SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Mephisto who wrote (2857)2/15/2002 6:07:12 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5185
 
Jubak's Journal: My 2-part Enronitis cure: anger and suspicion

M.,

Here's a well considered bit of whizdumb from a somedays-more-insightful-than-others pundit:

money.msn.com

<Snip>
Jubak's Journal
My 2-part Enronitis cure: anger and suspicion
Read their resumes -- we can't trust Congress and the SEC to clean up corporate America's books. My solution? Be angry when you're scammed, and be suspicious of everyone's motives, including your own.
By Jim Jubak

Don't they know we get it?

We understand that the scams perpetrated at Enron and the fraud that eventually led to the destruction of billions of dollars in investor capital weren’t the work of some isolated group of cowboys at one company in Houston.

Decades of work under Republican and Democratic presidents, by the biggest and brightest of accounting firms and investment banks, by legions of lobbyists and lawyers rewrote the rules in ways that made an Enron (ENRNQ, news, msgs) possible.

And some of the figures that now most loudly express shock and outrage over the scams perpetrated at Enron -- figures such as Harvey Pitt, chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut -- were instrumental in creating this system.

That worries me. Investor confidence in the fair workings of the capital markets has been badly shaken, and restoring that confidence is a pressing need. But the track record of the current major players makes me wonder if we’re going to get meaningful, confidence-restoring reform anytime soon.

How good are the good guys?
It doesn’t take a Woodward or a Bernstein to figure this out. It’s pretty clear from even a quick look at the resume of some of the “good guys” investigating Enron.

Harvey Pitt [[RGD: IMO, a major league POS who's a major impediment to real reform. He needs to resign.]] The Securities and Exchange Commission’s online biography of its chairman notes that for 25 years before his appointment as SEC Commission in August 2001, Pitt was a lawyer in private practice. It doesn’t, however, mention whom Pitt represented during those years: each of the Big Five national accounting firms, including Arthur Andersen, Enron’s accountant in the current mess, and the accounting industry’s chief lobbying and trade group, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Pitt was a critical lobbyist in defending the industry’s right to regulate itself through groups such as the industry-funded but toothless Public Oversight Board. And he was instrumental in winning passage for the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that shielded corporate executives from liability if they made dubious financial projections. Is anyone surprised that Pitt’s solution to the current crisis is more self-regulation by the accounting industry?

Christopher Dodd. The 1995 law grew out of the savings and loan scandal that had cost the accounting industry more than $1 billion in damages in the early 1990s. Since the accounting firms had passed on the fraudulent and misleading savings and loan books, the government successfully argued that accountants should be liable for part of the bill.

The massive lobbying by the accounting industry -- and its new allies among the technology companies of Silicon Valley -- was an effort to make sure that didn’t happen again in some future investment scandal. Like the current one. Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., was one of the point men in that effort -- lobbying members of the House of Representatives personally to round up enough votes to overturn President Bill Clinton’s veto of the bill. In the period from 1989 through the end of 2001, Dodd received more than $500,000 in campaign contributions -- more than any other currently sitting senator -- from accounting firms and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Dodd is now chairman of the Senate banking subcommittee on financial institutions.

Joseph Lieberman. Connecticut’s other Democratic senator, hasn’t been any slouch either when it comes to supporting accounting firms on Capitol Hill. He played a key role in killing two major pieces of accounting reform over the last eight years. In 1994 the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the very slow-moving accounting industry body in charge of setting what is known as generally accepted accounting principles, proposed rules that would require companies to charge the value of stock options granted to workers against current earnings. You can imagine how popular that was with high-technology companies.

The Senate passed a Lieberman-sponsored resolution urging the Financial Accounting Standards Board to back off on its proposed rules. Under the intense pressure, the board did. In 2000 Lieberman joined with 13 colleagues to write a letter to the board urging the board to postpone rules that would have called for new disclosure on mergers and acquisitions. Again the board backed off critical parts of its new rules. Lieberman chairs the Senate’s Governmental Affairs Committee that is holding hearings on Enron. According to The Wall Street Journal, one of the questions he wants the hearings to answer is “Why did Enron’s auditors allow the company to overstate its profits for years by over a half billion dollars?”

