• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Enron Verdict

Mike

Well-known member
Lay and Skilling guilty.

Lay, Skilling Convicted in Enron Collapse
May 25 12:17 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

HOUSTON

Former Enron Corp. chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted Thursday of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud in a case born from one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history.

The verdict put the blame for the demise of what was once the nation's seventh-largest company squarely on its top two executives. It came in the sixth day of deliberations following a trial that lasted nearly four months.

Lay was also convicted of bank fraud and making false statements to banks in a separate trial related to his personal banking.

Lay was convicted on all six counts against him in the trial with Skilling. Skilling was convicted on 19 of the 28 counts against and acquitted on the remaining nine.

The former corporate titans are now convicted felons facing years in prison when the panel found them guilty of running an elaborate fraud that gave the nation's onetime seventh-largest company a glamorous illusion of success.

Jurors declared through their verdict that both men repeatedly lied to cover a vast web of unsustainable accounting tricks and failing ventures that shoved Enron into bankruptcy protection in December 2001.

The conviction was a major win for the government, serving almost as a bookend in an era that has seen prosecutors win convictions against executives from WorldCom Inc. to Adelphia Communications Corp. and homemaking maven Martha Stewart.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Mike said:
Lay and Skilling guilty.

Lay, Skilling Convicted in Enron Collapse
May 25 12:17 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

HOUSTON

Former Enron Corp. chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted Thursday of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud in a case born from one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history.

The verdict put the blame for the demise of what was once the nation's seventh-largest company squarely on its top two executives. It came in the sixth day of deliberations following a trial that lasted nearly four months.

Lay was also convicted of bank fraud and making false statements to banks in a separate trial related to his personal banking.

Lay was convicted on all six counts against him in the trial with Skilling. Skilling was convicted on 19 of the 28 counts against and acquitted on the remaining nine.

The former corporate titans are now convicted felons facing years in prison when the panel found them guilty of running an elaborate fraud that gave the nation's onetime seventh-largest company a glamorous illusion of success.

Jurors declared through their verdict that both men repeatedly lied to cover a vast web of unsustainable accounting tricks and failing ventures that shoved Enron into bankruptcy protection in December 2001.

The conviction was a major win for the government, serving almost as a bookend in an era that has seen prosecutors win convictions against executives from WorldCom Inc. to Adelphia Communications Corp. and homemaking maven Martha Stewart.

Oh, no, MRJ, what does this do to your theory that I say all big corporations are "bad" or "evil" or that they break the law?

Some are, some are not.
 

Mike

Well-known member
This verdict, if it stands, will open the doors to "Civil" lawsuits from people/employees who were coerced into investing their entire retirement losses in the Enron scams.

I hope these guys (and others like them) will have to trade their yachts in for a canoe in their trip up the creek.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Mike said:
This verdict, if it stands, will open the doors to "Civil" lawsuits from people/employees who were coerced into investing their entire retirement losses in the Enron scams.

I hope these guys (and others like them) will have to trade their yachts in for a canoe in their trip up the creek.

I wish they could go back and sue the congressmen/politicians that were bought off with corporate money to allow the frauds to continue as long as they did.

Then we might get some real change for the better in our country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ101 said:
Mike said:
This verdict, if it stands, will open the doors to "Civil" lawsuits from people/employees who were coerced into investing their entire retirement losses in the Enron scams.

I hope these guys (and others like them) will have to trade their yachts in for a canoe in their trip up the creek.

I wish they could go back and sue the congressmen/politicians that were bought off with corporate money to allow the frauds to continue as long as they did.

Then we might get some real change for the better in our country.

