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.
Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (170042)6/30/2002 11:36:59 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 176387
 
Corruption Runs Deep on Main Street, Too

By HOWARD R. GOLD
Barron's Online

Another one bites the dust.

Tuesday's news that WorldCom, the parent company of the nation's second largest long-distance carrier, hid $3.8 billion in expenses and would be restating its financial statements for the last five quarters was more than just a body blow to another troubled company.

It means that what the pundits are calling a "crisis of confidence" in corporate America just got wider and deeper.

Few Americans had much to do with Enron, and fewer still could make head or tail of the abstruse accounting issues that brought it and Arthur Andersen LLP down.

Yet 20 million Americans are MCI customers. WorldCom's corporate pitchman was none other than Michael Jordan. And everybody knows what "cooking the books" means.

The WorldCom story broke after months of revelations about possible corporate malfeasance. Enron. Andersen. Global Crossing. Adelphia Communications. Tyco International CEO Dennis Kozlowski's yearning for the finer things in life.

But this crisis goes way beyond the misdeeds of a few potential corporate felons.

When New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer first released those damning e-mails in which Merrill Lynch analysts trashed the very Internet stocks they recommended to retail investors, I wrote here that corruption ran deep in Wall Street (see Fighting the Tape, April 11). Nothing I've seen since then has changed my mind.

Now, it looks as if corruption, defined as "impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle," runs deep in corporate America, too.

I'm sure some people will take issue with this, reminding me of the thousands of fine, honest men and women who serve in the upper echelons of American business, blah, blah, blah.

But the problem is, the whole system of oversight, governance and disclosure -- once a point of pride for the U.S. economy -- has broken down.

Boards of directors rubber-stamp CEOs' decisions. CEOs' golf buddies approve their pay packages. Audit committees are often way out of their depth and won't ask the tough questions.

"The system is very skewed toward a concentration of power in the hands of the CEO," says Carol Bowie of the Investor Responsibility Research Center. "Your average board today is still under the thumb of the CEO."

Meanwhile, many auditors and attorneys long ago became CEOs' hired guns. Regulators are either overwhelmed or have been effectively neutered by years of aggressive lobbying from corporate interests and big accounting firms.

And the media, while often warning of the excesses of the 1990s, also bought in to the cult of the celebrity CEO, thus sometimes becoming part of the problem. .

As for Wall Street -- don't ask.

We all learned in school about the checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. Through many crises, they've held firm, contributing mightily to the great success of the U.S. over the last 200 years.

But the checks and balances that are supposed to support today's financial system come not from our nation's founding document but from a regulatory agency born in the New Deal and various self-regulating organizations and various private interests that are all supposed to somehow protect investors' interests.

Trouble is, big institutions and mutual funds that have the clout to challenge underperforming CEOs have been largely quiescent. And the individual investor is powerless in this equation, while the rewards for pushing the envelope have been -- well, ungodly.

So, all the incentives for top executives are skewed toward bending the rules, or even breaking them.

"The incentive is to commit fraud," declares Sarah Teslick, executive director of the Council of Institutional Investors.

It's simple cost/benefit analysis, she explains: "You can commit fraud for $100-million upside or your employer gets fined." For certain people, that's an easy choice.

"I don't know a single [officer or director] who's paid a dime [in fines]," she says.

And ironically, the principal incentive behind this alleged fraud is stock options, which corporate governance types originally pushed to "align management's interests with shareholders.'" Talk about unintended consequences!

Teslick says options, which Bowie estimates comprise some 80% to 90% of the value of CEOs' gargantuan pay packages, "turn companies into Ponzi schemes."

"It is the only way for directors and officers to suck money out of a company before it crashes," she says. Employees of Enron and Global Crossing who walked away with nothing while the likes of Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and Gary Winnick sold tens of millions of dollars' worth of company stock would certainly agree.

So, what's ahead? Next Monday to Wednesday, Barron's Online will focus exclusively on the current crisis and how it will affect companies, Wall Street and individual investors. And in future columns I'll look at some possible solutions to these problems.