Michael Oxley and Billy Tauzin. I’d hate to give the impression that only senators and Democrats carried water for the accounting industry. Ohio Republican Rep. Oxley, now head of the House Financial Services committee, was a big mover in the 1995 effort to pass the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that could now limit the liability of the accountants and Enron executives his committee is grilling.

Louisiana Republican Rep. Tauzin, who has had nothing nice to say about Enron’s accountants in this go-round, is the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from that firm in Congress, with the total reaching almost $60,000 since 1989. Tauzin, who heads the House Commerce Committee and who is holding hearings, too, has pulled in almost $290,000 from the accounting industry as a whole since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Securities and Exchange Commission. Commissioner Pitt may have a hopeless conflict of interest, but the problem stretches far beyond the office of the commissioner or the current administration.

As a regulator, the SEC isn’t about to deter anyone. For example, in 2000 the SEC fined Arthur Andersen $7 million over a botched audit at Waste Management (WMI, news, msgs). (The accounting firm neither admitted nor denied committing any offense.) That was the largest fine ever against a U.S. accounting firm -- but it still represented less than 10% of the $80 million fee Arthur Andersen received for its accounting work from Waste Management in 2000.

Not only are fines so small that they’re hardly a deterrent, but the odds that the SEC will catch anyone are extremely small and about to get smaller. The Bush administration’s budget for fiscal 2003 includes a 6.6% increase for rent, computers and security, but not a single dollar to hire more accountants or lawyers to beef up the enforcement of securities regulations. And this after the Enron scandal broke!

The Claude Rains reaction
Now if this were a movie, I’d get a kick out of all this. I do, after all, laugh at the scene in “Casablanca” where Claude Rains, the cynical French chief of police, gives in to Nazi pressure and shuts down Rick’s café saying, I’m shocked, shocked to discover that gambling is going on here. At that point, this being a movie, one of Rick’s croupiers hands Rains a bundle of cash. Your winnings, sir, he says.

But this isn’t a movie. Real people lost real money that was supposed to pay for real retirements, real educations and real houses. Now that money is gone. And not just the money that was invested in Enron, but also the cash that went into Global Crossing (GBLXQ, news, msgs) and other flameouts where it looks like management manipulated the numbers.

So what do you do about this?

Step One. If you were scammed -- and I think Enron was clearly a scam and evidence is starting to emerge that Global Crossing was as well -- don’t fall into the trap of feeling ashamed that you were bilked. The crooks who perpetrate scams like these count on that reaction; they know that most of their victims will feel too embarrassed to hunt them down. Instead get angry, demand that the crooks go to jail, seek to recover as much as you can in the courts. And demand that the politicians, the regulators, the accountants and the investment bankers provide a level playing field for all investors.

It’s not hopeless. Although most of the loudest voices in Washington on Enron so far are thoroughly compromised, I think investors can expect real proposals for meaningful reform to come out the hearings chaired by Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, both Democrats. And I wouldn’t even be surprised to see something with teeth emerge on the House side from Tauzin’s hearings. The Louisiana Republican has shown a career-long willingness to bite the hand that feeds him. (Of course, the more voters the politicians hear from the more likely that something meaningful will get done. You can get the e-mail address of your senators and representatives by following the links at left under "Related Sites.")

Step Two. Become more skeptical and critical of yourself as an investor, and of your relationship with others whose advice you might follow from time to time. Are you taking too much on faith? Most of us do as investors -- and it’s important to realize the difference between taking unexamined advice from a trusted sibling or long-term financial advisor and a Wall Street analyst, media pundit or Internet journalist. (Yours truly included.) Evaluate the quality of those more casual sources and their conflicts of interest. Make sure you understand why they’re recommending a stock or a position before you follow their advice with your money. These folks may be the smartest people in the world and the best intentioned (doubtful, I grant, but possible), but they don’t know you, they don’t manage your money, and they aren’t responsible to you. Figure out how best to use sources like this. And always remember that you are the only one finally responsible for your money.

I think that means you must apply the same critical skepticism to yourself as an investor that you do to these sources. Are you doing enough due diligence? Do you understand what you own? Are you buying stocks that are good matches with your investment goals and your strengths and limits as an investor?

One of the reasons that Enron was such a successful scam was that it played on the universal human reluctance to admit ignorance. Too few analysts, portfolio managers, and individual investors wanted to admit that they simply didn’t understand what the company claimed to be doing. To do so might have brought condescending smiles and pitying looks. What, you don’t understand how trading natural gas derivatives can produce profits like this? Poor guy.

