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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (225906)	2/7/2002 7:04:23 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

It is not yet against the law, and it should be. One can't trust individuals to act morally in this area (money is a powerful lure), there needs to be structural reform.

To: DavesM who wrote (225906)	2/7/2002 12:31:07 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769667

We can all see that the "Levitt call for accounting changes" story is a diversion. It's a diversion from the fact that the Clinton-Levitt SEC gave Enron the exemption that Congress refused, making the Enron mess possible: ...Experts say that the S.E.C. rulings unshackled the company from significant accounting restraints and business dealings between the Enron companies and their executives. The 1997 exemption, in particular, cleared the path for the company to both expand overseas and make greater use of the special partnerships that have caused the company so much turmoil. "From a regulatory standpoint, this raises a flag," said Joseph V. Del Raso, a former official at the S.E.C. in the 1980's and an expert on the Investment Company Act. "It gave them carte blanche to go all over the world and set up subsidiaries and affiliated entities that would have been prohibited under the act." Another expert on the act, Mark A. Sargent, the dean of the Villanova law school, agreed. "The Enron structure was not a single company with stockholders engaged in operations like an ordinary corporation," he said. "It was similar to an investment company with investments in a bunch of different companies. The decision to exempt those from the kind of protections to investors is now coming home to roost.".... nytimes.com