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


To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (697)1/25/2002 7:28:19 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 3602
 
Crime And Cover-up

By Dan Ackman
Friday January 25, 2002
Forbes.com

It is part of the "script" of Washington scandals that the cover-up is worse than the crime, so many of that town's top pundits have noted. Not true: The cover-up is only worse than the crime when the crime itself is trivial and the criminals are inconsequential. The third-rate break-in at the Watergate Hotel springs to mind.

The Enron affair, however, begs a fresh script. In this case, the crime--the deceptive presentation of Enron as a profitable and the nation's "seventh-largest" company--is far worse than the cover-up, including the shredding of documents, which was the focus of the first congressional hearing on Enron yesterday.

Enron In any event, the cover-up, in this case, is likely to be totally ineffective. The focus on shredding in October and November--and even the focus on Arthur Andersen--merely distracts attention from what Enron did, aided by Andersen as well as by armies of lawyers and Wall Street bankers and analysts in the years before.

At that hearing, the lead auditor for Andersen, David Duncan, invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions by lawmakers into Andersen's actions in the wake of an initial inquiry into Enron by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Andersen, by all accounts, continued to shred and delete Enron-related documents.

Andersen's executives, apart from Duncan, opened the hearing with remorse, but also with self-congratulation that their firm had come forward and admitted its wrongdoing once it knew the truth. "However improper that destruction was, Andersen did not hide from its obligation to do what it could to take corrective action...[We] are proud of our decision to step forward and accept responsibility," said Dorsey Baskin , Andersen's managing director for professional standards.

Andersen fired Duncan and disciplined several others. Yesterday, Baskin said, "Duncan's actions reflected a failure of judgment that is simply unacceptable" and that he violated firm policy. But when pressed--when Andersen was forced to improvise without a script--the Big 5 firm's position became much less clear. (See:Duncan Was Not Alone)

On Oct. 12, 2001, one of its lawyers, Nancy Temple , sent an e-mail to Duncan and others on the Enron engagement "reminding" them of Andersen's "document retention policy." As Baskin made clear, the policy was to retain some documents and destroy others. "[It] is the usual routine and wholly legitimate practice of auditors to preserve their final working papers while disposing of drafts, personal notes and other materials that are not necessary to support the audit report," Baskin testified. It is this "usual and routine" practice that should be far more troubling than the extraordinary actions that Andersen now says violated that practice. The Andersen lawyers did not send a clear directive to stop destroying documents until after it received its own subpoena on Nov. 8.

The practice of destroying drafts and other documents, but keeping the "work papers" that support the auditor's conclusions is "nonsense," says Douglas Carmichael, an accounting professor at Baruch College. If a defense lawyer said he was only obligated to retain the evidence that supported his client's innocence, he'd be laughed out of court. But the accounting profession, in part because they feel besieged by trial lawyers, has come to adopt a similar position as routine. (See:Accounting For Texans) Carmichael adds that Andersen missed the boat again by not resigning at the point where it said, back on Dec. 12, that it had beenisled by Enron executives.

Temple, the Andersen lawyer, denied all knowledge of shredding of documents, but when Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) asked her if her Oct. 12 reminder--which was, by all accounts, extraordinary--would have been understood as an order to shred, she answered, "I don't know what actually happened, what the facts are...I was being careful in asking Davis Polk [& Wardwell, a New York law firm] to look at all angles and all issues, and advise us. And the conclusion was there were no further steps to take."

In addition to Davis Polk, which Andersen retained on Oct. 9, Temple referred continually to conversations with her supervisor. Other memos released at yesterday's hearing indicate that Duncan, during the period in question, was in contact with many of his colleagues at the firm, including lawyers and his superiors such as Rich Corgel, the U.S. practice director, and Michael Odom, then a regional practice director, subsequently demoted, but who testified yesterday.