I agree with you both...The really sad situation is the little Joe Blow employees that worked for them and had their entire retirement pension funds wiped out... I know one fellow thats 60 years old that lost $800,000 in their company pension plan....
I truly think he should be allowed to decide their sentence- Like plucking one hair at a time....
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Come on fellas, let's put a little truth in here. First, what the he(( was sombody investing all his retirement in 1 company? GREED Second, Joe Schmoe lost "$800K" right? was that what he invested or what his investiments were worth at their highest inflated value? Exactly, the GREEDY SIMPLETONS saw everybody else turning $10k into $100k and had to get some. Literally the moron that perported to have lost $800k may have only invested $40k of his money in a highly speculative vehicle. What about the "Enron froze 401k activity so I couldn't get out" crybabies? well if you are swinging $800k in any 1 company you had [email protected] well better know how to short a stock so you could get out or offset your position even if the Enron 401k office is frozen.


If the Enron guys broke the law, we're all happy for the prosecution, but this deal is far too political. Additionally, unless the jury was a bunch of forensic accountants, they didn't understand what they were doing, and there is no justice there.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Additionally, unless the jury was a bunch of forensic accountants, they didn't understand what they were doing, and there is no justice there.

There were several professional people on the jury, Brad. Your views on juries is highly speculative and a big disappointment to the system of justice in the USA.

The manner in which a jury is chosen is as fair as you can get. Each side gets to strike one until the pool is dwindled down to the remaining jurors and alternates.

The laws say "PEERS", not rocket scientists.

:???: :???: :roll: :roll:

If there is anything unfair about the judicial system in the U.S., it is the appeals system. That court does not get to see and hear actual live testimony of witnesses and cannot use body language and voice inflections, etc. to determine the truth. Only the written words.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Come on fellas, let's put a little truth in here. First, what the he(( was sombody investing all his retirement in 1 company? GREED Second, Joe Schmoe lost "$800K" right? was that what he invested or what his investiments were worth at their highest inflated value? Exactly, the GREEDY SIMPLETONS saw everybody else turning $10k into $100k and had to get some. Literally the moron that perported to have lost $800k may have only invested $40k of his money in a highly speculative vehicle. What about the "Enron froze 401k activity so I couldn't get out" crybabies? well if you are swinging $800k in any 1 company you had [email protected] well better know how to short a stock so you could get out or offset your position even if the Enron 401k office is frozen.


If the Enron guys broke the law, we're all happy for the prosecution, but this deal is far too political. Additionally, unless the jury was a bunch of forensic accountants, they didn't understand what they were doing, and there is no justice there.

Brad- This was an employee of an enron subdivision--their retirement as set up by the company is share investments in the company, which I understand that if they cashed in preretirement would be penalized greatly- so they did not have much choice....And all federal regulators and company officials were giving shiny reports- which were made from the deceit of Skilling and Lay...

Stories of these frauds are getting to be a daily occurence- which may account for why Bush's private investment plan for Social Security bombed so bad....

Today the Great Falls Tribune has the following poll question:
Have American businesses regained the public trust that was lost after the Enron scandal?
85% have voted NO.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The collapse of pension plans due to the ERISA (retirement laws) loopholes for companies is one reason. Companies are using bankruptcy to get out of their pension liabilities.

On the judicial side, the judicial is allowing companies to make governments compete for their jobs through abuse of the interstate commerce act. In other words, the fed. govt. is allowing the states to bid down taxes for corporations to come and set up shop. These economic consequences will come back to haunt us all if the federal govt. does not change its tune.

This government, the executive and the legislative and judicial, has been asleep at the wheel so they could get re-elecition dollars. Enron was an example but there are many.

We have the best government money can buy.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Additionally, unless the jury was a bunch of forensic accountants, they didn't understand what they were doing, and there is no justice there.

There were several professional people on the jury, Brad. Your views on juries is highly speculative and a big disappointment to the system of justice in the USA.

The manner in which a jury is chosen is as fair as you can get. Each side gets to strike one until the pool is dwindled down to the remaining jurors and alternates.

The laws say "PEERS", not rocket scientists.

:???: :???: :roll: :roll:

If there is anything unfair about the judicial system in the U.S., it is the appeals system. That court does not get to see and hear actual live testimony of witnesses and cannot use body language and voice inflections, etc. to determine the truth. Only the written words.


I just hope the judge doesn't over rule the jury and dismiss the charges!!!!
 

