Actually, check Enron's records...

Post #20,474 by Simon_Jester 12/6/01 11:06:09 AM 12/6/01 11:09:01 AM Reply	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? Edited by Simon_Jester Dec. 6, 2001, 11:09:01 AM EST Neither is holding stocking in a failing S&L.... but it doesn't stop you from getting investigated, does it. Collapse All History
Post #20,483 by a6l6e6x 12/6/01 12:20:33 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 12/6/01 2:24:32 PM Reply	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 by wharris2 12/6/01 7:52:06 PM Reply	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 by Decco Dave 12/6/01 7:08:34 PM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!