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 (46812)1/22/2002 5:22:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
A good Enron discussion is on All Things Considered right now....=)



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46812)1/23/2002 12:31:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
For Chief, $200 Million Wasn't Quite Enough Cash

The New York Times
January 22, 2002
By FLOYD NORRIS

Over three years starting in
1999, Kenneth L. Lay has
reported receiving more than
$200 million either from Enron
directly or through
exercising stock options. Yet, his
lawyer now says, he was forced to
borrow millions more from the
company last year to meet his
obligations.

The disclosure of Mr. Lay's
financial problems, made by Earl
Silbert, his personal lawyer, was
aimed at countering the
impression that Mr. Lay, Enron's
chairman and chief executive,
might have disposed of Enron
stock in late August because he
feared a collapse of the company.

Instead, the new information
could leave an impression that
his personal investments
produced very large losses that
he was unable to support despite
his large income from Enron.

Assuming that Mr. Silbert is
correct, Mr. Lay joins a short list
of chief executives whose pay in
the 1990's was astronomical, and
who ended up with severe
financial problems because they
borrowed too heavily against
assets whose high value proved to
be temporary. The others known
to have such problems are
Bernard J. Ebbers, the chief
executive of WorldCom
(news/quote), whose margin
loans were guaranteed by the
company and whose shares are
now worth less than he owes, and
Steven Hilbert, the former chief
executive of Conseco
(news/quote), who bought
Conseco shares with money
borrowed from the company
before the stock price collapsed
and he was fired.

Mr. Lay appears to have parlayed
his paper gains in Enron to buy
other securities that also declined
in value. His known investments,
which are no doubt only a
fraction of the actual investments,
were concentrated in areas that
did well when the stock market
was soaring and have since
suffered. They include stakes in
Compaq Computer (news/quote),
i2 Technologies (news/quote) and
NewPower Holdings
(news/quote).

In fact, Mr. Silbert indicated that
Mr. Lay first repaid a company
loan with stock last February.
Enron was then selling for more
than $68 a share, so it appears
that the sale was forced by the
declining value of Mr. Lay's other
investments.

Just how much Mr. Lay is now
worth is unclear. Nor is it clear
how much, if any, money he still
owes, or just what expenditures
would have caused him to go
through so much money so
quickly. But his stake in Enron,
which consists mostly of stock
options, is now worthless after
the collapse of the company.

Mr. Lay had a $4 million revolving
line of credit from Enron, which
Mr. Silbert said was raised to
$7.5 million at some point in
2001. He said that Mr. Lay took
out money from that loan, and
then repaid it, on 15 separate occasions from February
through October.

In each case, he repaid it by turning over stock to Enron.
He appears to have obtained some of those shares by
exercising options, while in other cases he returned
shares he already owned. Mr. Silbert said Mr. Lay took
out the loans from the company when he expected that he
was likely to face margin calls from other lenders.

If those 15 repayments averaged $4 million, then they
totaled $60 million, which would represent the value of
stock he returned to the company. Mr. Silbert declined to
give exact figures, and formal disclosure of the
transactions is not required by Securities and Exchange
Commission rules until Feb. 14.

From 1999 through 2001, Mr. Lay received salary and
cash bonuses from Enron totaling more than $17.1
million. That figure does not include a salary for 2001,
although he was supposed to earn $1.3 million.
Presumably, it was paid until the company filed for
bankruptcy on Dec. 3.

But he brought in far more from cashing in his stock and
options in the company. In 1999, Enron filings show, he
realized $43.8 million from cashing in stock options. The
next year, he realized $123.4 million from that source.
And his filings show that he earned a profit of $20.7
million from cashing in options and selling stock in the
first seven months of 2001.

All told, that amounts to about $205 million over those
three years. But that was not enough. According to Mr.
Silbert, the loan proceeds from the company were needed
when other loans needed to be paid.

Mr. Lay has also sought to raise cash from other sources.
Late last year Mr. Lay put up for sale several houses and
properties he owns in Aspen, Colo.

Functionally, disposing of stock by using it to pay off loans
is the same as selling the stock. But legally it differs in
two ways, although it is not clear which, if either, was
important to Mr. Lay.

The first is that while normal sales of stock by a top
corporate official must be disclosed quickly, within 10
days of the month in which the sale was made, the return
of stock to a company to repay a loan need not be
disclosed until the next year.

The second concerns the sanctions against insider
trading. In general, an executive is barred from buying or
selling his company's stock when he has material
nonpublic information. But transactions are not barred if
the entity on the other side of the trade has the same
information.

