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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H James Morris who wrote (138391)	2/2/2002 1:06:23 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Brad Burns, a spokesperson at WorldCom, commented on speculation of a debt downgrade by Standard & Poor's: "We have been assured by them that that is not the case." S&P's comments were stronger. A spokesperson was quoted as saying "It's nonsense."

To: H James Morris who wrote (138391)	2/3/2002 6:44:57 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Citigroup’s Enron sales draw lawsuit msnbc.com Investor: Firm pushed bonds despite knowing Enron woes By Jathon Sapsford THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Feb. 1 — Citigroup Inc. lent money to Enron Corp. in October, when the energy company’s finances were sliding. At the same time, the Wall Street giant pitched Enron bonds to clients as a solid investment. Now, at least one institutional investor who bought the bonds is hopping mad — and has taken the beef to court. ................................................................................................................................ Enron’s story, of course, wasn’t nearly so upbeat. Its balance-sheet high jinks caused a sudden loss of confidence, bringing about a liquidity shortage so dire that Enron was forced to draw down an emergency $3 billion credit line on Oct. 25, only a few days after Salomon’s report. That move signaled Enron was running short of crucial operating capital. Citigroup’s lending division knew as well as anybody that Enron was facing trouble, since it had been one of the top banks arranging the credit line. Yet the brokerage companies had Enron securities in their firm’s inventory to unload, according to the Silvercreek suit. Enron had sold Wall Street firms about $1.9 billion in convertible bonds that firms such as Citigroup were free to sell to investors by June of 2001, the court papers say. But the sales of these securities weren’t going so well, Silvercreek alleges. So Citigroup’s brokers became increasingly aggressive in pushing the Enron bonds on institutional investors, Silvercreek’s lawyers say. Citigroup sold Silvercreek its last chunk of Enron securities on Oct. 25 — the same day that Enron drew down its credit line from Citigroup. Executives familiar with Citigroup thinking assert that Silvercreek should have known the risks of investing in Enron as well as any other investor. Meanwhile, the lending side knew about the problems at Enron, but the brokerage side didn’t. That is in keeping with the so-called Chinese Wall on Wall Street, which seeks to separate businesses to reduce conflicts Further complicating the role of Citigroup in the dispute is that on Oct. 25 — the same day Enron drew down its credit line — Citigroup met with other bankers to begin discussions on a new, $1 billion Enron credit line. The new financing, which was announced much later, was firmly secured by collateral in the form of Enron pipeline assets. Yet Citigroup effectively rolled some of its existing unsecured Enron financing into the new secured credit line — thereby shielding itself from Enron losses shortly after pushing Enron debt on to other investors.

To: H James Morris who wrote (138391)	2/3/2002 7:07:22 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

BusinessWeek Online BARKER.ONLINE -- Investors' New Worry: "Auditor Risk" biz.yahoo.com Sunday February 3, 12:01 am Eastern Time ............................ In Enron's case, Andersen's audit fees of $25 million in 2000 were outstripped by the $27 million it charged for other consulting work, including -- get this! -- risk management. OPEN YOUR EYES. That's no anomaly. Look at General Electric (GE), the world's most valuable company. GE's last proxy reported that it paid KPMG $23.9 million in 2000 for its audit. It was further reported in the proxy statement that GE also paid KPMG a total of $79.7 million in 2000 for a variety of other services, from consulting on computer systems to tax preparation to advice on mergers. KPMG collected more than three times as much money from GE for its consulting work as for its audit. No one is accusing KPMG of stinting in its role as an auditor on behalf of the board, with ultimate allegiance to GE shareholders. GE's audit committee explicitly noted that it had ``considered whether KPMG's provision of nonaudit services...is compatible with KPMG's independence.'' The directors concluded that KPMG's independence remains intact. Again, fair enough. But this is precisely the kind of imbalance that holds the potential for conflict of interest and can raise eyebrows.

To: H James Morris who wrote (138391)	2/3/2002 7:15:09 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

Global Crossing bankruptcy prompts Interactive Telesis to cut staff hours dailynews.yahoo.com Friday February 01 08:37 PM EST ........................................................... Global Crossing, the largest telecom firm ever to file for bankruptcy protection in the United States, has reportedly left several companies in a bind. Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: LU) said in a recent court filing that Global Crossing owes it at least $123 million. Lenders including J.P. Morgan (NYSE: JPM), Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER), Citigroup (NYSE: C) and SBC Communications (NYSE: SBC) are said to be trying to recover some of their investment in Global Crossing, which has been trying to build an international network for high-speed Internet access.