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.
Hmmmmm?? And ... what were they afraid would be disclosed? Besides all their phoney companies, were they trying to hide the money they were giving to Clinton (aside from the regular donations which are on the books)???
These are the same people that denied, ignored, and just plain stone-walled all the massive evidence - in so many areas - regarding the Clintons and their combination crime-treason machine.
Now, it is as though the scales of vision - moral and ethical blinders, so to speak - have fallen from their eyes. They seek something that so far is just not there. And in fact, in doing so, the true corruption of the last eight years quickly comes back into view, for all to see.
I love the smell of burnt liberals in the morning!
The Energy issue is boiling hot in DC. The 'Cheney Task Force' was a target from day one - because it was secret. The Dems vociferously protested, saying Reps were equally furious about Hillary's Health Care Task Force. They refuse to understand the objection: HILLARY WAS NOT ELECTED!
If you remember, during the run-up to the election, the 'BIG OIL' and ANWAR issues were front and center of the argument by the Dems - Bush would poison the environment, destroy the pristine Alaskan wilderness, etc. Bush won the election and that took the wind out of their sails until the energy bill started to percolate.
All of this served to produce a result little noticed by the Dems and the press at the time: the public is not surprised at the connection between Bush/Cheney and energy. Bush was talking up policies that would benefit Enron and others more than 2 years ago.
Enron is a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts of money private placement investors and equity investors lost in the dot.com farce. But it was great for the shorts. I'd like to see how much money the big brokerage firms racked in pumping and dumping. 100's of billions, if not trillions of dollars.
It was insane and the Clinton administration turned a blind eye. And why not? Easy way to rake in dough than cattle futures or flipping properties. Even better than fleecing the tobacco companies.
The accounting rules for companies to go public need to be looked at, as well as those for staying public. And companies should have to provide this data on time! Plus, their should be D&O insurance requirements based on the companies value. The more the company is worth the more insurance the D&O's should have. I'm not exactly sure what changes need to be made to insider trading.
Perhaps so, but 2 years ago, he wasn't in a position to do anything about it, nor has he done anything about it since he's been president, unless you want to claim that provisions in the energy bill would benefit Enron--but they'd probably benefit other energy companies as well--not solely Enron.
What is quickly coming to the fore is that the Clinton Administration gave all kinds of help to Enron--trade junkets, India plant, possibly asking the SEC to waive filing requirements for Enron's operations.
I just don't think there's a there there. What the Democrats are accusing Bush of, he didn't do--but Clinton did.
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.