
we enjoyed a wonderfully high stock price, many executives sold stock, we then try
to reverse or fix the deals in 2001 and it's a bit like robbing the bank in one year
and trying to pay back two years later. Nice try, but investors were hurt."

She continued, "They bought at $70 and $80 dollars looking for $210/ share and
now they're at $38 or worse. We are under too much scrutiny and there are
probably one or two disgruntled redeployed employees who know enough about
the funny accounting to get us in trouble." She also includes a page of suggestions
on how to untangle the accounting irregularities.

Vinson & Elkins concluded its inquiry on Oct. 15, just one day before Enron
announced its third quarter earnings and a $1.2 billion reduction in shareholder
equity due to losses later associated with partnerships involving Enron officials.

Ms. Watkins also told Mr. Lay that "several senior Enron employees `consistently
and constantly' questioned the corporation's accounting methods to senior Enron
officials, and directly" to Mr. Skilling, about transactions involving L.J.M., an Enron
partnership.

The House Energy Committee sent letters of inquiry today to Mr. Lay; Arthur
Andersen's managing director, Joseph F. Berardino; and Joseph C. Dilg, the
managing partner of Vinson & Elkins. The committee letters demanded more
information about the way they addressed the concerns raised by Ms. Watkins.

Joe Householder, a spokesman for Vinson & Elkins, which has 860 lawyers in nine
offices worldwide, said lawyers were reviewing the committee's letter. "On this
issue," he said, "we just aren't prepared to comment because we want to review the
letter first."

Today, several Enron officials questioned whether it was proper for Vinson & Elkins
to conduct a supposedly independent inquiry of Enron's accounting practices.

"There are so many Vinson & Elkins lawyers working for Enron that they have
office space in the company's headquarters in Houston for extended periods of
time," said one Enron official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A Vinson & Elkins lawyer said the firm was owed more than $5 million when Enron
petitioned for protection last month under Federal bankruptcy law. The lawyer
added that Enron was among the law firm's most lucrative clients.

At some point after the Vinson & Elkins inquiry began, Ms. Watkins met with Mr.
Lay for an hour to express her concerns in person, Congressional investigators
said. They said they did not know exactly when the meeting took place.

Enron admitted in November that it used partnerships like those mentioned in the
letter to overstate its profits by $586 million since 1997. To raise money, the
partnerships, which included both Enron and outside investors, took out loans that
were indirectly guaranteed by Enron.

The partnerships would then buy investments that Enron had made at prices that
enabled Enron to claim the investments had been profitable. But because Enron
had guaranteed most of the money the partnerships had used to buy assets from
it, the company was essentially selling assets to itself.

The L.J.M. partnerships are even more questionable, because they were controlled
by Mr. Fastow, who earned more than $30 million running them. Mr. Fastow
should not have been allowed to work for both Enron and the partnerships, critics
say.

nytimes.com