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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (50343)	2/13/2002 5:28:58 PM
From: Bruce Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Frank, no doubt that the involvement at Enron from the top to the bottom included people that did not know something was amiss as well as people that knew nothing was incorrect. Rather than pass judgement on a particular board member who sits on many boards in corporate America and get all scared at the word "boo" simply because the term Enron is mentioned in a sentence, I prefer to wait for the entire process to play out so that all the facts and figures resolve who is and who is not guilty. Qualcomm has lost more in market cap than Enron was ever worth... BB

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (50343)	2/13/2002 6:15:36 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

They are paid to protect the interests of the corporation, its employees, and shareholders. But this doesn't make them omniscient. I heard recently that Hewlett missed a couple of key meetings when the Compaq merger was discussed. He did vote for it, apparently, when it came up for a vote, but one guesses that he may not have had the full picture and that is why he is opposed now. If those absences were contrived, i.e., intentionally scheduling meetings when he was travelling, would that make him guilty of non-feasance if this merger were something akin to the Enron stuff? but we surely don't want to see her get another job babysitting for our nephew. I suppose that feels how one feels about the nephew!

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (50343)	2/13/2002 7:26:11 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

re: Their job was to know what was going on: I'm with you on this one. I believe that people given a lot of responsibility and power should be held responsible for the actions of the people they oversee. Saying, "I didn't know", is not acceptable. Saying, "someone else in the company did it, and didn't tell me", is not acceptable. A Captain of a ship is responsible for every action of every crewmember, and that's the attitude that responsible Board members should have. I also believe in the concept of collective responsibility. That is, it is often impossible to tell exactly which individuals within a group did the dirty deed. This is true whether the group is Kindergardeners on the playground, or a corporate Board. It would raise the sphincter tone of a lot of decision-makers, if every member of the Enron Board is permanently kicked off every Board they are on. It would make people police each other, and make people look for fire if they smell a faint whiff of smoke. Make a clean sweep. Make a statement. That would improve the moral tone in a lot of places.

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (50343)	2/14/2002 2:27:25 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Respond to of 54805

Their job was to know what was going on. They are paid to protect the interests of the corporation, its employees, and shareholders. Unfortunately, the world of unregulated OTC derivatives - which Enron got heavily involved in a couple of years before Savage was elected to their board - is not as well known as one would like to think. The Prudent Bear had a good article on the topic: Message 17045401 BB