you are probably right but I think PGabriel put it better My Point was The impact of their action versus and individual act of a person. A guy robs one liquor store gets 20 yrs while a con man takes millions and put hundreds out of work get maybe 5 . .. is that right? Rocket River
I agree that there was deception at the top ranks of Enron. But I believe that each employee must remain vigilant as to their own job. If you don't look out for the best interest of yourself, who will? If this means learning of the pitfulls of investing all retirement monies in company stock- Yes. If that means educating yourself on stock price and movement that you are so heavily invested in- Yes.
That was not the Question The question was: Do you beleive Con Games should be illegal? Yes or No or some should some shouldn't [if this last one please explain] Rocket River
Depends, con games happen all the time and are not prosecuted. Con games happen in Washington, "for the best interest" of the citizenry and isn't prosecuted. Con games happen in Wall Street, pump and dump schemes, but rarely get prosecuted. Yes, they are illegal, but nothing is done to stop them. Pump and dump schemes have taken amounts far greater than the losses at Enron will ever amount to.
Skilling was recommending my dad and uncle to invest in Enron just a few weeks before the collapse. good thing they didn't listen.
So your average secretary at Enron was supposed to figure out what all the Wall Street analysts couldn't? Probably true, but if I'm not mistaken (you would know more than me) wasn't the fact that Skilling was going to be replaced by Lay perceived as a positive instead of a negative at Enron? I thought the image was portrayed as Lay coming back as a hero on a fine white steed to save the company. They believed that because that's what their employer was telling them (along with Wall Street, who believed it too) at the time. Again, I'm not sure how your average lower level Enron employee is supposed to figure out what many analysts couldn't.
I will listen to this trial very closely and my opinions could surely change, but right now I think that Skilling is guilty and Lay is innocent.
You don't seem to know that much about securities litigation - when there is any hint of wrongdoing and it comes to the attention of the authorities, federal, state & local regulators tend to pursue investigations rather vigorously - not to mention private enforcement insofar as the plaintiffs bar files suit after suit every time a stock price drops. Is every scam ever always prosecuted? No....but so what difference does that make? Does every incidence of drug trafficking result in a prosecution. No. Does every incidence of speeding result in a traffic ticket? No. Does that make any difference as to the legality of Enron & its accomplices actions. Absolutely not.
Good God man! That's well after Skilling himself had cashed out and wiped his hands clean from any stock that he owned. What a piece of sh*t.
Funny since Skilling left 6 months before the downfall... This is a controversial subject because managers/executives damn well better believe in their actions to be able to run a company. Being optimistic and rallying support for the company by saying that they'll come back to become a great company again is part of being a leader. It's hard to judge somebody for encouraging people to invest in their company. However, selling shares while advocating this is certainly questionable, but many times executives will sell shares for liquidity reasons as opposed to them simply not believing in the company.
Houston Business Journal - 1:17 PM CST Tuesday Rice takes stand in Enron trial LATEST NEWS - "Skilling didn't want to hear any bad news." http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2006/02/13/daily19.html?t=printable In his first day on the witness stand in the Enron Corp. trial, Ken Rice, former CEO of Enron's broadband division, described the cratering of that business by the end of 2000 and behind-the-scenes efforts to present a rosier picture to the investment community. Although the broadband unit faced a loss in 2001 of $489 million, then-Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling told Rice and other broadband executives that he "didn't want to hear any bad news. Instead, the company reported at a January 2001 analysts' conference that it expected the broadband business to lose just $65 million, which Rice testified would have indicated continuing growth in the two-year-old business. Jeffrey Skilling, Rice said, insisted on that number even after a budget meeting in which Rice and others crunched numbers and came up with a purported $110 million loss. But Skilling insisted on $65 million, Rice testified, because Skilling said it would "be a better figure to communicate to investors. It would show we were progressing in our business." Asked by the prosecutor whether he thought that number was achievable, Rice said he thought it was "very unlikely." Meanwhile, the unit's costs were about $600 million. "We were generating almost no revenues," he said. "We had very few customers and almost no deal flow and our prospects were not good for getting deal flow." Rice described the loss of a hoped-for deal with Microsoft Corp. in January 2001 that was "the only deal on the horizon that really had a chance of getting us close to getting our numbers." After that blow, Rice said he discussed with Skilling once again changing the budget numbers for the broadband business for 2001, but Skilling "said we needed to stick with the numbers because were getting a lot of pressure from analysts and he didn't need any more bad news." Rice has pled guilty to once count of securities fraud in a deal in which he is cooperating with the government in its case against Skilling and Kenneth Lay. That charge arose from information Rice allegedly told investors about Enron's broadband business during a January 2001 analysts' conference call. Rice faces a prison sentence of zero to 10 years. He has forfeited $14 million in assets and cash to the government plus a $1 million fine to the Securities & Exchange Commission. Rice said he made between $40 million and $50 million from sales of Enron (Pink Sheets: ECSPQ) stock while he was with the company.
It's in Federal Court, which does not allow cameras in the courtroom. As a matter of fact, there's only a few seats in the courtroom available to the media. Most of the media has to stay in a room down the hall, watching on a closed circuit camera, which doesn't move, so the media can't see anything other than the witness. Can't see the attorneys, jury or the exhibits....
[Rant] There is nothing more pathetic than watching the prosecution sidestep accounting issues in an accounting fraud trail. Oh, and SOX is moronic to epic proportions. [/Rant]
