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 (2577)12/16/2002 11:25:46 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3602
 
Can a Bloodied S.E.C. Dust Itself Off Now and Get Moving?

nytimes.com

December 16, 2002

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON -- When William H. Donaldson enters his cavernous corner office on the sixth floor of the Securities and Exchange Commission early next year, he will head an agency at one of its lowest points since its creation nearly 70 years ago.

Lawmakers and White House officials expect Mr. Donaldson to be confirmed as the commission's 27th chairman shortly after Congress convenes in a few weeks. He joins an agency that has been rudderless and plagued by staffing and budgetary problems as it has struggled to keep up with the wave of corporate scandals.

Although the agency brought a record number of cases and approved a significant number of new rules in the last year, two divisions — enforcement and compliance inspections — are understaffed and have been unable to open many of the investigations that officials say are necessary.

Its corporation finance division cannot keep up with the deluge of company filings. And its market regulation division has spent years trying in vain to persuade the commissioners to adopt rules of enormous consequence to the way stock markets set prices.


Both the big and small issues before the S.E.C. in the next few months will have lasting implications for the agency's future and determine whether it can regain the role it has played since the Depression as the enforcer of clean markets and the confidence builder for investors.

"This is the year in which the agency defines itself for the next decade," said James D. Cox of the Duke University School of Law, an authority on corporate law and author of a textbook on accounting. "Without gaining public support for its mission, it runs a very substantial risk of being marginalized in Washington. It is already being marginalized outside of Washington by a number of aggressive attorneys general."

Signs are emerging of a new direction by the commission. In a speech last week before the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Stephen M. Cutler, the director of the enforcement division, advocated bringing more cases against accounting firms, rather than just against the firms' partners, for serious violations.

"It is time to adopt a new enforcement model — a new paradigm: one that holds an accounting firm responsible for the actions of its partners; one that reverses the current presumption against suing firms for an audit failure," he said.

"The current practice of suing individual auditors without also charging their firms may not adequately reflect, at least in some cases, the role and responsibility of firms in these matters," Mr. Cutler added.

Still, it is not known how committed Mr. Donaldson, the former head of the New York Stock Exchange, will be to substantial new regulation. He unsuccessfully fought efforts to hold foreign companies to the same tough accounting standards as domestic ones. And he has been sharply critical of the regulation that prohibits companies from discriminating in the way they disclose information to the marketplace.

As a result of the past year's corporate scandals, both the commission and a new board overseeing the accounting board face a number of complex and far-reaching policy decisions in the next year. These decisions could determine the regulations of every major component of public corporations — from executives and boards, to auditors and lawyers, stock analysts and credit rating agencies.

"If you look at the mess that we've been through, it's like any disaster," said Ronald J. Gilson, a corporate and securities expert who teaches at the law schools at Columbia and Stanford universities. "It was the simultaneous failure in every market and governance area that we all rely on. That means we're looking at significant change and possible reform at every level."

"All of the main components of corporate governance are still in play," he added. "What is stunning is that I can't remember a time in modern business history when more than two of these areas were in play at the same time."

Many new regulations are required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a landmark corporate law adopted in July in response to the corporate failures and accounting breakdowns. Experts say the commission's decisions over the next few months will have profound implications for investors and public companies, as well as for the agency itself.

The accounting board is expected to begin its operations early next month and faces several important decisions. It must hire a staff, decide how it will inspect the nation's largest accounting firms and determine whether it will set new auditing standards or rely largely on the standards that have been set by the profession.

In the coming months, the commission must decide what a corporate lawyer who discovers evidence of fraud or other violations must do. The agency must develop rules for treating financial transactions that have been kept off the balance sheets of public companies. The agency must also conduct a potentially crucial study about whether it is time to move away from a system that uses accounting rules to one that employs more generalized principles.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also authorized a 77 percent increase in the agency's budget and a substantial jump in the size of its staff. Until last week, the White House appeared reluctant to push for such a large increase, and the new Republican Congress has other priorities that could leave the agency with many of its old problems even as it struggles to pump out new regulations.

In announcing the selection of Mr. Donaldson, President Bush tried to put the budget issue to rest by vowing to seek a substantial increase next year. He said it would be "nearly double" last year's budget. White House aides said the proposal would be for more than the $776 million that was authorized by Congress but never received by the commission.

The main problems with the agency have not been with its bureaucracy but with its budget and its leadership. The commission and the accounting board lost their chairmen last month when Harvey L. Pitt and William H. Webster resigned in the political turmoil over Mr. Webster's selection by the commission. With the selection of Mr. Donaldson, commission officials say that even before his confirmation, he will consult with the other commissioners to find a successor to Mr. Webster.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (2577)12/16/2002 11:33:23 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Respond to of 3602
 
After a Boom, There Will Be Scandal. Count on It.

December 16, 2002

By KURT EICHENWALD

nytimes.com

It was, it seemed, the year when corporate America went crooked as it never had before, when chicanery took the place of integrity, when wrongdoing exploded in ways that could not have been anticipated.

Then again, maybe it wasn't.

Despite all the surprise and anguish set off by corporate scandals, for many Wall Street historians and fraud aficionados, the year almost fits into a pattern, as the re-emergence of a moment that has become something of a tradition in the financial world. Most everyone knows of the business cycle of boom and bust, but what is less well known is capitalism's cycle of scandal.

"I can't think of a previous boom period, whether it was the 20's, the 60's or the 80's, where it hasn't ended up a bloody mess, with declining asset values and cases of fraud," said Charles R. Geisst, a Wall Street historian and author of "Wheels of Fortune," a history of the futures markets published in September by John Wiley & Sons.

