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.

Non-Tech : The Enron Scandal - Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (2421)	8/1/2002 4:39:52 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 3602

EDITORIAL August 1, 2002* Rubin, Lieberman and Lay Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman said he would subpoena the Enron-related testimony of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin "in a minute" if the senator felt that Mr. Rubin could "add something," Dave Boyer of The Washington Times reported yesterday. Wouldn't Mr. Lieberman be interested to learn whether Enron Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay personally contacted Mr. Rubin during Enron's days of accelerating desperation last November, as the company was hurtling toward bankruptcy? Since 1999, Mr. Rubin has been a director of Citigroup, Enron's largest creditor, and chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup's board of directors. On Nov. 8, Mr. Rubin made a highly inappropriate telephone call to Peter Fisher, the Democratic undersecretary of Treasury for domestic finance. At the time, Enron's stock price was below the level that would trigger a requirement for Enron to immediately repay billions of dollars in loans to its creditor banks, a development that would lead to Enron's bankruptcy. Only Enron's investment-grade credit rating prevented the activation of the repayment requirement. And the credit-rating agencies were about to significantly downgrade Enron's rating. Mr. Rubin audaciously asked Mr. Fisher to intercede with the agencies on Enron's behalf. Mr. Fisher refused. What precipitated Mr. Rubin's Nov. 8 call? Did an increasingly desperate Mr. Lay, who had offered Mr. Rubin, a longtime friend, a seat on Enron's board in May, call the Citigroup rainmaker? After all, on Oct. 26, Mr. Lay called Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who, a Fed spokesman said, "did nothing in response to the call because it would have been inappropriate." On Oct. 29, Mr. Lay called Commerce Secretary Don Evans and asked him to intercede with the credit-rating agencies. The day before, he called Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill seeking help. The Enron CEO struck out with both Cabinet members. Meanwhile, Enron President Lawrence Whaley had called Mr. Fisher six to eight times, inappropriately beseeching him to call Enron's bankers and recommend that they loan Enron more money. On Nov. 8, Mr. Lay again called Mr. O'Neill. Again, no luck. Did he then call Mr. Rubin? Also, why did Mr. Rubin pressure Mr. Fisher to do something that Messrs. Greenspan, Evans and O'Neill all rightly refused to do? In late November, Enron's credit rating was about to be lowered again, this time to junk status, thus jeopardizing its merger with Dynegy, the consummation of which would have forestalled Enron's imminent bankruptcy. Did Mr. Lay ask Mr. Rubin to place a call to Moody's, which Mr. Rubin did, to prevent the eventual merger-destroying downgrade? On Jan. 11, Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued more than 50 Enron-related subpoenas, even as Mr. Lieberman threatened a lawsuit against the Bush administration demanding detailed information of Enron's contacts with the administration's energy task force. Surely, Mr. Lieberman would want to know what contacts Mr. Rubin had with Mr. Lay, with whom then-Treasury Secretary Rubin met to discuss the Clinton administration's energy policy. washtimes.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (2421)	8/1/2002 12:00:05 PM
From: Von	Respond to of 3602

I think the biggest scandal should be the Fed cooking their books for three quarters and reporting a expanding ecconomy when in reality it was and still is contracting. They told Ma and Pa America the economy had turned the corner in order to draw the American Public back into stocks in a falling economy. The Fed should have to sign off that the numbers that they publish are true and correct or not publish any. How can the Fed make huge mistakes reporting an expanding economy when in truth it was contracting and do it for three quarters in a row and call it a simple mistake. Should the Fed who ask for pubic trust not be held accountable to the same extent as they are now holding corprate America too. Is it OK for the Fed to tell lies that caused Americans to lose more of their retirement by leaving their money in mutual funds because of the numbers the Fed reported over three quarters. Greenspan sitting there with those sad eyes telling the senators we had turned the corner and the economy was now expanding and the worst was over. Sounds like he would make a great CEO