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.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (47798)2/19/2002 11:17:59 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
WASHINGTON WATCH -- The Vindication of Arthur Levitt

BusinessWeek Online Daily Briefing: WASHINGTON WATCH
By Richard S. Dunham
Tuesday February 19, 9:01 am Eastern Time

During his tenure as chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt Jr. took a lot of heat from the accounting industry and Corporate America for his plan to strengthen enforcement of securities laws and require far greater disclosure from companies. At the time, Levitt's comments sounded alarmist to many.

Levitt, of course, was right. And as Congress and the Bush Administration consider which changes to enact in this Enron-induced reform frenzy, they would be wise to rip a page out of his playbook. With investor anger on the rise and trust in the markets on the wane, Washington should embrace a bold agenda of reform. New SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt and other regulators would do well to avoid halfway steps [see BW, 2/25/02, ``The Betrayed Investor''].

This is not campaign-finance reform, where the Shays-Meehan compromise plan approved by the House on Feb. 14 is viewed by most reformers as only a ``first step'' in changing a corrupt system. When it comes to protecting investors, it's an all-or-nothing proposition. The 100 million Americans who play the market depend on accurate and reliable information to make their investment decisions. The accounting industry has already been pressured into reversing its decades-long opposition to restrictions on mixing its auditing and consulting work [see BW Online, 1/31/02, ``An Abrupt About-Face by Accountants'']. Washington should now act quickly and decisively to enact additional reforms.

``CULTURAL EROSION.'' Levitt's view is that the Investor Class, though huge in size, isn't an effective interest group. ``It is potentially the most powerful lobbying force in the country, and it is the least well-organized,'' he told a breakfast group of reporters recently. As a result, investors are outmaneuvered politically by business interest groups, most specifically by the accounting industry.

Levitt, a former chairman of the American Stock Exchange, publisher, and investment-company founder, worries that the Enron situation is being viewed by many as ``merely an accounting problem.'' He sees ``very widespread'' breakdowns in the entire oversight system -- from corporate lawyers and accountants to investment bankers, analysts, and boards of directors. There has been ``a vast cultural erosion cutting across virtually every gatekeeper that operates in this arena,'' he argues. ``A culture of 'What can we get away with,' [has taken] hold, rather than a culture of 'What's good for investors'.... The ones who are hurt are the investors who get lured into this culture, get caught up in the hype, and are the last ones to get out.''

As a result, public confidence in the truthfulness of corporate financial documents has been badly shaken [see BW Online, 2/19/02, ``Enron's Legacy: A New Wariness'']. But how to deal with it? Levitt has a simple and obvious first step: ``Financial statements should be written in plain English.'' To police today's unreliable corporate overseers, he would create an accounting watchdog board with broad authority. ``To restore public confidence today, we need to have an oversight body that has the power to subpoena documents,'' he says, ``to bring in the clients [to testify under oath].'' The funding and staffing for any oversight body would need to be independent of the industry, he adds. And that's just the beginning.

WATERED-DOWN REFORM. Levitt urges Congress to provide more funds to pay for expanding the SEC's enforcement staff. In the most cynical kind of Washington shell game, lawmakers have authorized the hiring of more SEC workers -- but haven't agreed to pay for their salaries. That's old-fashioned game-playing.

The self-described champion of shareholders has long advocated a ban on consulting work by accounting firms. Levitt also wants standards for the accounting profession to be set by experts independent of the industry, such as professionals and investors. Those changes have been resisted mightily by the industry's Big Five.

For years, Levitt ran into stubborn resistance on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who thought he was an overbearing alarmist. Today, the ex-SEC boss predicts that the same legislators will try to water down new shareholder protections. ``The political class is antiregulatory,'' he argues. He predicts that a series of halfway measures will be pushed by longtime reform critics to prevent his radical changes from being adopted [see BW, 2/25/02 ``Commentary: Congress Will Huff and Puff and...Do Little''].

NO COMPROMISES. Some in Congress have criticized SEC Chief Harvey Pitt's reform proposals for being half-hearted. But the hue and cry hasn't been that great. And the White House can't be counted on for hard-hitting shareholder protections. The reason: President Bush has tried to ``split the difference'' between business and consumers on many issues, from automobile fuel-efficiency standards to arsenic levels in drinking water. When it comes to domestic policy, that seems to be his nature.

This is no time for compromise-first politics, however. By adopting the more far-reaching reforms advocated by the likes of Arthur Levitt, both Congress and President Bush will be serving investors as well as can be expected in the wake of the Enron fiasco.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (47798)2/19/2002 11:22:45 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
PwC: Sharing the Hot Seat with Andersen?

PricewaterhouseCoopers' dual role at Enron and its controversial debt-shielding partnerships has congressional probers asking questions

BusinessWeek, February 15, 2002


So far in the Enron scandal, Arthur Andersen has borne all the weight of the accounting profession's failures. But that's about to change. BusinessWeek has learned that congressional investigators are taking a keen interest in PricewaterhouseCoopers' role -- or roles -- in deals between Enron and its captive partnerships. A congressional source says the House Energy & Commerce Committee is collecting documents and interviewing officials at PwC.

