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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (395938)	7/3/2008 12:42:06 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584395

Other than authoring the legislation that enabled them to do much of what they did, you have a point. What allowed Enron to do what it did was a system in which CPAs who are not independent are conducting audits which require absolute independence and objectivity. You cannot be independent with respect to an examination if your livelihood depends on the outcome, which was the situation at Enron. While much has been made of the "Enron Loophole", there is no evidence to suggest (and it is highly likely) that continued regulation by SEC would have made one nickel's worth of difference. The same CPAs were doing the work, either way. The ultimate responsibility lies squarely with them. Now, Enron was, of course, primarily responsible for wrongdoing. But scams like this happen ALL THE TIME -- just not usually so big. The auditors could have stopped in an instant with a qualified opinion, but they failed to do so.