Post #20,431
12/5/01 10:44:15 PM
|
Eh?
Okay, so where's the stock GW held that he sold at high values before the value plunged? That kind of insider trading would be the equivalent of Hillary's future trading, or Whitewater.
Showing up at functions, or campaign contributions, is no evidence of nefarious doings.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #20,459
12/6/01 8:45:58 AM
|
Eh? Eh?
Showing up at functions, or campaign contributions, is no evidence of nefarious doings. Unless, of course, you're Buddhist. Or a Labor Leader. jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #20,472
12/6/01 10:34:23 AM
|
Oh yeah...
...cry separation of church and state until the rubber meets the road. Unless, of course, you're Buddhist... There's a little matter of legality...minor nit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,497
12/6/01 2:21:47 PM
|
So...
I guess Pat Robertson, Jerry Foulwell, et al are similarly not allowed to contribute? Another "minor nit" of legality?
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #20,474
12/6/01 11:06:09 AM
12/6/01 11:09:01 AM
|
Actually, check Enron's records...
it appears that they falified public records and reported generating earning far above actuals.
Then the President of the company sold stock.
So, wouldn't that be insider trading?
|
Post #20,483
12/6/01 12:20:33 PM
|
If so, it's more than insider trading...
which is trading based on non-public information. Falsifying public records is outright fraud, a more serious offense. Accounting practices vary and an auditor would know for sure.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,499
12/6/01 2:24:32 PM
|
Selling the stock...
...for a CEO is a little more complicated than y'all think. It has to be done via notice with the SEC and usually done over time..especially if the sales are large.
Insider trading for major execs could be charged for an unplanned sale (or buy) with a short time period of major announcements. Most of the convictions come from buys...but this guy could go down on the sale.
Falsifying records is what got the CFO canned already...and will likely end up costing Arthur Anderson a penny or 2 as well...since it appears that they signed off on these statements.
This situation will be better understood as more of the records make it into the public eye. It sounds to me like they were eseentially gambling on electricity futures...trying to hedge with derivatives...and doing it on money that apparently wasn't there....so it, in all, was one big clusterf***
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #20,559
12/6/01 7:52:06 PM
|
Hope that audit firm takes a big hit
From what we know at the moment, the falsified records were *majorly* falsified, not tiny tinkles of this or that. Arthur Anderson should have been able to sniff out something wrong. (On the other hand, as a programmer, I know how things might be pushed off and pushed off and fabricated convincingly... access to a couple of databases, a few judicious alterations.... hmmm. Doesn't excuse AA, but I can understand how foolery can go.)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #20,546
12/6/01 7:08:34 PM
|
Auditors
The ones who should be sued by the Enron stock holders are the audit firms that signed off on their financial statements. They were asleep at the switch.
OTOH
If people bought Enron because an analyst recommended it, it was a hot stock, a market maker or a leader on the Internet, then finding the person at fault is a simple process, look in the mirror.
The smooth transition of the marketplace to the post-Enron era proves the vibrancy of capitalist in the US.
|