At issue is the firm's work for both Enron and those controversial debt-shielding partnerships, set up and controlled by then-Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow. On two occasions -- in August, 1999, and May, 2000 -- the world's biggest accounting firm certified that Enron was getting a fair deal when it exchanged its own stock for options and notes issued by the Fastow-controlled partnerships.

Investigators plan to question the complex valuation calculations that underlie the opinions. Enron ultimately lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the deals. A PwC spokesman says the firm stands by its assessment of the deals' value at the time.

OVERLAP. Perhaps more significantly, Pricewaterhouse was working for one of the Fastow partnerships -- LJM2 Co-Investment -- at the same time it assured Enron that the Houston-based energy company was getting a fair deal in its transactions with LJM2. In effect, PwC was providing tax advice to help LJM2 structure its deal -- the first of the so-called Raptor transactions -- while the accounting firm was also advising Enron on the value of that deal.

Pricewaterhouse acknowledges the overlapping engagements but says its dual role did not violate accounting's ethics standards, which require firms to maintain a degree of objectivity in dealing with clients. The firm says the work was done by two separate teams, which did not share data. PwC's spokesman says LJM2's tax structure wasn't a factor in its opinion on the deal's valuation. And, the spokesman says, each client was informed about the other engagement. That disclosure may mean that the firm's actions were in the clear, says Stephen A. Zeff, professor of accounting at Rice University in Houston.

Lynn Turner, former chief accountant at the Securities & Exchange Commission, still has questions. "The standard [for accountants] is, you've got to be objective," says Turner, who now heads the Center for Quality Financial Reporting at Colorado State University. "The question is whether [Pricewaterhouse] met its obligation to Enron's board and shareholders to be objective when it was helping LJM2 structure the transaction it was reviewing. From a common-sense perspective, does this make sense?"

"NO RECOLLECTION." PwC's contacts on both sides of the LJM2 deal were Fastow and his subordinates. BusinessWeek could not determine whether Enron's board, the ultimate client for the fairness opinion, knew of Pricewaterhouse's dual engagements. But W. Neil Eggleston, the attorney representing Enron's outside directors, says Robert K. Jaedicke, chairman of the board's audit committee, has "no recollection of this conflict being brought to the audit committee or the board."
In any case, Capitol Hill's interest in these questions could prove embarrassing to Pricewaterhouse. The firm is charged with overseeing $130 million in assets as bankruptcy administrator of Enron's British retail arm. On Feb. 12, SunTrust Banks said it had dumped Arthur Andersen, its auditor for 60 years, in favor of PwC. And given the huge losses Enron eventually suffered on the LJM and LJM2 deals, the energy trader's shareholders may target PwC's deep pockets as a source of restitution in the biggest bankruptcy in American history.

The fairness opinions were necessary because Enron's top financial officers -- most notably Fastow, the managing partner of LJM and LJM2 -- were in charge on both sides of these transactions. Indeed, both of PwC's fairness opinions were addressed to Ben F. Glisan Jr., a Fastow subordinate who became Enron's treasurer in May, 2000. Glisan left Enron in November, 2001, after the company discovered he had invested in the first LJM partnership.

SELLING POINT. Since the deals were not arms-length negotiations between independent parties, Pricewaterhouse was called in to assure Enron's board that the company was getting fair value. Indeed, minutes from a special board meeting on June 28, 1999, show that Fastow used PwC's fairness review as a selling point for the first deal.

That complex transaction was designed to let Enron hedge against a drop in value of its investment in 5.4 million shares of Rhythms NetConnections, an Internet service provider. PwC did not work for LJM at the time it ruled on that deal's fairness for Enron. The firm valued LJM's compensation to Enron at between $164 million and $204 million.

The second deal, involving LJM2, was designed to indirectly hedge the value of other Enron investments. That deal was even more complex, and PwC's May 5, 2000, opinion does not put a dollar value on it. Instead, it says, "it is our opinion that, as of the date hereof, the financial consideration associated with the transaction is fair to the Company [Enron] from a financial point of view."

"CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE." Some documents associated with LJM2 identified Pricewaterhouse as the partnership's auditor. A December, 1999, memo prepared by Merrill Lynch to help sell a $200 million private placement of LJM2 partnership interests listed the firm as LJM2's auditor. In fact, KPMG was the auditor. The PwC spokesman says his firm didn't even bid for the LJM2 audit contract. Merrill Lynch declined to comment on the erroneous document.

The PwC spokesman acknowledges that congressional investigators have been in touch with the firm. "We are cooperating with the [Energy & Commerce] Committee," he says. On Jan. 31, the New York-based auditor said it would spin off its consulting arm, in part because of concerns that Enron has raised about the accounting profession. "We recognize that there is a crisis of confidence," spokesman David Nestor told reporters. As probers give Pricewaterhouse a closer look, that crisis could become far more real for the Big Five's No. 1.
____________________
By Mike McNamee in Washington, with Heather Timmons in New York.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (47798)2/19/2002 11:35:52 AM
From: Clappy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
JimOilSlickWillie,

How do you plan on playing the energy stocks?
Would playing the microcraps be dangerous in that they may
not survive if the stock market tanks?
Are there a few mid caps or large caps that you like?

-BuritoEatingGasMan