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 - Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (2163)6/7/2002 11:10:40 AM
From: James Calladine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3602
 
Good points, I think.

Namaste!

Jim



To: stockman_scott who wrote (2163)6/12/2002 2:52:01 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 3602
 
SEC votes to require CEOs vouch for financial reports

Move inspired by Enron’s collapse

ASSOCIATED PRESS

msnbc.com

WASHINGTON, June 12 — Federal regulators voted tentatively Wednesday to require chief executives to personally vouch for their companies’ financial reports, a Bush administration initiative inspired by the collapse of Enron Corp.

COMPANIES ALSO WOULD have to make public important changes in their operations much faster and report a wider group of changes under the new rules of by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The “8-K” form for reporting significant events or corporate changes important to investors would have to be filed with the SEC within two business days, rather than the current requirement of five days for some items and 15 days for others.

At an open meeting, the three SEC commissioners voted unanimously to open the proposals to public comment for 60 days, after which they could become final.

Among the new items that would have to be reported in the 8-K: the sort of off-balance-sheet transactions that helped topple Enron and unexpected departures of top executives, senior managers or directors.

SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt said before the vote it was impossible to know whether the requirement for corporate chief executives to personally certify financial reports could have prevented the Enron debacle. Still, he said, “If we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it.”

“This is not a time to be stingy with our regulatory responses to some of the chicanery and fraud” that appear to have occurred at several publicly traded companies, Pitt said.

Said Cynthia Glassman, another commissioner: “I don’t think this should be a problem for a well-managed company.”

The latest drama involving alleged corporate malfeasance unfolded Wednesday, as FBI agents arrested the former chief executive of ImClone Systems, Samuel Waksal. He was charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud for allegedly tipping off two people to sell stock in the biotech company the day before the Food and Drug Administration rejected its application for a cancer drug.

Enron, the failed energy-trading company, which in December entered the biggest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history, used a web of thousands of complex partnerships to hide more than $1 billion in debt from investors and the SEC. Its auditors, the Arthur Andersen accounting firm, endorsed the company’s financial statements; Andersen is accused by the government of obstructing justice for destroying Enron audit documents.

In early March, as the Enron controversy swirled, President Bush proposed having company executives personally certify financial reports as part of a package of measures designed to enforce corporate and auditor responsibility. He also said the government should strip top executives of ill-gotten bonuses and tighten oversight of the accounting industry.

Many investors have been unnerved by Enron’s collapse and distrustful of the accuracy of the financial reports of big companies, contributing to a volatile stock market also roiled by sluggish earnings and terrorism fears. A broad sell-off Tuesday sent the major market indices to their lowest closes of the year.

The rules put forward by the SEC would require chief executive officers and chief financial officers to certify that all the information in the company’s annual and quarterly reports is correct and that the reports include everything that “a reasonable investor would consider important.”

The executives would have to affix their signatures to the reports and would be subject to potential enforcement action by the SEC or lawsuits filed by company shareholders.

The Securities Industry Association, Wall Street’s biggest trade group, was still studying the proposals, spokesman Dan Michaelis said Tuesday.

“We’re supportive of efforts to improve disclosure,” he said.

© 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (2163)6/14/2002 5:54:00 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 3602
 
THE NATION: WM. GREIDER ON CORRUPT BIDNESS PRACTICES

thenation.com

COMMENT | July 1, 2002

Bad for Business by William Greider

"How many times can you say 'unbelievable'?" my wife asked the other morning, as I was rattling the newspaper and again exclaiming over the latest outrageous news from American capitalism. Maybe it was the story about the CEO of Tyco International, a very wealthy and much admired titan, being indicted for evading the New York State sales tax on his art purchases. Perhaps it was the disclosure that the soaring market in energy trading, a jewel of the new economy, was largely a fabrication built on phony round-trip trades. Or the accusation that Perot Systems, after designing California's deregulated energy-trading system, turned around and showed the energy companies how to blow holes in it (and generate those soaring electric bills for Californians).

