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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (228911)	2/20/2002 11:25:08 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

There is confusion, but not here. As the article makes clear, the SEC exemptions that Enron got from a compliant SEC caused the problems. Did you notice that the guy who granted the exemptions to his former SEC boss/Enron lobbyist is now that same man's partner? ...The company decided to retain Joel H. Goldberg, a former director of the investment management division at the S.E.C., who said today that he did not know how the company came to hire him. An Enron official said the company had retained Mr. Goldberg knowing that he had previously been Mr. Barbash's boss and was his predecessor at the S.E.C. Mr. Goldberg had been Mr. Barbash's supervisor at the S.E.C. in the 1980's and the Labor Department in the 1970's. The two lawyers are now partners at the international law firm of Shearman & Sterling.... Gee, the former SEC guy doesn't know how Enron hired him? Conflict of interest - outside of the SEC - had nothing to do with what Enron did - that's a lame diversion. Conflict always exists - even when they is no consulting. Why? Because firms don't want to be fired. Think about it. Levitt's diversion would fix that most important conflict? That "conflicts" diversion is just a red herring. Levitt essentially admitted his SEC did not do its job and alluded that the exemptions were "determinative" to what happened with Enron: ...Arthur Levitt, who was the chairman of the S.E.C. when the 1997 exemption was granted, said today that he had no recollection of it. But he said it could be a potentially significant part of the agency's role in failing to oversee Enron. "It may be one of those cases of the nail in the shoe of the horse," he said. "It may be one of those things that seemed insignificant at the time but can wind up being determinative."... nytimes.com