Odom testified that while Duncan held a meeting he could not say whether he ordered the destruction of documents, whether someone else did, or whether it was simply policy. Pressed by Rep. James Greenwood (R-Penn.), the subcommittee chairman, Odom answered, "My understanding is that he said that he conducted the meeting, he shared the policy or discussed the policy with the people at the meeting and the resulting actions were [the destruction of documents]." But Odom also said he wasn't at the meeting and could not be specific. Andersen's outside lawyers are investigating still, he added.

While the document destruction is unfortunate, possibly even criminal, it is also likely to be totally ineffective. In any large corporation, the same documents are copied and stored by so many individuals both inside and outside the organization, that it's unlikely they could ever all be destroyed. Of course, the majority of those documents were created on computers and can somehow be restored from hard drives. Andersen's witnesses said they are hard at work doing just that.

But even if some documents are never recovered, there is more than enough information to push the investigation forward: beyond shredding, beyond Andersen--to Enron itself.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (697)1/25/2002 8:24:29 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3602
 
A Corporate Crime Wave?

By George Gilder
January 11, 2002
Commentary
The Wall Street Journal

Crime may have declined in the streets but, by the recent inflammation of the pundits, you would think there has been an outbreak of corporate criminality. The Internet, communications, and stock-market booms of the 1990s, it seems, were based on a pervasive series of felonious acts. A wide array of businesses, from Global Crossing to Loral, from General Electric to Enron, artfully inflated the worth of their shares through the creation of Potemkin businesses. If you believe the news coverage, corporate leaders are racing to despoil, mulct, defraud, poison, pillage, and ruin their own businesses, their nation's soils and waters, their retirement funds, and the world economy.

This flood of factitious crimes, this parade of snaffled fat cats and scapegoats, happens every recession. Rather than ruing economic reverses as effects of public policy errors and miscalculations, public officials turn the tables and treat bankruptcy and crash as culpable schemes of particular white-collar criminals.

Some of these alleged crime lords are familiar. Gary Winnick was party to a previous potlatch at Drexel Burnham, where he played a key role in financing the communications infrastructure through MCI, Telecommunications Inc., Turner broadcasting, and McCaw Cellular. Then he and his associates were alleged to have ravaged savings and loans by inducing some of them to buy those companies' high-yield securities before a government ban briefly destroyed their value. Finally Mr. Winnick boldly launched the world-wide fiber-optic networks of Global Crossing, with, it is implied, the intention of bilking investors and crashing bandwidth prices in what Fortune calls "perhaps the greatest executive ripoff in the history of enterprise" but what is better described as the most efficient global buildout in telecom history.

Osama Ken Lay

Jeffrey Mohammad Skilling, Osama Ken Lay, Mohammad Atta Gates, Mad Mullah Welch. The names stream together, the rap sheets blur, but the statistics mount along with the unemployment numbers, the bankruptcies, the environmental cleanup costs. Behold these corporate predators wrecking vast pension plans, sowing deadly cancers in the Hudson River, monopolizing the computer market, blighting the steel industry with dumped scrap, wantonly disrupting energy markets, insidiously subverting the global climate.

Recessions, however, spring chiefly from government mistakes. Compared to these policy errors, crime in the suites is never a significant factor. That was true of the savings and loan and Mexican crises of the early 1980s and of the global crisis today, reaching from Japan and Indonesia to Turkey and Argentina.

After a decade and a half of favorable policy, from the capital-gains tax cut of 1978 to the general tax reductions of the 1980s, from the deregulation of transport and communications to the collapse of inflation to the downfall of global communism, politicians began taking prosperity for granted. They allowed tax rates to drift back up to record levels. They transformed telecommunications rules into a regulatory sclerosis that wreaked a telecom depression. They ignored the implications of the global reign of the dollar at a time of steady dollar appreciation and growing Third World debt. They embarked on a crusade against chemical industries vital in both war and peace.