It turns out that this indeed was the right question to ask. Proving once again that there is no such thing as a stupid question.

One aspect of this reluctance to admit to ignorance is that investors all too frequently wind up owning companies they don’t understand. There’s no need for that -- with more than 8,000 equities available to U.S. investors, there are plenty of easy-to-understand opportunities in the financial markets. Right now I think many investors are finding a return to simplicity an appealing idea. In my next column, I’ll take a look at what to look for in a comfort stock. My formula starts with classic Peter Lynch and then adapts it for a post-Enron world.

<End Snip>

And never forget the great advice that Jeff Skilling has offered: "If it doesn't make any sense, don't believe it."

Here's a classic example of sophistry and bafflegab:

Message 17057915



To: Mephisto who wrote (2857)2/16/2002 6:23:36 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 
Not Quite a Whistle-Blower
The New York Times
Editorial
February 15, 2002


Sherron Watkins took a bow in
Washington yesterday. The
Enron executive who famously
warned Kenneth Lay last August
that accounting misdeeds threatened to destroy the
company was greeted as a hero by the same House
members who excoriated Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew
Fastow last week. Billy Tauzin, the chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, even wished her a
happy Valentine's Day. The welcome was largely deserved,
though Ms. Watkins's role was not quite as heroic as some
have described.

In clear, direct testimony that contrasted with last week's
obfuscating account by Mr. Skilling, the former Enron
C.E.O., Ms. Watkins helped fill in blanks about top
management's awareness of the company's freewheeling
ways. Asked to describe her reaction to Mr. Skilling's
testimony, during which he professed no knowledge of
accounting improprieties during his watch, Ms. Watkins
aptly quoted advice Mr. Skilling had once shared with
employees in a newsletter: "If it doesn't make any sense,
don't believe it."

As described by Ms. Watkins, Enron was an oppressive
workplace populated with employees troubled by the
company's unusual dealings with private partnerships
controlled by Mr. Fastow, the chief financial officer, which
were no secret. She said they were too intimidated by the
duo of Mr. Skilling and Mr. Fastow to raise objections. Ms.
Watkins herself feared that warning about the bogus
transactions would be a "job-terminating move." She even
feared for her personal safety. Only when Mr. Skilling
abruptly left Enron last August did she approach Mr. Lay.

Ms. Watkins's testimony, so damning to Mr. Skilling and
Mr. Fastow, provided some solace to Mr. Lay, who two days
earlier invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent at a Senate hearing after a volley of critical
statements by committee members comparing him to
Charles Ponzi and a carnival barker.
Ms. Watkins said she
thought Mr. Lay had been duped and failed to
comprehend the full implications of the deceptive
accounting she outlined for him in their August meeting.
Ms. Watkins depicted Mr. Lay as a well- intentioned
figure, noting that he resisted Mr. Fastow's angry
demands that she be dismissed for raising questions
about the deals.

Mr. Lay has not yet given his side of the story. Whenever
he chooses to do so, there is much he will have to explain
before we can buy Ms. Watkins's portrayal of him as an
executive betrayed by clever underlings. The record belies
that portrait, including Enron's sweetheart deals with Lay
family members, Mr. Lay's misleading exhortations to
employees to buy the company stock last August and
September, and the meaningless review he conducted of
Ms. Watkins's allegations.

Ms. Watkins was least convincing when asked why she
hadn't taken her concerns about the company's
accounting gimmicks, and possible fraud, to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the media or at
least to other Enron board members.
All she could say
was that she did not want to hasten the demise of the
corporation. In truth, Enron's only hope for survival was
for someone like Ms. Watkins or Jeffrey McMahon, the
treasurer who also worried about the company's
accounting, to go public with their concerns as early as
possible. That would have given this sordid tale a true
whistle-blower.

nytimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (2857)2/16/2002 6:31:01 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 

Lay Sold Shares for $100 Million

The New York Times
February 16, 2002



By FLOYD NORRIS and DAVID BARBOZA

K enneth L. Lay sold $100
million in Enron
stock last year, the
company disclosed yesterday,
with a large part of that coming
from selling shares back to the
company after he was warned by
Sherron S. Watkins that the
company might collapse "in a
wave of accounting scandals."

