Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (1145)	1/24/2002 10:40:39 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

There seems to be an ever increasing number of articles which point to the possibility of influence peddling in the Whitehouse. More smoke every day. From Senators to journalists to watch dog groups to every day citizens. _________________________________ January 24, 2002 Who Helped Cheney? By JOHN D. DINGELL ASHINGTON -- Last February, President Bush announced the formation of a task force, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, to develop energy legislation. While task forces are not new — Hillary Clinton headed one to develop health-care legislation — they are uncommon, and they raise questions when they work in secret. In the case of Mr. Cheney's energy task force, these concerns are heightened because of both his and the president's strong ties to the energy industry, as former oil executives and as recipients of large campaign support from the industry. As Congress prepared to consider administration energy proposals, it seemed appropriate to have a full accounting of who served on and staffed the vice president's task force, who spoke to its members and what these people told the task force. On April 19, Representative Henry Waxman and I sent a letter to the task force asking just those questions. We also asked the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, to follow up. Unfortunately, all we received in reply to our requests were letters from the vice president's lawyer telling us that we had no authority to ask these questions. To date, with the exception of a letter this month listing five meetings between the vice president's office and Enron officials, we have yet to receive even the most basic information about the energy task force, like who it met with and what documents it received. Why are these questions important? For starters, the energy policy that the president submitted to the Congress last May, after the task force had made its public report, gave hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits to energy companies and suggested relaxing various regulations. Energy industries appear to have had special access to the members of the task force, while groups concerned with environmental issues were virtually ignored. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that meetings of nongovernmental advisers be conducted in public, just to avoid the appearance of secret favoritism. The G.A.O. had rarely met such stonewalling from the executive branch and was prepared to sue the vice president. This action was put on hold after Sept. 11, but the G.A.O. is now about to decide about proceeding. The recent disclosures of meetings between Enron executives and administration officials once again remind us of the importance of disclosure. We are soon scheduled to take up the electricity deregulation legislation in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The vice president's task force called upon the president to propose legislation to deregulate electricity markets further, a position advocated by Enron. The vice president is certainly allowed to agree with a position of one of the president's largest donors, but shouldn't we in Congress and the American public be allowed to know how these proposals were formulated? I do not favor lawsuits and subpoenas when simple cooperation between the branches of government will serve the purpose, but Congress should not shy away from seeking the facts. The administration must get over the notion that the public will tolerate secrecy in the way this government makes policy decisions. John D. Dingell is a Democratic member of Congress from Michigan. nytimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (1145)	1/25/2002 3:56:56 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5185

Mephisto, et.al.: This thing just keeps getting messier and messier. Now Baxter takes the cowards way out, leaving his family to pick up the pieces, and todays Wall Street Journal article about how such as JP Morgan is playing in all this is enough to make your hair stand on end. **** When J.P. Morgan & Co. set up an energy-trading business in the British Channel Islands a decade ago, the tiny venture barely caused a ripple at the giant bank. The operation, called Mahonia Ltd., consisted of just a small office with lots of phone lines. But the Jersey-based business grew over the years to transact billions of dollars of natural-gas contracts with other energy companies. Mahonia's trading followed a simple pattern: Many of its transactions took place just before year-end. Often, the deliveries of natural gas and oil were sold right back to those who delivered them through complex derivative transactions. And about 60% of Mahonia's trades were with just one company: Enron Corp. The point of the choreographed trading? People familiar with Mahonia say Enron used the transactions to manage tax liabilities by transferring losses in one financial reporting period to another. As Enron's troubles mounted, the Houston company eventually turned to Mahonia as a sort of surrogate bank, these people say, using it to raise at least $2 billion in financing over the years. For J.P. Morgan, the arrangement was lucrative -- at least at first. The bank received as much as $100 million in revenues. It also thought it had insurance in place to cover any default by Enron. But in the wake of Enron's collapse and bankruptcy-court filing, Mahonia could cost the nation's second-largest bank as much as $1 billion. Several insurers have alleged in a lawsuit in New York federal court that the trading transactions were shams, thereby negating the insurance contracts. The bank, now known as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., disputes the court allegation. Credit-rating concern Standard & Poor's cited J.P. Morgan's overall exposure to Enron as one reason it is reviewing the bank's credit rating for a possible downgrade. J.P. Morgan, which acted as a lender, underwriter and merger adviser to Enron, says the energy concern owes it a total of $2.6 billion. Etc., etc. ********** Greed and avarice always lead to this ultimate end, doesn't it? Jeeezus..... John~