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: Ron who wrote (2639)	2/7/2002 9:18:26 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5185

Fortune columnist Andrew Serwer on Skilling today: JEFF SKILLING.... Now, THIS was good! Okay people, let's face it. Skilling is, I am afraid, a B.S. artist of the first stripe! He says everything was fine when he left. WRONG! He says he knew nothing about any bad stuff going on Enron. WRONG! He says that it's all about the press, Sherron Watkins, that no one told him about wrongdoing, conflicts of interest. BULL! The only explanation, the only possible way that he was not lying, is that he is a pyscho! Deluded! Which actually isn't that far out! Maybe reporters aught to report, instead of shoveling THEIR OWN TESTIMONY AT US AS FACT? hhhhhhhhHHMMMMMMMMMM, RON, BOY. May be instead of spewing your opinion on this board, you aught to look at the facts. Skilling testified that the guy just mentioned something to him and then when ask if there was an impropriety HE BACKED OFF. Watkin's wrote in her memo that she thought he had been told. SHE WASN'T THERE, SHE DID NOT TELL HIM. Same thing for that attorney who testified. I would say it's Pretty Damn Believeable that that attorney is shading the truth, that when he went into his big boss a year ago he didn't say BOO! But now, after the shit hits the fan, why its, "well, I told him a hundred times!!!!! See, it says right here in my notes. Why didn't the attorney resign from representing his client, which he would be required to do under his ethic code of his state bar. Did he resign? Hell, no. Contrary to your rant, there is every reason to believe that it is the attorney who may not have the best of, how should I say, recollections. Hmmmm. The only person that "testified" to the contrary was the Congressman, who not only wasn't there, BUT ITS HIS ASS ON THE LINE IF Skelling is telling the truth. This wasn't a real congressional fact finding hearing today for the purpose of enacting legislation, WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY THE ONLY REASON FOR THE MEETING, this was a dog and pony show of accusations and prosecutions, to intentially deflect critcism from who really is a fault. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker. If this were and S-1 ( a securities public offering ) every congressman on today that I heard did not comply with the truth of the disclosure rules. This is a very sad day. I believe that the rudimentary rules of the SEC should be enforced against politicians. And most of the press followed like puppy dogs. Don't you agree?

To: Ron who wrote (2639)	2/8/2002 8:41:17 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

Ignorance Was Bliss The New York Times Editorial February 8, 2002 Two key masterminds of Enron's meteoric rise and fall took center stage at a dramatic Congressional hearing yesterday, and the American people actually got to hear from one of them. Enron-watchers who have become impatient with the parade of executives taking refuge behind the Fifth Amendment must at least have appreciated the fact that Jeffrey Skilling, the company's former chief executive officer, gamely chose to testify before the openly scornful investigative subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Skilling's appearance was lively but remarkably uninformative. While most Congressional inquiries of this type hover around the question "What did you know?" the Enron saga is becoming a case of "What did you miss?" Mr. Skilling, to the understandable disbelief of panel members, said he thought he was leaving the company in fine shape when he exited last August, and that he had no idea Enron was about to implode because of its ill-advised bets with off-the-books partnerships. And he was shocked that Andrew Fastow, his chief financial officer who earlier in the day invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, had pocketed $30 million from the unseemly deals. These claims were hard to buy from the financial whiz who helped transform Enron from an energy company into a trading powerhouse. Mr. Skilling's professed obliviousness was undercut by Jeffrey McMahon, now president of Enron. As treasurer of the company in the spring of 2000 he met with Mr. Skilling to express his concern about the inherent conflict of interest involved in allowing Mr. Fastow to control outside partnerships negotiating deals with Enron. The absurdity of the arrangement came to life in Mr. McMahon's testimony about his frustration at having to represent the interests of Enron shareholders when negotiating deals on the company's behalf with Mr. Fastow, his boss. Mr. McMahon testified that Mr. Skilling had assured him that he would fix matters. Mr. McMahon was then reassigned to a different job, a switch that Mr. Skilling told the lawmakers was purely coincidental. The things that Enron's former executives claim not to have known is enough to cause the public to lose faith both in the canniness of corporate superstars and the efficiency of office gossip. Mr. Fastow reportedly offered Mr. McMahon's successor as treasurer a stake in one of the partnerships, which allowed him to turn a $5,800 investment into $1 million in a matter of weeks. Yet Mr. Skilling and Enron board members have said that they had no idea company officers were receiving such windfalls at shareholders' expense. We're thankful Mr. Skilling had the gumption to testify yesterday, but not grateful enough to accept his spin. nytimes.com