TSR

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
Come on fellas, let's put a little truth in here. First, what the he(( was sombody investing all his retirement in 1 company? GREED Second, Joe Schmoe lost "$800K" right? was that what he invested or what his investiments were worth at their highest inflated value? Exactly, the GREEDY SIMPLETONS saw everybody else turning $10k into $100k and had to get some. Literally the moron that perported to have lost $800k may have only invested $40k of his money in a highly speculative vehicle. What about the "Enron froze 401k activity so I couldn't get out" crybabies? well if you are swinging $800k in any 1 company you had [email protected] well better know how to short a stock so you could get out or offset your position even if the Enron 401k office is frozen.


If the Enron guys broke the law, we're all happy for the prosecution, but this deal is far too political. Additionally, unless the jury was a bunch of forensic accountants, they didn't understand what they were doing, and there is no justice there.

Brad- This was an employee of an enron subdivision--their retirement as set up by the company is share investments in the company, which I understand that if they cashed in preretirement would be penalized greatly- so they did not have much choice....And all federal regulators and company officials were giving shiny reports- which were made from the deceit of Skilling and Lay...

Stories of these frauds are getting to be a daily occurence- which may account for why Bush's private investment plan for Social Security bombed so bad....

Today the Great Falls Tribune has the following poll question:
Have American businesses regained the public trust that was lost after the Enron scandal?
85% have voted NO.....

85% voted no in the poll???? Darn bunch of anti corporate whiners/blamers. Yeah right.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
There were several professional people on the jury, Brad. Your views on juries is highly speculative and a big disappointment to the system of justice in the USA.


Lets be clear, my kid's pediatrician is "a professional" but not sufficiently trained to evaluate technical accounting schemes that trained forensic accountants may well disagree over legality. I don't condemn our jury system (can I use that broad paintbrush of yours, I got 15 minutes to paint my barn), but I recognize the shortcomings of our jury system when they are finders of fact in an area they don't understand.




The manner in which a jury is chosen is as fair as you can get. Each side gets to strike one until the pool is dwindled down to the remaining jurors and alternates.

Is that how that works? Really? Are you oblivious or shading the truth about the group that self selects out of jury duty? You know, the guys that pretty much drive the economy.




The laws say "PEERS", not rocket scientists.

Thankyou Cap'n Obvious. Peers are perfect for finding fact like who is lieing, but analizing if an accounting practice falls within a particular standard where actual IRS accountants may well disagree is a clear shortcoming to the peer jury system.





If there is anything unfair about the judicial system in the U.S., it is the appeals system. That court does not get to see and hear actual live testimony of witnesses and cannot use body language and voice inflections, etc. to determine the truth. Only the written words.

Our appelate system is usually pretty good, that's why we go crazy when they do something stupid.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Brad- This was an employee of an enron subdivision--their retirement as set up by the company is share investments in the company, which I understand that if they cashed in preretirement would be penalized greatly- so they did not have much choice....And all federal regulators and company officials were giving shiny reports- which were made from the deceit of Skilling and Lay...


First, Enron would have been wildly profitable had Bush stayed with Kyoto

second, many analysts publicly avoided Enron during the 3 card monte days, fast and loose makes heros or dogs. There was no secret that Enron was playing fast and loose. They may have been illegal reports, but they weren't unknown to be shaky.

third, employees choose the distribution of their investiments - 100% company stock is highly risky and discouraged, but it is also highly lucrative when things are going well.

fourth, if you want out of a stock like Enron you redistribute your holdings, except Enron froze their retirement holdings. BUT THE GREEDY INVESTOR SHOULD HAVE SHORTED THE STOCK TO NUETRALIZE THEIR POSITION




Stories of these frauds are getting to be a daily occurence- which may account for why Bush's private investment plan for Social Security bombed so bad....

Guess it depends what you WANT to see because US securities are the envy of the world. Explain how the F$#@ the US can run a 5% trade deficit without crashing our Dollar. Sombody likes US securities transparency. Private retirement investiment failed because half the US electorate is so stupid as to believe New Mexico is another country. Really, half say this in "polls". So I'm defrauded everyday by Social Security returning .5% while the rest of the world gets wealthy "risking their wealth in US securities."