Indeed, experts said, the emergence of frauds after the end of a market bubble is a predictable result of human nature.


"Fraud scandals follow bumps in the market as night follows day," said Stephen L. Meagher, who has taught courses on fraud and punishment at Stanford University. "Once there are pressures put on profits, the obvious incentive for management to maintain their lifestyle or their stock prices is to fiddle with the books."

And so, long before the names Enron and WorldCom became shorthand terms for accounting misdeeds, other names in just the last century came to be used to describe whole categories of fraud.

Take Charles Ponzi. Mr. Ponzi opened up shop in Boston with an outfit named — with what might appear a sense of future irony — the Securities and Exchange Company. By the summer of 1920, he was soliciting investors with offers of "international postal reply coupons" — in Mr. Ponzi's description, postage stamps that could be sold again and again. He promised 50 percent returns in 45 days and as much as 100 percent in 90 days.

Tens of thousands of investors poured millions of dollars into Mr. Ponzi's company, with the inflow eventually reaching as much as $250,000 a day. But the money was not actually being invested in anything. Instead, Mr. Ponzi simply paid early investors their returns with the money he received from later investors. But the game could not last forever, and eventually, after a Boston newspaper disclosed the truth about the scheme, Mr. Ponzi was sent to prison.

The market boom later that decade was a bubble of almost breath-taking proportions. Even regulators who should have known better were unwilling to put on the brakes. When the Federal Reserve in Washington decided to try to raise interest rates to cut short the stock rally in March 1929, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York countermanded the directive, instead injecting more money into the system to keep the euphoria going.

After the stock market crash, Senate hearings led by a special counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, were opened, and the American public heard horror stories about insider trading and stock manipulation by Wall Street insiders.

But Mr. Pecora's first witness, Richard Whitney — the president of the New York Stock Exchange and a man of stature and high repute in the investment world — seemed above reproach. Under cross-examination, Mr. Whitney defended the exchange's performance in the markets, proclaiming it to be "a perfect institution." There was no need, he proclaimed, for Congress to set up an agency to police the exchange; it could do the job itself.

A few years later, the exchange did ferret out a crook: Mr. Whitney himself. Throughout the boom years of the 1920's, the patrician trader had been an aggressive speculator in penny stocks, and he was hit with mammoth losses in the crash. To hide his failure, Mr. Whitney started stealing cash. He stole from his customers, including the New York Yacht Club, and he stole from a fund set up to aid the widows and orphans of brokers. And then he stole some more.

Caught by the exchange in 1938, Mr. Whitney eventually pleaded guilty to theft charges. He was the only prominent person to be imprisoned for fraud stemming from the crash; he served about three years in Sing Sing.

Some schemes, in retrospect, should have been obvious from the beginning. So it is with the one perpetrated in the late 1950's and early 1960's by Anthony DeAngelis, now known as the great salad oil swindler. Ultimately, he cheated giant financial institutions out of $175 million.

Mr. DeAngelis was the president of Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining, which had been formed to buy surplus vegetable oil from the government and sell it for export. Soon, Allied was borrowing millions of dollars, which it used to speculate in the futures market for vegetable oil; to secure the loans, Mr. DeAngelis pledged salad oil that the company had purportedly stored. The American Bureau of Statistics reported that the amount of oil handled by Allied was larger than the country's entire production of the commodity; still, no one blinked.

Eventually, in 1963, the truth came out — the tanks of salad oil were mostly filled with water. The loans were secured with nothing. Mr. DeAngelis went to prison for a crime that nearly bankrupted two large investment houses.

Ten years later, as the boom of the 1960's gave way to the bust of the 1970's, the next big scandal emerged, involving a company called Equity Funding. For years, that company sold a hybrid package of mutual funds and insurance. Dividends from the fund paid the insurance premiums, and Equity Funding then sold those policies to reinsurance companies. But eventually, the folks at Equity Funding decided to focus on just the last step and started selling reinsurers the policies of customers who did not exist.

Fake insurance policies — financed by nothing and for the benefit of no one — proved enormously profitable until 1973, when a company insider blew the whistle. The fraud ultimately opened a floodgate of lawsuits against the company's accounting firm and led to a number of changes in the ways accountants deal with their clients.

The merger boom of the 1980's produced an array of scoundrels, many of whom were discovered only after their co-conspirators betrayed them. It all started in 1986, when Dennis B. Levine, an investment banker from Drexel Burnham Lambert, was accused of engaging in illegal insider trading based on information he gleaned from his job.

Mr. Levine had not been alone in his efforts, and quickly named others with whom he had swapped information or cash. The biggest fish he named was none other than the country's most prominent arbitrager, Ivan F. Boesky.

When the government picked up Mr. Boesky, he in turn named others who had participated in illegal activities with him, including Michael R. Milken, who led Drexel's junk bond operation. A scandal that began as one involving just insider trading rapidly exposed a series of conspiracies that had festered on Wall Street, resulting in market manipulation, companies' being tricked into mergers and secret deals that allowed insiders to profit. Mr. Levine, Mr. Boesky, Mr. Milken and numerous others went to prison; Drexel ultimately went bankrupt.

The lesson of all this, experts said, is that investors should never grow so comfortable as to believe that the financial markets have been cleansed of potential scandal. Another will come along, on another day in another industry. The only question is when.

"This cycle goes back at least 300 years," John C. Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia University Law School, said of the constant re-emergence of scandal in the financial world. "It's just part of capitalism."