"If he is selling it back to the company, the company may
have the same information he had," said Jack Coffee, a
securities law professor at Columbia. He said that while a
prosecutor could argue that the board did not have the
information, and therefore the company did not have it, it
would be a difficult case to prove.

There is one other exception to insider trading rules,
stemming from a rule issued by the S.E.C. in 2000. An
executive may adopt a plan to sell stock regularly and
then sell stock pursuant to it even after learning of
material nonpublic information. But no such plan can be
filed by an executive after he or she obtains such
information, unless the information is made public.

Mr. Lay took advantage of that rule repeatedly in 2001,
filing plans to sell stock for three-month periods. His last
plan expired at the end of July, by which time he had
taken in $29.9 million from selling shares and earned a
profit of $20.7 million. The share price had fallen to
$45.35 by the end of the month.

After that, Mr. Lay did not file a new plan and has not
reported selling any additional shares in public markets.
"The reason he stopped selling was that he thought the
stock was going to go up," a lawyer for Enron, Robert S.
Bennett, said last week.

After July 31, there was no shortage of news affecting
Enron. On Aug. 14, Jeffrey Skilling resigned as Enron's
president and chief executive, leading to Mr. Lay's
reassuming the chief executive title he had surrendered
earlier in the year. The next day, Sherron S. Watkins, an
Enron employee, wrote to Mr. Lay of her concerns about
the company's accounting, expressing the prescient fear
that "we will implode in a wave of accounting scandals."

In October, the last month that Mr. Silbert said Mr. Lay
repaid a company loan by turning in stock, Enron's report
on third-quarter results set off an avalanche of bad
publicity that led to the company's unraveling over the
next month. The S.E.C. inquiry also began in October.

By repeatedly borrowing from Enron, and then turning in
stock to repay the loan, Mr. Lay was taking out cash
directly from the company when the company's need for
cash was growing.

Had he exercised options and sold the stock to the public
as he sought to pay his debts, Enron would have gained
cash that now could be used to pay creditors. As it is,
there is less cash available for that.

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46812)1/23/2002 12:58:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Kerry Wants Enron Meetings Public

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry Calls on White House to Make Public Meetings With Enron

By MELISSA B. ROBINSON
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday January 22, 7:37 pm Eastern Time

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday the White House should make public details about meetings with Enron (NYSE:ENE - news) and other energy companies when the administration crafted its energy agenda.

``Exxon, Mobil, Enron or Chevron enjoyed an access bonanza at the expense of consumers and state of the art environmental technology manufacturers,'' declared Kerry as he outlined his alternative energy proposals.

Administration officials have said that early last year members of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force met with Enron officials six times and that Cheney met for a half hour with Enron chairman Kenneth Lay, discussing energy.

Kerry said the administration's energy strategy, focusing heavily on fossil fuel development, reflects the administration's close ties to big corporations, including now-bankrupt Enron Corp.

At the same time, companies offering innovative alternative energy solutions, nor public interest groups ``were permitted to compete fairly and openly for the White House ear'' on the task force developed its energy priorities, said Kerry in a speech to the nonprofit Center for National Policy.

In Belle, W.Va., the heart of coal country, Bush called for Senate approval of his energy proposals including drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Kerry, and several other Democratic senators, have vowed to filibuster any bill that calls for drilling in the Alaska refuge. Supporters of opening the refuge to oil companies do not have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

Many of the key elements of Bush's energy plan passed the Republican-controlled House last summer. In the Senate, Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has promised to take up an energy bill next month. Kerry supports much of the Democratic bill, but wants more aggressive measures on increasing auto fuel economy.

Kerry said the public should be told the details of meetings Cheney's energy task force had with Enron and other energy companies because ``we have a right to know as Americans whether or not these companies were indeed the cause of that policy.''

``The point is not whether or not something illegal happened,'' said Kerry.

Among Kerry's energy proposals were:

-- A goal of having one-fifth of electricity generated from alternative and renewable sources by 2020.

-- An increase in motor vehicle fuel economy requirements, although he did say specifically how much of an increase he wants.

-- Tax incentives for energy efficient appliances, lighting and electronics.

The administration, and a House-passed energy bill, does not set a goal for electricity production from renewables; calls for studying future changes in federal automobile fuel economy rules, but makes no commitment; and has more modest incentives for energy efficiency appliances and lights.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46812)1/23/2002 5:15:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Memorial Day Meltdown...

by Doug McIntosh

23 January 2002

There's nothing like one of my doom and gloom essays to bring out the flaming emails. No problem though cause I'm tough. Several of you aren't convinced an economic crisis faces the globe and the United States in the next six months. Fair enough. I will now spell it out clearly and provide a reasonable scenario to get to my May 31st date. It doesn't phase me in the slightest that the mainstream, court economists, media shills and assorted bulls are now saying the recession ended in December. Hmm, proclaim it in October, say it started in March and now is over. And some of you think I'm given to bouts of fantasy!

