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: L. Adam Latham who wrote (166417)	6/15/2002 7:10:29 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"Any thoughts on how the Arthur Anderson guilty verdict will affect stocks Monday? Seems like the media assumed AA was going to be found guilty, so there may be little negative impact." With Arthur Anderson facing liquidation for its misdeeds, Enron in bankruptcy and its executives facing jail time, Adelphia on the verge of being insolvent and its founders facing serious charges, Im Clone in the same boat, Martha Stewart being investigated, yadda yadda yadda, I'm guessing that Jerry Sanders is carefully reviewing all of the "Jerryisms" he has uttered and is wondering if now is the time to "clarify" his statements to investors. --Tim May

To: L. Adam Latham who wrote (166417)	6/15/2002 9:20:55 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 186894

I think the market had pretty much assumed the verdict yesterday when the judge issued the latest ruling. There may be some relieft that it's finally over, but realistically I think the market won't care. However, Andersen it finished. They can't even appeal until after the sentencing in October. In that time, they will continue to lose clients, and it is likely that the sentence will include substantial limitations on their future activities in any case. mg

To: L. Adam Latham who wrote (166417)	6/15/2002 10:07:14 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"Any thoughts on how the Arthur Anderson guilty verdict will affect stocks Monday? Seems like the media assumed AA was going to be found guilty, so there may be little negative impact." Sure, you're probably right but this is just the tip of the iceberg. The public and their Lawyers want blood money and there is plenty out there.

To: L. Adam Latham who wrote (166417)	6/17/2002 4:35:20 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Hi Adam and Thread, RE: "on how the Arthur Anderson guilty verdict will affect stocks Monday?" Most things in AH look green. I think the markets will get over the Anderson ordeal. Btw, an auditor from a big five said it was industry practice to shred paper rather aggressively in the accounting industry. When I learned this, my first thought was, why do companies have to get their accounting audited by one of the big five? Why not a smaller firm, where they won't shred documents that you may need later on. So, Arther Anderson apparently isn't the only one, but simply the only visible one. I think this entire ordeal has been necessary to change their industry's practice on shredding. However, I do think Enron's CFO in charge of the off-debts, should feel the heat of his crime, not just the accounting firm. It's hard to gauge whether the CEO was out to lunch or guilty. Either way, in general, I think people truly underestimate the power of trust that CEO's place on their executives (and Boards do on their CEOs). So, by forcing CEO's to sign off on the financials, which Bush has now imposed, this will help encourage the CEOs to micro manage the financial side of their business a bit more than what they were doing. I know of one large public company that got in trouble, and the media (SJMN) initially felt the founder (who was a board member) knew what was going on with his CFO, when in fact, he truly didn't (and it was proved he didn't.) But it is the general public (and media's) tendency to falsely believe that the people at the top know everything that's going on, when in fact, they don't. They should know, but they don't always know, due to reasons like limited time, limited resources, or simply because they trusted someone they've always trusted for many years. So, I was glad to hear Bush's rule requiring CEO's signature on the financials because it will encourage more involvement than what has been the norm. The SEC recently finished up with the former CEO of a competing, small public company to our startup. The fraud was very obvious even from the outside looking in, and even though we compete with them, it made me upset to see their CEO trash the founder's (a good guy) company and walk away with money he had no business to call his own. Everyone in the industry was glad the SEC took action - no one likes fraud, even if it's happening at your competitor's business. The SEC made the former CEO of this company return some money, as he should. Now why don't they do this with Enron, whose CFO did much worse? I hope the SEC's bite doesn't apply to only small companies though, because that would send the wrong message to the business community. Regards, Amy J