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: Mike Buckley who wrote (50392)	2/15/2002 2:01:19 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Respond to of 54805

And if they are at the core of Enron's demise, why is it that the board didn't know about them in sufficient detail. My point is that, since BoDs deal with company issues at a strategic level, they are dealing with financial information at a high level. Any way of handling these transactions which was sufficient to not raise SEC issues when initially reported and which didn't produce any outspoked whistleblowers among the auditors, must not have been that conspicuous ... and, if there is nothing to trigger an investigation, why would someone operating at a board level be expected to know better? The only reason that any of us know about what we know now is that the fast shuffle ran out of monopoly money. I wish it were illegal to use the same firm to audit financial statements and provide other services. I heartily agree and believe there should be regulation to that effect. However, it is so common, that I can hardly single out this board on that basis.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (50392)	2/23/2002 6:00:52 AM
From: Curbstone	Respond to of 54805

I don't like the fact that my other investments are in companies whose board allows audits that aren't completely independent. This thought strikes home with me Mike. At a Board meeting I once asked an accountant with known ties to local organized crime, how we could be assured that our company audit was truly independent? (of him) His answer? He turned his pot smoking, garbanzo curd eating, yoga instructor attorney loose on me. After five minutes of public marble-mouthed legalese I faintly read something like, "Trust me." between the lines, and sat down. I was left with three lasting impressions: 1)some questions might be better left unasked, 2) we have a crook and his dog guarding our money, and 3) short of hiring my own accountant for a full audit of our books there was very little I could do about it.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (50392)	3/8/2002 1:36:18 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Respond to of 54805

I think the following - see testimony given - sheds some light on the issue of just how "buried" problems really were. washingtonpost.com It wasn't a simple matter of fraud. I keep reading people say that the transactions couldn't be seen because "they lied" but the fact remains that a professional (see link) and a dumb amateur (see me) were able to see problems in very short order. If an analyst or a board member wasn't able to detect something amiss - not necessarily fraud, but certainly issues which should have been brought to the attention of shareholders - then the performance of those analysts and board members certainly merits questioning. There really is a lesson here for us all. We have to protect ourselves, and that means we have to at least try to understand a company's business statements. Relying on the opinions of others will result in living with their inevitable mistakes. Liking a company because management says the right things, or gives quotes indicating they have read a Moore or Christiansen book, isn't enough. CEOs are for the most part bright, charming, and very good salesmen. Judge them by what they say, but judge them much more by what they do. And to know what they do, you have to read the proxy statement, you have to look over the financial statements. - Pirah