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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (3089)	7/24/2002 1:09:15 AM
From: jjkirk	Respond to of 89467

...Indeed, actions by Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission have the potential of creating a smoke screen that will prevent real accounting reform. The Senate itself is the major reason corporations have been able to duck option expensing. On May 3, 1994, the Senate, led by Senator Joseph Lieberman, pushed the Financial Accounting Standards Board and Arthur Levitt, then chairman of the S.E.C., into backing down from mandating that options be expensed. Mr. Levitt has said that he regrets this retreat more than any other move he made during his tenure as chairman. Unfortunately, current S.E.C. leadership seems uninterested in correcting this matter. I don't believe in Congress setting accounting rules. But the Senate opened the floodgates in 1994 to an anything-goes reporting system, and it should close them now. Rather than holding hearings and fulminating, why doesn't the Senate just free the standards board by rescinding its 1994 action?...[Emphasis mine] Thanks for posting this editorial from Warren Buffett, Scott. It sure confirms the writings of the man from San Diego...jj Message 17785080

To: stockman_scott who wrote (3089)	7/24/2002 1:54:10 AM
From: surfbaron	Respond to of 89467

Stockman: good post, Buffet. Well written I might add.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (3089)	7/24/2002 9:43:46 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

CNBC interview with CFO Shapiro of JPMorganChase this guy was smooth at first, then began to stumble his body language was deceptive, with closed eyes CNBC Haines gave me a very tough time so did EconGuru goofball Liesman Shapiro was immediately portrayed with an image of crook he gave his standard defense "we did appropriate work, treated everything appropriately" he claims JPM lost money, just like Enron shareholders he denied having control of Mahonia, the offshore SPE Liesman disagreed with him on control, implying a lie Shapiro claimed he operated under existing rules of SPE's Haines was firm: "use balance sheet relief == HIDE" Shapiro called financial engineering the lynchpin that lowered costs and helped the US economic boom Haines questioned whether it is just hiding losses and debt Shapiro said it lowers borrowing costs Haines again said it is hiding and deceptive Shapiro on four occasions felt under attack, used the closed eyes signal of lying, and fell back on his ... "we acted appropriately" line way too much in defense Liesman said the footnoted items of SPE were in poor detail Shapiro said it is all footnoted Liesman said you cannot separate the legitimate from the hidden crooked stuff in footnotes (why not mention that footnotes use a font size of 2?) Haines pressed that JPM seems to take others' word easily Shapiro said they cannot check all the numbers of 1000's of companies Shapiro said they relied on Enron numbers being audited Haines said they seemed to take the word of crooked people a lot Haines kept on the SPE theme (Special Purpose Entity, like offshore bank) he said lowered borrow costs came from deceptively transferring risk in a manner that is not clearly revealed to investors who try to investigate and understand Shapiro closed his eyes again Haines and Liesman were tough, solid, professional my hat is off to CNBC staff Shapiro closed by saying JPM shares are undervalued and that he will be buying shares today whew / jim