Right now, the chickens have come home to roost. The dollar is sagging as foreigners appear to be yanking money out of U.S. markets. Individual investors are terrified to be in stocks, and they trust no one -- one reason our markets remain weak after a 27-month bear market..

Getting them back in will be a huge challenge, because once confidence is broken it's very hard to restore. And from my emails and conversations with investors, I can tell you the anger out there is intense and it won't subside quickly.

"There's no more populist issue than the inherent unfairness of this level of corporate excess," says Nell Minow, a longtime corporate governance activist and editor of The Corporate Library.

"Marie Antoinette would be embarrassed to get what these CEOs get."

And you all remember what happened to her.

------------------------------------------------
Howard R. Gold is editor of Barron's Online. Fighting the Tape appears twice a month.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (170042)7/2/2002 1:02:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 176387
 
A Classic Column By Paul Krugman...

Everyone Is Outraged
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Editorial / Op-Ed
The New York Times
July 2, 2002

nytimes.com

Arthur Levitt, Bill Clinton's choice to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, crusaded for better policing of corporate accounting — though he was often stymied by the power of lobbyists. George W. Bush replaced him with Harvey Pitt, who promised a "kinder and gentler" S.E.C. Even after Enron, the Bush administration steadfastly opposed any significant accounting reforms. For example, it rejected calls from the likes of Warren Buffett to require deduction of the cost of executive stock options from reported profits.

But Mr. Bush and Mr. Pitt say they are outraged about WorldCom.

Representative Michael Oxley, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, played a key role in passing a 1995 law (over Mr. Clinton's veto) that, by blocking investor lawsuits, may have opened the door for a wave of corporate crime. More recently, when Merrill Lynch admitted having pushed stocks that its analysts privately considered worthless, Mr. Oxley was furious — not because the company had misled investors, but because it had agreed to pay a fine, possibly setting a precedent. But he also says he is outraged about WorldCom.

Might this sudden outbreak of moral clarity have something to do with polls showing mounting public dismay over crooked corporations?

Still, even a poll-induced epiphany is welcome. But it probably isn't genuine. As the Web site dailyenron.com put it, last week "the foxes assured Americans that they are hot on the trail of those missing chickens."

The president's supposed anger was particularly hard to take seriously. As Chuck Lewis of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity delicately put it, Mr. Bush "has more familiarity with troubled energy companies and accounting irregularities than probably any previous chief executive." Mr. Lewis was referring to the saga of Harken Energy, which now truly deserves a public airing.

My last column, describing techniques of corporate fraud, omitted one method also favored by Enron: the fictitious asset sale. Returning to the ice-cream store, what you do is sell your old delivery van to XYZ Corporation for an outlandish price, and claim the capital gain as a profit. But the transaction is a sham: XYZ Corporation is actually you under another name. Before investors figure this out, however, you can sell a lot of stock at artificially high prices.

Now to the story of Harken Energy, as reported in The Wall Street Journal on March 4. In 1989 Mr. Bush was on the board of directors and audit committee of Harken. He acquired that position, along with a lot of company stock, when Harken paid $2 million for Spectrum 7, a tiny, money-losing energy company with large debts of which Mr. Bush was C.E.O. Explaining what it was buying, Harken's founder said, "His name was George Bush."

Unfortunately, Harken was also losing money hand over fist. But in 1989 the company managed to hide most of those losses with the profits it reported from selling a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, at a high price. Who bought Aloha? A group of Harken insiders, who got most of the money for the purchase by borrowing from Harken itself. Eventually the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that this was a phony transaction, and forced the company to restate its 1989 earnings.

But long before that ruling — though only a few weeks before bad news that could not be concealed caused Harken's shares to tumble — Mr. Bush sold off two-thirds of his stake, for $848,000. Just for the record, that's about four times bigger than the sale that has Martha Stewart in hot water. Oddly, though the law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales, he neglected to inform the S.E.C. about this transaction until 34 weeks had passed. An internal S.E.C. memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president.

Given this history — and an equally interesting history involving Dick Cheney's tenure as C.E.O. of Halliburton — you could say that this administration is uniquely well qualified to chase after corporate evildoers. After all, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have firsthand experience of the subject.

