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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (165134)	5/14/2002 1:48:26 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 186894

Duke, RE: You are correct that there was some mention in middle 2001, after the fact, but the argument could be made, not by me certainly, but that this "disclosure" was more of an attempt to obfuscate rather than to disclose. True disclosure might have been, "that this transaction(s) resulted in 1.2 Billion in excess income and that this may have been the sole purpose of the transaction" or words to that effect? Without question there were off balance sheet items at Enron that were not properly disclosed. There was a ton of fraud at Enron related to this exact issue. Yes, obfuscation was the primary aim of Enron management. But that's the way you need to read financial statements. Look for places where management appears to be deceiving rather than informing. My point was that there was more than sufficient disclosure to warn any investor that all was not well at Enron. Look at the JEDI disclosure: sure, it was made after the fact, but we're talking about a significant situation. The specifics that were disclosed should have led any reasonable investor to question management. GV, were you following this company at the time??? Yes.