The sales, disclosed in a report
filed by Mr. Lay with the
Securities and Exchange
Commission, included $20
million of shares sold in the three
weeks after Ms. Watkins, an
Enron official, sent her warning
to Mr. Lay.

It is not clear how much profit
Mr. Lay made on his sales, many
of which came while he was
encouraging Enron employees to
buy shares.

In Texas, a federal judge in
Houston appointed one of the
most aggressive class-action law
firms to lead the litigation of
shareholder suits against Enron.
And in Austin, a trove of
correspondence released after an open-records request
documented the extensive contacts between Mr. Lay and
George W. Bush when the president was governor of
Texas. [Page C1.]

Despite the sales, family members said yesterday that Mr.
Lay, who is 59, faced serious financial difficulties as he
struggled to repay loans taken out to make investments,
many of which have lost value.

Mr. Lay, Enron's former chairman and chief executive,
had previously disclosed selling $29.9 million in shares in
public markets from January through the end of July.
The new disclosures showed he took in $70.1 million from
selling Enron stock back to the company from February
through October.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Lay, Kelly Kimberly, said that Mr.
Lay had "remained confident in Enron's stock through
late 2001" and said "the vast majority" of the money he got
from Enron was used to pay loans that had been secured
by his stake in Enron. She said the sales were unrelated
to developments at Enron, including the Watkins letter.

Ms. Kimberly added that Mr. Lay and his wife did not
expect to have to file for bankruptcy. "While they are
experiencing liquidity problems, they believe they will be
able to work through them," she said of the Lays.

The family members, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity, said no money was being hidden offshore and
that Mr. Lay's wife, Linda, was being honest when she
said on the NBC "Today" show last month: "It's gone.
There's nothing left. Everything we had mostly was in
Enron stock."

While corporate executives are required to disclose most
stock sales by the 10th day of the month after the sale,
shares sold back to the company are not required to be
disclosed until the next year. Thus most of Mr. Lay's sales
remained unknown as Enron was collapsing last year.

Mr. Lay's sales after meeting with Ms. Watkins came
during a period when he was trying to reassure investors
and Enron employees that there were no problems at
Enron despite a falling share price and the Aug. 14
resignation of Jeffrey K. Skilling, who had been Enron's
chief executive for six months.

On Aug. 21, the same day he sold $4 million of stock to
the company, Mr. Lay told employees that one of his
highest priorities was to restore investor confidence,
adding that that "should result in a significantly higher
stock price."

On Sept. 26, in an online chat with Enron employees, Mr.
Lay said the stock was a good buy and added that he had
bought stock within the last two months.

Based on publicly available reports, that appeared to be
true, because he had exercised stock options without
reporting stock sales. But it is now clear that he had sold
many more shares than he had bought during the period.

Ms. Kimberly said yesterday that Mr. Lay continued to
hold some shares he had received from exercising options
last summer. If so, that means he sold other shares he
already owned.

On Aug. 13, the day before Mr. Lay reassumed the title of
chief executive, Enron granted 90,873 shares to him,
according to the filing released yesterday.

Mr. Lay's sales to the company temporarily halted after
Sept. 4 but then resumed in late October after partial
disclosures about partnerships run by Andrew S. Fastow,
then Enron's chief financial officer, had damaged
confidence in the company.

On Oct. 23, the day after Enron disclosed that the S.E.C.
had begun an informal inquiry into the company's
accounting, Mr. Lay resumed his sales, selling $6 million
in stock to Enron over four days. On Oct. 26, the day of
his final sale, he called Alan Greenspan, the Federal
Reserve chairman, regarding Enron's problems, and over
the next several days he called several Bush
administration officials.

The Bush administration did not intervene, and on Dec. 2,
after an attempted merger with Dynegy (news/quote) fell
through, Enron filed for bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Lay's sales to Enron in 2001 began early in the year,
with a $4 million sale on Feb. 1, when the share price was
$78.79. He sold another $4 million in shares on April 27
and then realized $8 million in May, $24 million in June
and $4 million in July. During those months he was also
selling stock in the open market.

It is not clear how much money Mr. Lay made from the
sales. His S.E.C. filings show that he and a Lay family
partnership exercised options in 2001 for 635,334 shares,
paying $12.2 million. That would reduce his net profits to
$87.8 million on his sales last year, less whatever the
other shares had cost him.