And if some cynic should suggest that Mr. Bush's new anger over corporate fraud is less than sincere, I know how his spokesmen will react. They'll be outraged.

___________________________________________________

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

Krugman was born on February 28, 1953.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (170042)7/2/2002 3:07:28 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 176387
 
Commentary: Will the Chief Executive Really Speak Out?

SPECIAL REPORT -- SCANDALS IN CORPORATE AMERICA
BusinessWeek
By Lee Walczak and Richard S. Dunham
JULY 8, 2002

For a White House that's warily eyeing the widening ripples of a white-collar crime wave, the question has come down to this: What should the President say, and when should he say it?

George W. Bush has watched for months as lurid tales of accounting scams, tax avoidance, and earnings manipulation spread through Corporate America. As investigations blossomed, Bush's aides have grown increasingly concerned that disillusioned investors might undermine the recovery, lose faith in Bush's probusiness economic policies, or--worse--start taking revenge on Republican candidates.

On the heels of WorldCom Inc.'s (WCOM ) announcement that it inflated operating cash flow by $3.8 billion, the sense that things are coming unhinged in the business sector is rising. That clearly calls for leadership from the top. And as the exemplar of what he calls the "Responsibility Era," Bush has been surprisingly reticent. On June 26, the President, at the global economic summit in Canada, gave his most detailed comments on the crime spree to date.

Bush called WorldCom's conduct "outrageous," and vowed hot pursuit of finagling financiers. "We've had too many cases of people abusing their responsibilities," he said at a photo session with Britain's Tony Blair. "We will pursue within our laws those who are irresponsible." Despite the tortured syntax, he made his point.

Still, it's an open question whether these flashes of Presidential frustration will reassure the public that Washington is on top of the problem. Bush has said little since Mar. 7, when he rolled out a largely voluntary corporate-governance plan that reformers contend falls well short of the sweeping changes that are needed. True, Bush is preoccupied with other weighty concerns, like the war on terrorism and the Middle East. But the fact is, he's deeply torn on the corporate crime issue because political advisers tell him it's a no-win situation for the GOP.

A Presidential critique that summons up images of systemic abuses, aides fear, could spook investors even more and harm the fragile expansion. It also would aid Hill Democrats who insist that permanent legislative reforms are needed--a stance conservatives resist. More troublesome for the GOP, focusing attention on the scandals only serves to reinforce an emerging Democratic line of attack for the fall campaign: Republicans' deregulatory fervor and Bush's chumminess with powerful business interests created the conditions for the financial abuses that are now breaking into the open.

"Bush has to speak up," says one top GOP strategist. "Democrats are going to go on the offensive about Republicans' laissez-faire attitude toward business. But the President also needs to restore confidence in the system." Some Wall Streeters agree. "The President should use the bully pulpit more," says Mark P. Vitner, senior economist at Wachovia Corp. "If people don't have trust in Corporate America, they won't invest."

Bush, however, seems to prefer private arm-twisting. On June 20, he met with Business Roundtable reps and said CEOs must take strong steps to restore confidence in their financial reports. Bush's message, according to International Paper Co. (IP ) CEO John T. Dillon: "I want you fellows to lead."

Going one-on-one with the corporate elite can be effective. But it's not enough, reformers say. "Bush may feel he can have more impact by directing his comments to movers and shakers," says DePaul University Professor Laura P. Hartman. "But these are the same people who are going to fund his reelection, so he seems conflicted--like an Arthur Andersen auditor."

As federal prosecutors zero in on Enron Corp., the freewheeling energy-trading outfit intimately linked to both Bush and Veep Dick Cheney, chances are that the President will finally be compelled to speak out at length on the roots of the current mess and on his "let business clean up its own act" approach. Will his speech be driven by lofty moral imperative--or represent cold political calculation? The singed members of the Investor Class will have to judge for themselves.
_______________________________________

Washington Bureau Chief Walczak and Senior Correspondent Dunham cover politics and policy.

businessweek.com