For those of you not inclined to think the United States has serious economic problems I think a dose of reality is in order. Up here in Oregon the official unemployment rate is 7.5%. In Washington State it's 7.1%. Coming soon to a state near and dear to you. The United States is averaging the loss of 100,000 manufacturing jobs a month. Unemployment claims fluctuate between 350,000 and 500,000 a week-not a month, a week. Entire sectors of the economy lie shattered in the dirt: hospitality, airlines, manufacturing among them. I don't see them recovering anytime soon, especially not by April 1st. Our economy is contracting, things are getting worse not better and it's about time people woke up.

In my opinion, I think there are four major reasons the blinders will come off within the next six months. The first is Enron. Enron is currently the focus of the Security and Exchange Commission, the Labor Department and the Justice Department. Enron is also the focus of three separate Senate and three separate House committee investigations. And it isn't even the end of January yet! I'm now going to say some things with my usual blunt candor that enthralls most of you, annoys some of you and enrages a few of you. The reason Enron is going to take down the American economic system is simple. It cost people money, threatens their 401k retirement/stock market illusions and exposes the corrupt, oligarchic banking cabal running the USA for what they are. The vast majority of the American people don't give a #### about scandal. They didn't care when Reno burnt the children at Waco; they didn't care when Reno sent in armed thugs to kidnap Elian Gonzales ; they didn't care when Clinton renamed the Oval office the Oral office. They didn't care about the Red Chinese buying the elections, or stealing our nuclear technology or TWA flight 800 being shot down by a missile. Most Americans can't be bothered on issues of honor, truth, treason, character or evil. Oh, but this debased two thirds of our great Republic can be bothered when it costs them money. They can rise up in a howling horde and shred politicians so completely DNA testing will be required for identification, IF scandal interferes with their illusions, greed or retirement plans. People are incensed when Lay lies in an e-mail about stock value to employees while he dumps it himself. They are incensed the "fail safe" system failed to protect them. They are stunned the government didn't protect them. Folks, corruption IS the system. I'm sorry you just found out, but hey, don't say I haven't warned you for a while.

The next few months will show the American people that Enron is the logical result of their political and economic system. To all those people whining about how the system "didn't work" I say to the contrary, it worked perfectly. A sleazy company like Enron, corrupts the accountant firm, bribes all the politicians, judges and regulators it can find, buys off the media and rigs the stock market. Sounds like the 1990's in a nutshell to me. But hey, I'm just a doom and gloomer so what do I know? It's the two thirds of my fellow Americans who believed these delusions that will be surprised. And in that surprise they will doom the United States economy. President Pretzel, our 1500 Florida vote winner, won't be able to save us. The genius of Enron was that it corrupted nearly half the House, Senate and nearly all of Texas. Sheer genius!

Mark my words on this one people. The decadent left, their media allies and Democratic Party mob bosses are going to keep Enron in the headlines until November 7th. And the result of that constant media barrage will be to create a crisis and thus destroy the Republicans. The above groups are perfectly willing to use Enron for their own goals. Think the economy, consumer confidence or the stock market will do good under those conditions? If you do, you're like a Japanese soldier planting a rice paddy while a US battleship shells his island for nine months. Enron is big, and even if it wasn't, certain entrenched groups will make it big for political purposes. Now, if the Republicans wise up we could get dueling scandals, say Clinton indicted for PardonGate. Face it: we're in the early phases of a bona fide political scandal that will shake every "new economy" idiotic idea from the tree. ####, it's going to uproot the tree. A rigged economic system on the way up isn't the same thing as a rigged one on the way down, you know.

Guys and gals, it's the debt. To pay off the debt you need a job. To pay off the house you need a job. Look at the amounts owed. Look at the default rates. Look at the implications for the economy. It's the new year now and reality is kicking America in the posterior. Enron is number one and the debt service/unemployment problem is number two. The mainstream hasn't figured it out yet. Either you pay off your house mortgage, credit card bill, auto loan or you default on them. Eventually, say by May 31st, the system begins to have to deal with all those unemployed people who aren't paying their debt bills. Can they ignore them? Perhaps, for a while, but not for long. The debt crisis is now and will be in full flower this spring and summer. Remember corporate earnings, profits and all that jazz. Fannie Mae's 11% late rate will eventually have to come out of the system. Foreclosed houses will be dumped on the market, or perhaps a Savings and Loan type liquidation system will be set up. Either way, the system will have to deal with it in the next six months. I listen to these so called pundits and they blow off the default rates, the unemployed; underemployed, the no profit sales, the no earnings companies and the fantasy stock market. So much blindness and arrogance. Just like Mr. Lay and his stock emails, they are all liars.