Today the Great Falls Tribune has the following poll question:
Have American businesses regained the public trust that was lost after the Enron scandal?
85% have voted NO.....

This is a "how high is up?" poll. How'bout "identify what nation has achieved the most useful transparancy in their securities."
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Brad- This was an employee of an enron subdivision--their retirement as set up by the company is share investments in the company, which I understand that if they cashed in preretirement would be penalized greatly- so they did not have much choice....And all federal regulators and company officials were giving shiny reports- which were made from the deceit of Skilling and Lay...


First, Enron would have been wildly profitable had Bush stayed with Kyoto

second, many analysts publicly avoided Enron during the 3 card monte days, fast and loose makes heros or dogs. There was no secret that Enron was playing fast and loose. They may have been illegal reports, but they weren't unknown to be shaky.

third, employees choose the distribution of their investiments - 100% company stock is highly risky and discouraged, but it is also highly lucrative when things are going well.

fourth, if you want out of a stock like Enron you redistribute your holdings, except Enron froze their retirement holdings. BUT THE GREEDY INVESTOR SHOULD HAVE SHORTED THE STOCK TO NUETRALIZE THEIR POSITION




Stories of these frauds are getting to be a daily occurence- which may account for why Bush's private investment plan for Social Security bombed so bad....

Guess it depends what you WANT to see because US securities are the envy of the world. Explain how the F$#@ the US can run a 5% trade deficit without crashing our Dollar. Sombody likes US securities transparency. Private retirement investiment failed because half the US electorate is so stupid as to believe New Mexico is another country. Really, half say this in "polls". So I'm defrauded everyday by Social Security returning .5% while the rest of the world gets wealthy "risking their wealth in US securities."





Today the Great Falls Tribune has the following poll question:
Have American businesses regained the public trust that was lost after the Enron scandal?
85% have voted NO.....

This is a "how high is up?" poll. How'bout "identify what nation has achieved the most useful transparancy in their securities."


Brad, did you watch the Frontline story the other night on "The End of Retirement"?

It was pretty interesting. In it one of the analysts asked the CEO of one of the companies if he would allow one of the employees to manage his retirement savings. He said absolutely not (paraphrasing), those employees didn't know enough to run his retirement plans.

The analyst said "exactly the point". Why are they forced to run thier own?

Many people don't have the financial background to manage their own retirement. They end up getting taken because the retirment savings they do have does not have enough in it for them to spend the time it takes to get a good risk adjusted return.

Most CEOs don't have that problem. Ken Lay and J. Skilling didn't.

The employees didn't make the decisions that lead to Enron's failure. Most didn't even know about it. To blame them for the Enron fiasco is blaming the victim. I am sure that if the employees did know about the deficiencies management was providing, they would have shorted the stock, as you suggest.

The SS surplus is earning the U.S. security rate. Your individual SS account is earning something less than that not because the SS is not earning U.S. security rates, but because that is how the system is set up. It does defraud the SS payers, but what else is new from Congress?

The SS surplus has been funding the U.S. govt. for some time and giving the free spending Congress a free ride for a long time. The deficit talked about is the deficit after SS surplus is taken into account.

Our system is about to hit an actuarial wall and Bush just tried to sell out the contributors so the free spending govt. could weasel out of their accountability.

His deficit spending has made things much, much, worse while giving the impression that things are "good" economically so he and his friends could get reelected. It is kind of like putting consumption on a credit card. Since you only have to pay a monthly fee, you can leverage it up pretty good and live beyond your means, making it look like your standard of living is great, while in truth, it is just an illusion.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Dude, I don't watch Frontline and I consider them to be terribly dishonest or stupid - I really believe they are biased and dishonest, not so much stupid. I've seen several times frontline refer to the "Reagan Bush deficits, and ofcourse Reagan inherited a 1 tril debt that grew to 4 tril in 12 years. If you do the math, at the prevailing interest rates Reagan inherited, paying interest on the debt would double it twice in 12 years. OFcourse national debt should be expressed as debt over GDP not simply debt, but frontline is too biased or stupid to grasp this principle so they puke more liberal dogma - on my FUC$ing dime. If you can deduct a pbs contribution I should be able to deduct a Rush Limbaugh contribution.


