Posted on 01/19/2002 6:07:06 AM PST by VRWC_minion
WASHINGTON -- The Securities and Exchange Commission didn't do a thorough review Enron Corp.'s annual reports for at least three years prior to the energy trading company's collapse, people with knowledge of the process told The Wall Street Journal. Twice in the 1990s, the regulator gave Enron waivers from two regulations that would have triggered extensive financial disclosures about its operations. The Enron (ENRNQ) scandal has raised numerous questions about the checks and balances in America's financial system. A major issue: How did such a major company get away with making indecipherable disclosures about its far-flung trading operations and complicated corporate structure, which Wall Street analysts and some Enron executives confessed they couldn't understand? One answer that is starting to emerge from people familiar with the regulatory system is that the SEC failed to conduct a thorough review of the company's financial statements, even though the agency is responsible for reviewing investor disclosure documents to make sure companies clearly explain their operations, financial condition and risks. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, recently asked the SEC in a letter how it failed "to require adequate disclosures over the years." An SEC spokesman declined Thursday to comment on the details of how the agency handled Enron over the past decade. An Enron spokesman also declined to comment. Enron's problems escaped earlier detection in part because the SEC wasn't looking. Staff in the SEC's division of corporation finance, which reviews annual reports and company applications to sell stock, most recently studied Enron's annual reports for 1996 and 1997. Internal records show the SEC had looked at those Enron statements because there is a record of two comment letters with questions for Enron about the reports in September 1997 and September 1998, although the specific details of the inquiries aren't clear.
Copyright © 2001. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Enron_List, click below: | ||||
click here >>> | Enron_List | <<< click here | ||
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) |
That's an easy one, Rep. Dingell. Clinton told them to lay off.
Of course, you're not going to find anyone to say that. If any are called to testify, we'll be treated to the habitual "I don't recall" or "it must have been a bureaucratic snafu".
Nonetheless, the question as to how the SEC failed to require adequate disclosures is a valid one and should be asked again and again, if only to drive home the absolute incompetence of the Clinton Administration.
How come the www.sec.gov site only has pictures of three SEC commissioners, Chairman Pitt and two Clinton appointees? Has the Senate been blocking appointments to the SEC as well?
Good question. I can only speculate. First, I think the Democrats are getting extremely frustrated and angry at hitting brick walls every time the take on George Bush. He outwits and outmaneuvers them at every turn. It's doubly frustrating because they were convinced that Bush was a fumbling, bumbling idiot who barely knew enough to come inside when it was raining. When people are extremely frustrated and angry, they do stupid, desperate things.
Secondly, I think the Democrats are looking for anything to "pay back" the GOP for daring to impeach Clinton. It's not enough to bottle up Bush's agenda in the Senate, as Daschle is doing. They want a scandal they can use to bring down Bush. In their haste to tie Enron around Bush's neck, they neglected to consider the possibility that they would be unsuccessful in that endeavor, but instead might reap the unlikely consequences that they would be tieing Enron around their own necks. The presstitutes have been working 24/7 to help the Democrats in this regard, but so far, it's just not sticking and finally the presstitutes are reaching a crossroads. Do they want to continue beating on Enron even though deeper investigation is pointing clearly to improprieties in Clinton's dealings with Enron? Tough choice. Each Enron rock that is turned over seems to have a bunch of worms under it and the faces on lots of those worms are that of Clinton.
Feel free to add to my speculations.
And I had been right about Arthur Levitt being SEC Chairman when the events the article discusses happened. He resigned in early 2001, after having served as chairman for eight years, i.e., essentially the whole of the Clinton presidency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.