Reason number three is Japan, Argentina and other global economic issues. Isn't it amazing how quiet the largest bond debt default has become? Except for a few stories about chaos and anarchy in Argentina you wouldn't realize between 132 and 228 billion dollars had vanished. That's the nice thing about the mainstream press. If they feel a story is too dangerous to the status quo it simply vanishes. All the banks that loaned them the money become no problem. The investors shutting off the flow of money and the political implications of that become no problem. Ah, Argentina, I remembered you well, before you were sent down the memory hole. Think any investor will loan any money to ANY country thought to be even slightly a "risk"? I don't. Pay off the Argentine debt, #### they can't even count it right! Hasn't anybody figured out that if America doesn't import stuff from overseas, then those economies based on exporting to us, like Mexico, Malaysia; China, will start to slow down? Every country in the world is either now in recession or starting to slow down. The United States import vacuum cleaner bag is now full. Global chaos isn't far behind. If we don't buy their exports, who will? If they don't recycle their dollar profits into our financial markets, what happens? If the American people withdraw psychologically, start to pay their debts off, or default, what happens? If the American people feel the stock market and 401k plans are corrupt and rigged, like Enron, what happens? Yo Bulls, I'm waiting for an answer. Email Mr. V and it will get to me. Come on all you Fed Reserve, or CNBC types, that is if you can tear yourself away from your stunning Enron analysis. You elitist system, whores got the money, but I got my honor and credibility.

As for Japan, the following should have been front page news on every media outlet in the free world. Instead, it's buried at the bottom of the inside business page. A few salient quotes: Headline- Standard and Poor's Asia director says Japan's banks "technically insolvent." "Japan's banks have insufficient assets to cover their liabilities-including ordinary savings accounts- and require a giant infusion of public money just to stay in business."

It gets better. "he expected a government bailout of the nation's banking system to come before the Japanese fiscal year ends on March 31st, and S&P has decided not to downgrade Japan's government debt again." "His comments highlighted the deepening crisis in Japan's financial system and the failure of previous reform and bailout efforts to rescue the economy from stagnation and deflation, or falling prices."

Where to begin. Do you understand what you just read? The mainstream economic consensus is that the United States will start a recovery on April 1st. The day after the Japanese government "bails out" the banking system we will start our recovery. 155 billion in Argentina, a few hundred billion in Japan?? and pretty soon you are talking real money. The S&P refusal to downgrade Japanese government debt now is the same game Arthur Andersen played with Enron. I guess this will just be ignored also. Japan's bad bank loans are estimated at 1.5 Trillion dollars. The Japanese government total debt is 130% of GDP, equal to a US national debt of 13 trillion dollars. Stop and think about the economic implications of a US government, with a debt of 13 trillion dollars, announcing it was going to borrow tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banking system. What would happen?

Yet, these media whores and their economist, politician shills are predicting a new bull market. Based upon what says I? The interesting thing about the Standard and Poor announcement is what it didn't say. It didn't say Japanese banks would liquidate foreign assets to balance their books by the end of March. It's a fact the entire Japanese banking system is "technically insolvent." It's a fact there are only two ways to balance the books: either a government bailout-from a massive deficit ridden central government, or the emergency, rapid selling of foreign assets within the next 70 days. Praytell, my dear GOLD-EAGLE.com reader, exactly what foreign assets would the Japanese banks be selling under duress? Could they be United States stocks, bonds, or real estate? Just a thought for you lunatic bulls to chew on. Apparently, this simple economic reality was so horrifying it wasn't even mentioned in the news blip. Mr. Magoo knows what will happen to his "recovery" and stock market if Japanese banks dump 500 billion in United States assets.

Before I move on to my final economic argument, I should also add we still are in a war on terror that will last the rest of my lifetime. Didn't want you to forget that in all the feel good we are on our way to recovery stuff. It's going to be a long war. The European airport security system is way better than our lame, politically correct and incompetent one; yet, Mr. Reid got through it. The only reason Mr. Reid, a certified Bin Laden operative, wasn't martyred along with 200 others, were his explosive shoes got wet from his sweaty feet. The other factor was Mr. Reid didn't have a lighter and used matches to try and light the wet fuse. I'm not sure relying on the operational shortcomings of Mr. Bin Laden's organization qualifies as a terrorist detection system. A Bic lighter and Mr. Bin Laden would have permanently shattered our air transport system. Mr. Bin Laden is a strategic genius, with an effective tactical, logistics and communications infrastructure system in place. Very fortunately for the West, his operational abilities are subject to wild variations in execution. I wouldn't count on that to last for long however. If you want to bet you or your families life on it go ahead. As for me, there is no way I'm setting foot on a plane in the foreseeable future. Period.