I agree many people shouldn't manage their own investiment portfolio, hell, some people hire their hair cut, I can't even time my wife's suburban, some people are mandated to hire a plumer to change a wax ring on their toilet. I hire my taxes done. BFD - some people shouldn't manage their own portfolios - and frontline acts like there is a story here.

Here is the story I'd like Frontline to address, why is freedom of choice the law of the land when it comes to exterminating babies, but I can't manage my money.


Where did I ever blame an employee for "the Enron fiasco" I didn't. I blame Enron employees for mismanaging their portfolios. Nice try though. Did you commit this error due to stupidity or dishonesty?



Yes Bush has been president during larger deficits, but when you get advanced beyond econ 101, you'll understand that these deficits were coming with or without Bush. The recession began during Klinton and Klinton exaserbated the recession by doing nothing about it because to do anything would include admitting he inherited an improving economy and his taxes caused a recession despite the tech buble that he had no cause in. Dude, you need to restrict your lame misunderstandings to pbs watching, volvo driving jerkoffs because I easily get tired of your stupidity.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Brad S said:
1. Dude, I don't watch Frontline and I consider them to be terribly dishonest or stupid - I really believe they are biased and dishonest, not so much stupid. I've seen several times frontline refer to the "Reagan Bush deficits, and ofcourse Reagan inherited a 1 tril debt that grew to 4 tril in 12 years. If you do the math, at the prevailing interest rates Reagan inherited, paying interest on the debt would double it twice in 12 years. OFcourse national debt should be expressed as debt over GDP not simply debt, but frontline is too biased or stupid to grasp this principle so they puke more liberal dogma - on my FUC$ing dime. If you can deduct a pbs contribution I should be able to deduct a Rush Limbaugh contribution.


2. I agree many people shouldn't manage their own investiment portfolio, hell, some people hire their hair cut, I can't even time my wife's suburban, some people are mandated to hire a plumer to change a wax ring on their toilet. I hire my taxes done. BFD - some people shouldn't manage their own portfolios - and frontline acts like there is a story here.

3. Here is the story I'd like Frontline to address, why is freedom of choice the law of the land when it comes to exterminating babies, but I can't manage my money.


4. Where did I ever blame an employee for "the Enron fiasco" I didn't. I blame Enron employees for mismanaging their portfolios. Nice try though. Did you commit this error due to stupidity or dishonesty?



5. Yes Bush has been president during larger deficits, but when you get advanced beyond econ 101, you'll understand that these deficits were coming with or without Bush. The recession began during Klinton and Klinton exaserbated the recession by doing nothing about it because to do anything would include admitting he inherited an improving economy and his taxes caused a recession despite the tech buble that he had no cause in. Dude, you need to restrict your lame misunderstandings to pbs watching, volvo driving jerkoffs because I easily get tired of your stupidity.

1. Brad, inflation is a monetar phenonena. It simply means there is too much money in the economy for the amount of goods/services. This is the main factor that affects interest rates, not necessarily the size of the debt. The minimum payment on the debt (interest) manytimes has little relevance to the risk the debt brings or its future consequences. It is only a measure of the "rent" for the money in a given economy. As I said, this "rent" for the use of this capital n the U.S. is more closely associated with inflation, not the consequences of the tax liablity necessary to pay the debt in the future. One day that will come and when it does, it will not be pretty. The debt is backed by the ability of the U.S. govt. to tax all of us. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to what will happen in the future when SS surplus can no longer be used for govt. debt servicing an it has to be paid back out in benefits (think higher taxes or much lower payments in SS). We are only fooling ourselves with the current policies.

I like discussions about economics but not with someone who needs to use profanity to show thier emotional baggage that largely comes from a right wing nut hipocrit talk show nut. I like to listen to Rush sometimes but I have no problem discerning fact from fiction as you seem to. Same with pbs. When you listen to either one, you still have to think on your own.