In the face of this long siege of policy blunders, politicians today charge Enron with concocting subsidiaries to conceal debt and self-dealing. But company structure is almost always chiefly a response to kaleidoscopic tax and regulatory law and the resulting threat of litigation. Launching innovations in arenas as diversely regulated and taxed as natural gas and broadband communications, Enron inevitably contrived a complex structure of subsidiaries and financial instruments difficult to explain under Securities and Exchange Commission rules that require simultaneous disclosure (or, more safely, non-disclosure) to all.

A trading company such as Enron or a long-term infrastructure play such as Global Crossing is no stronger than the confidence of investors and customers in its solvency. In an environment of SEC-enforced ignorance, mere rumors of crime and default can bring a company down.

The key to the debacle, though, was the debacle of money. Buffeting the Enron staples of fuels and bandwidth and afflicting all commodity prices -- from coffee (at an all-time low) to cotton (at 15 year bottoms) to scrap steel (down 55% in four years) -- deflation crashed the stock market and stifled every large company and every Third World country with its debt denominated in dollars.

K-Mart, Pacific Gas & Electric, Exodus, Globalstar, Enron, Argentina, Turkey, Indonesia -- all made serious and unique errors from time to time; all countries and companies do. But what these cases had in common was heavy debt. Taking 40% of incremental income from investors through tax hikes, and tightening monetary policy until entrepreneurial debtors have to repay 40% more than they borrowed, is a sure route to ruin.

When all debtors are afflicted, the scientific method points not to a hunt for particular infractions but to the isolation of a common source. And that common source is a dangerously deflationary monetary policy in the U.S.

While the dollar has been surging since 1996 against the deflated yen, the euro, commodities, and gold, the Federal Reserve adhered to its view that dollars were too numerous and sucked them out of the most fertile frontiers of the economy. The dollar dutifully rose, and strangled the Third World countries with dollar denominated debt, the telecom infrastructure projects supported by debt, the car and computer-leasing companies funded by debt, the farmers, the steel producers, the energy prospectors who rely on debt finance and a stable standard of value.

Rather than addressing the fundamental problem of deflation, the administration enacted broad protection for the steel industry, thus spreading the damage to all companies that use steel and all companies dependent on trade. Rather than lowering tax rates on investments afflicted with deflation, policy makers obsessed about such rearview figments as "consumer confidence," an utterly meaningless statistic from the demand side.

A supply-side crisis requires the supply-side remedies of a stable currency, lower marginal tax rates, and deregulation of technology. These measures offer the only way to raise the tax revenues that will be needed to fund a war against terror and support a wave of retiring workers.

Money is a standard of value, a code for transmitting information about the supply and demand for goods and services. For a decade, Alan Greenspan seemed to adhere to a fixed standard of value, guided by a price rule based on gold and commodities. But since 1996, he went astray, citing as policy guides the "irrational exuberance of the stock markets," the productivity explosion, the Internet bubble. Without guidance from gold, currency markets lack any objective means to differentiate the "news" (a change in monetary conditions) from the white noise of a thousand clamorous markets. When the standard of value itself becomes a commodity, traded like any other on currency markets, the most vital investment information is lost amid the froth.

In essence, Mr. Greenspan blamed business for the errors of government, including his own. He created the context for the "crime wave." To save his exalted reputation, he must now return to a price rule.

Stop Tinkering

Meanwhile politicians must stop tinkering with the structure of law and regulation under which entrepreneurial plans play out. Businesses find themselves operating amid the turbulence of constant legal and monetary change. In extremis, caught in a baffling web of often conflicting bankruptcy, tax, regulatory, and securities laws, many executives make decisions that in retrospect can be interpreted as incriminating.

Bankruptcy, though, is not a crime but a punishment. Virtually no one plans for its concussive effects or expects them at all. The real source of the "crime wave" is the undulation of policy and the babel of alibis from politicians and bureaucrats searching for scapegoats.