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: willcousa who wrote (174892)	6/23/2003 4:51:24 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The word was that new hires were encouraged to find anything possible to make a buck. But what brought enron down, was Sen. Dianne Fienstien who got really pissed at Enron who was part of a government boondogle which resulted in California giving away its energy plants and then having to buy back the same energy, which enron gladly sold back to cal at the rate of 16 Billion dollars A YEAR!!! The constant attacks by Fieinstein thru the various energy agencies was not good. This exposed the weakness. A substantial amount of the assets of the company were sold off and dummy companies* were formed which borrow 16 billion dollars from Citcorp then Enron contributed stock to these dummy corps debt to secure the debt. Since the company was not a subsidiary, no debt showed up on the Enron balance sheet. Since a company can issue new stock with out balance sheet or income sheet consequence, no debt or expense showed up on the enron statements. When Dianne's investigation got too heavy Citicorp pulled the plug, foreclosed on its loans and sold the stock thru Smith Barney and others to the little people. "Derivatives" was just a smoke screen. Why do you think Elliot Spitzer blew a fuse when Sandy Weil, chairman of Citicorp, was going to be on the Board of the New York Stock Exchange. All of the forgoing and subsequent is my opinion only based on my opinion public reports. You are 100% correct by the way. This was all Citicorp's Idea. They are the one's who convinced Enron that this was legal. They are the one's who brought the deal to Enron. And in that light what was Arthur Anderson to do? Say no to Citicorp???? I am not defending AA by the way, they should have been hung out to dry. *The way the companies were formed fit the techical definition of "Independent", not subsidiary. Banks call them "counterparties"; they really don't exist but for purposes of the present transaction. This is why after the last Depression of 1929, banks were prohibited from owning Stock Brokers under Glass Stegall.