As far as how the national debt is expressed, you should familiarize yourself with all of the ways it can be expressed and what it means. I do. It is still very concerning no matter how you look at it.

2. Since you didn't watch the Frontline show, and I only posted one small paraphrase from it, why are you judging that particular epidsode? I was only answering the argument that was posed about Enron's retirement plan (and a lot of other companies's retirement plan set up that seems to give choices but really doesn't). The Frontline show offered little new information to me (my discussions about UAL with Agman on this board predated the show) but it was very informative about the issues and actual events regarding retirement in the economy. Again, I might have the knowledge base to understand all of the information they brought up in the show but the average Joe does not. It was very informative, and accurate, in that regard. This thread wasn't about Frontline, it was about Enron. You are the one trying to warp it into that discussion.

3. You can manage your own money, Brad S. You can also determine whether or not you will have an abortion or influence those around you to not have one if you so chose. It is still a free country and you should work on both of these issues. Having the govt. save you on either one is foolish. Submit your request to Frontline and see if they might be intrested in a story for you if you like.

4. The Enron fiasco was managed by those who were just convicted. I would be mad too a company I invested in did the things they did. The employees have every right to expect a better preformance by public companies. Our systems of accountability that have been legislated have been shown to not be working the way they should and Congress, in its attempt to cater to the businesses that feeds their campaign money additiction, are not adequately addressing these issues when they first show up. Neither is the juducical system or the excecutive branch. As I said, we have a sorry bunch of politicians running the country right now that don't know how to govern.

5. Deficits happen when Congress can not help but spend the taxpayer money faster than the govt. can bring it in. There are economic reasons why some deficits are not necessarily "bad" and may help the growth in the economy. (Has to do with the money supply, the velocity of money; Those reasons should not be continually used to excuse Congress's perenial problem of overspending. Congress/the pres. leveraging us to a very dangerous level in light of the upcoming SS and medicaid actuarial problems. I have seen the consequences of such policies in people's lives and it isn't pretty.

To understand this topic on a more in depth level than Rush Limbaugh can provide, you need to know some of the basics. Here is a site for the basic equation of money supply:

http://tinyurl.com/phptm

Before getting too deep into this, you might want do do as Dave Ramsey suggests and listen to the advice your grandmother would have given you. If you had a good grandmother, you could save yourself a lot of hassle trying to understand it. Rush Limbaugh is no substitute for a good grandmother.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike: "If there is anything unfair about the judicial system in the U.S., it is the appeals system. That court does not get to see and hear actual live testimony of witnesses and cannot use body language and voice inflections, etc. to determine the truth. Only the written words."

This ridiculous statement would imply that juries know more about the law than judges.

Judges keep the system honest when juries are confused between normal market reactions to supply and demand and "ALLEGED" market manipulation.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Mike: "If there is anything unfair about the judicial system in the U.S., it is the appeals system. That court does not get to see and hear actual live testimony of witnesses and cannot use body language and voice inflections, etc. to determine the truth. Only the written words."


This ridiculous statement would imply that juries know more about the law than judges.

Judges keep the system honest when juries are confused between normal market reactions to supply and demand and "ALLEGED" market manipulation.


~SH~


Yes. Juries are to judge the facts, not judges. When judges do it, they better have real credible evidence to back their claim, not a bunch of campaign contributions to the people who appointed them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "When judges do it, they better have real credible evidence to back their claim, not a bunch of campaign contributions to the people who appointed them."

Judge's judge the facts presented to the jury ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Juries do not know more about the law than judges.

Campaign contributions? Yet another baseless conspiracy theory from the "LYING KING".


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "When judges do it, they better have real credible evidence to back their claim, not a bunch of campaign contributions to the people who appointed them."

Judge's judge the facts presented to the jury ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Juries do not know more about the law than judges.

Campaign contributions? Yet another baseless conspiracy theory from the "LYING KING".


~SH~

Then they need to start following it instead of picking their winner in the cases.
 
Top