It is unbelievable--what we've learned in the past six or eight months about the financial system and corporate management. The systematic deceit and imaginative greed--the sheer chintziness of personal finagling for more loot--go well beyond the darkest hunches harbored by resident skeptics like myself. Indeed, the Wall Street system is now being flayed in the media almost daily by its own leading tribunes. Listen to this summary of the scandals: "The failures of Wall Street's compliance efforts are coming under intense scrutiny--part of a growing awareness of how deeply flawed the US financial markets really are. The watchdogs charged with keeping the financial world honest have all lost credibility themselves: outside auditors who bend the rules to please corporate clients, analysts who shape stock recommendations to woo investment-banking customers and government regulators too timid or overwhelmed to keep track of the frenzy." You might have read those points in The Nation, but these words appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. A week later, another page-one Journal story crisply explained the implications for global investors: "Boasts about world-class corporate disclosure, bookkeeping and regulation of American financial markets have become laughable in the wake of Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals."

When radical critique becomes mainstream observation, change may be in the air. In my view, this is a rare historical moment--conditions are ripe for reforming and reordering the system, an opportunity unmatched since World War II. How things really work is on the table, visible to all in shocking detail, authoritatively documented by the torrent of disclosures, with more to come. The libertarian ideology that colonized economic affairs and politics during the past two decades (markets know best, government is an obstacle, greed is good) has been pulled up short. The conservative orthodoxy is vulnerable--actually breaking down--because it has no good explanations for what we now understand to be routine malpractice in business and finance. Political tinder is spread all around the landscape, but who will strike the match?

The potential downside of this moment is also palpable and quite ominous: Nothing will happen, nothing will change--nobody goes to jail, no significant reforms are enacted. If so, the main result will be confirmation of an already endemic public cynicism and the further poisoning of American values. The revelations, instead of provoking a sea change in political thinking, may be smothered by the alignments of corporate-financial power, diverted into false reforms and complexified to the point that media attention and public anger are exhausted. In that event, the consequences for the country will be less obvious but profoundly corrosive. The system would go forward in roughly the same fashion (perhaps tarted up with public-relations rouge), and everyone would understand that corruption is the system. In markets and in the popular culture, the message would be: Forget that crap about ethics--might as well take the low road, since that's how the big boys get theirs.

The stakes are enormous, and it's much too early to predict the outcome. But there's already abundant evidence that the business establishment expects to ride out this storm and is working the usual political levers to insure it. The politics resemble the S&L debacle in the late 1980s, when Congressional Republocrats put out lots of noise and smoke but left the high-priced suits unruffled and stuck the public with the bill. Our current galaxy of scandals is far more grave because it is systemic. Anyone with courage among the Democratic presidential hopefuls could seize this moment and reorder the agenda for 2004, but no one so far has found the guts to break ranks with corporate power. Smoldering public anger, however, may yet find a way to express itself, perhaps in the fall elections, and rouse the reluctant politicians.

For now, the best hope seems to be that the bankers and business guys will react to the fact that financial markets have been severely damaged by the scandalous revelations, as have the high-flying moguls of corporate America. Who can trust them? Who wants to pour more good money after bad? In other words, this scandal stuff is bad for business, especially bad for the faltering stock market. Henry Paulson Jr., chair of Goldman Sachs, delivered that message recently in a sober speech before the National Press Club and endorsed a number of useful reforms. His remedies are insufficient (even the Journal editorial page was happy to bless them) but are a fair start. A chorus of high-minded anguish from elite circles might persuade Washington that this problem does need fixing.

The scandals of Enron et al., unfortunately, must compete with another story--the war on terrorism--that's more exciting, and threatening, than dirty bookkeeping or the looted billions. The two crises are intertwined in perverse ways. The smug triumphalism of Bush's unilateralist war policy could be abruptly deflated by economic events--which probably would be a good thing for world affairs, since Washington couldn't run roughshod over others, but terrible for US prosperity. The financial scandals have provided yet another chilling reason to be wary of the US stock market, and if overseas investors decide to take their money home in volume, the already declining dollar will fall sharply. Credit would thus become suddenly scarce, since our debtor-nation economy relies heavily on capital borrowed from abroad, and such a convergence would trigger an ugly downdraft in the US economy. In that event, the fashionable boastfulness about America, the only superpower, would implode as swiftly as Enron's stock price.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sober words, which the Business Roundtable has arrogantly decided to ignore.

-Ray