From 1998 through 2000, according to previous Enron
reports, Mr. Lay made annual profits from exercising
options of $13.1 million in 1998, $43.8 million in 1999
and $123.3 million in 2000. His salary and bonus from
1998 to last year totaled $22.5 million.

Enron has since disclosed that its profits were overstated
in all of those years, in large part because it improperly
concealed losses through the partnerships run by Mr.
Fastow.

All told last year, he and the family partnership sold
2,267,371 shares of Enron stock, realizing
$100,027,544.87, according to his S.E.C. filings.

Mr. Lay was still left with a large holding in Enron stock
when the company collapsed. His filing with the S.E.C.
yesterday stated that at the end of December he owned
1,012,223 shares of Enron stock in his own account;
100,000 shares in a family partnership; 20,337 shares in
his 401(k) plan; and 121 shares in an employee stock
ownership plan. Enron's stock closed yesterday at 26.5
cents.

Ms. Kimberly said that Mr. Lay's sales of stock to Enron
were made under a revolving credit arrangement with the
company under which he was able to borrow $4 million.
That appears to have been something of a formality,
because he borrowed the $4 million and then repaid it
with stock again and again.

Nearly everything Mr. Lay and his wife own is now up for
sale, the family members said, including residential
properties in Texas and Colorado, worth about $30
million. The family plans to keep a home worth about $8
million in the River Oaks area of Houston. Under Texas
law, a person who files for bankruptcy can keep a home,
no matter how much it is worth and no matter how large
are the losses suffered by that person's creditors.

Last week, Mr. Lay sold his minority stake in the Houston
Texans, an expansion National Football League team, for
an undisclosed sum. He and his wife also sold one of their
Aspen, Colo., properties for about $10 million, according
to Joshua Saslove, Mr. Lay's real estate broker. They had
bought the property in 1991 for about $1.9 million, but
the property had undergone extensive renovations in
1993. Another plot of land in Colorado the family owns
sold for about $2.15 million, Mr. Saslove said. There are
two other Aspen properties for sale, worth $6 million
apiece, he said.

Family members said that as 2001 began, 80 percent of
Mr. Lay's wealth was in Enron, including his stock,
options, deferred compensation plan and his 401(k)
savings plan. Ms. Kimberly said with Enron virtually
worthless, his net worth is down by 80 percent, but she
did not give an exact figure. A family member said
yesterday that Mr. Lay was worth about $400 million a
year ago.

While some Enron executives were able to request and
pull their deferred compensation out of Enron before it
collapsed, Mr. Lay did not request or receive any of his
deferred compensation, Ms. Kimberly said.

Though most of Mr. Lay's money was in Enron stock,
family members and associates say Mr. Lay did have some
other holdings. Because he was a director at Compaq, Eli
Lilly & Company (news/quote) and i2 Technologies
(news/quote), he owned stock in those companies that is
now valued at about $10 million.

In the last few years, Mr. Lay and his son Mark, 33,
invested about $1 million in two privately held technology
companies, EterniTV, an Internet start-up that delivers
video services over the Web, and EC Outlook, a company
that develops supply chain management software. Both
companies are struggling.

Mr. Lay also invested nearly $20 million in Questia, a
Houston company that sells access to online books. The
company's work force has been cut drastically in the last
year.

Asked whether Mr. Lay had a financial adviser, one close
friend said: "There were no advisers. He did it all himself."

One reason, a person close to the family said, was an
experience Mr. Lay had in the mid-1980's, after receiving
a huge payout when he helped merge Houston Natural
Gas and Internorth to create Enron. The windfall of more
than $3 million was largely invested in California real
estate by an adviser, he said, adding that much of that
money was lost when the real estate market tumbled.


Enron-Cooper Contract

Details of the contract between the Enron Corporation
and Stephen F. Cooper, whom the company's board has
elected as its acting chief executive, were disclosed
yesterday in a filing with federal bankruptcy court in
Manhattan.

Mr. Cooper's firm, Stephen Forbes Cooper L.L.C., will be
paid $1.3 million a year, payable in monthly installments
of $110,000 each, along with an additional $1.2 million a
year, also payable in monthly installments, for each
senior executive who works on Enron's restructuring. If
Enron is not liquidated and emerges from bankruptcy, Mr.
Cooper's firm will also receive a fee of at least $5 million; if
the company is liquidated, a fee will be agreed upon.

nytimes.com