Finally, we come to something I wasn't even aware of when I wrote my earlier essay. It seems nearly 1 trillion dollars in stock market "goodwill" will be written off by US corporations in 2002. Experts say that it's likely the entire amount will be written off in the first 90 days, by March 31st. It seems the company mergers at those insane prices weren't really such a good deal after all. Oh well. So let's see here. We have Japan bailing out the banks and the US stock market writing off incredible amounts of money. We have no corporate earnings, rising unemployment, debt defaults and the list goes on and on and on. Yet, the official consensus is magically, mysteriously and instantly on April 1st the American economy will recover. It will not recover. It will not recover by June 1st either. And when the dull, dazed and 401k ravaged hordes finally realize that, oh say by May 31st, I expect a depression to start. Since the stock market went down over 200 points recently, perhaps the news is starting to be believed. And there you have it: the official McIntosh doom, gloom and economic depression prediction for Memorial Day 2002.

One more thing, Qwest Communications, the one writing off $34 billion of goodwill this quarter, announced it won't lay any more fiber optic cable until it uses what it has already laid. Qwest estimates that will be sometime in 2007. Go Bulls. Go economic recovery. Am I the insane one for thinking that perhaps we will have to digest our 1990's economic orgy before we go out for desert?

Impending Doom takes all the fun out of decadent living- Iago

gold-eagle.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46812)1/23/2002 5:39:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 65232
 
jw: Here's another Doug McIntosh Essay that was written about 2 weeks ago...

gold-eagle.com

This guy cracks me up....what a hoot -- they ought to give him a talk show...=)

Regards,

Scott



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46812)1/23/2002 5:54:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Campaign Finance After Enron

Washington Post Editorial

Wednesday, January 23, 2002; Page A16

AS CONGRESS resumes business today, it has a chance to act immediately on one aspect of the Enron scandal. That aspect is campaign finance. The existing system of soft-money donations allowed Enron to buy access to the administration and Congress. Although it is not clear yet whether this access corrupted the policy of the Bush administration, it appears likely that it did corrupt Congress in the late 1990s, contributing to a misguided decision not to regulate the financial instruments that triggered Enron's bankruptcy. Moreover, the soft-money system has allowed Enron's auditor and the other big accounting firms to sway Congress on the issue of audit regulation, contributing to the lax standards that made the Enron scandal possible. Now that thousands of Enron employees have lost their jobs and in some cases their retirement savings, there is no excuse for further delay in banning soft money.

It is true that the Bush administration refused to help Enron stave off bankruptcy. But those who suggest this exonerates the existing campaign finance system have a steep hill to climb. Enron and its officers would not have donated $1.7 million in the 2000 election cycle -- 70 percent of which came in the form of soft money -- if they thought they would get nothing in exchange. Even the suspicion that the money bought something is enough to corrode public trust in the political system. The fact that some members of Congress are now returning money received from Enron underlines the damage that soft money can do to politicans' standing.

But the larger point is that the Bush administration's indifference to Enron's final pleas may have been the exception. Enron's money may well have played a role in persuading the administration, in the form of no less a person than Vice President Dick Cheney, to intervene on its behalf with an Indian leader. It may have made a difference to the White House's energy policy. And it almost certainly bought sympathy in Congress. In 1998 the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates derivatives, suggested that there should be oversight for the kinds of "over-the-counter" instruments that Enron trades. But Congress buried the proposal, apparently because Enron and other industry participants did not want to be regulated.

Then there are the Big Five auditing companies, all of which featured among the top 20 contributors to the Bush campaign, and all of which have showered money on Congress. On three occasions in the 1990s Arthur Levitt, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, tried to tighten regulation of auditors. Each time the industry persuaded Congress to squelch his ideas. In one fight, in which Mr. Levitt tried to prevent auditors from limiting their legal liability, the industry even persuaded Congress to overturn the president's veto. If the auditors' soft-dollar contributions had been limited, and if their sway over Congress had been diluted, it is conceivable that the rules governing auditors would now be more robust.

The Enron scandal raises other issues that will take months to resolve. But the work on campaign finance is fairly advanced already. The Senate has passed a good bill, and reformers are organizing a petition to force a vote in the House over the objections of the Republican leadership. It would be extraordinary, in the face of Enron, if Congress failed to act now.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company