Are the people who say they lost millions (or at least substantial amounts) counting only their contributions, or are they counting the gains from those contributions had they sold them at their highest worth?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
law, smaw...who cares...? the point is the employees should have known they were being duped, done some research and prepared for the consequences of someone doing something illegal...
Are the people who say they lost millions (or at least substantial amounts) counting only their contributions, or are they counting the gains from those contributions had they sold them at their highest worth?
Just 'cause I want to know...
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
law, smaw...who cares...? the point is the employees should have known they were being duped, done some research and prepared for the consequences of someone doing something illegal...
and if a drunk driver drives on the wrong side of the road.. and kills you! You'd agree that you should have done the reasearch to see if there was a drunk drivers coming around the blind corner before you proceeded?
Hmmm, I am not familiar with that law. I assume you are referring to the enforcement of the law. I can accept that.
In part, yes. But think about it for a second. Every quarter hundreds of companies beat their expected published earnings. Meaning that they sold more than they told people they were going to. But most would never consider prosecuting such an act or questioning how they did that. Why?
Furthermore, Enron's malfeasance was going on for a long time. But the investigation only started after it was too late to do anything about it. Why?
No, these shares of stock were being sold to the public right?
Depends on what you mean by "the public". Those shares were sold to employees, 3rd party investors, and Ken Lay and his cronies.
In part, yes. But think about it for a second. Every quarter hundreds of companies beat their expected published earnings. Meaning that they sold more than they told people they were going to. But most would never consider prosecuting such an act or questioning how they did that. Why?
Furthermore, Enron's malfeasance was going on for a long time. But the investigation only started after it was too late to do anything about it. Why?
Depends on what you mean by "the public". They shares were sold to employees, 3rd party investors, and Ken Lay and his cronies.
You are getting dizzy..
in your first statement - there are estimates.. projections.. they are not expected to match when the actuals come in. they are based upon factual information available at the time of the projection. There is no fraud there.
so Enron was not a publically traded company? I was not aware of that. but no matter. they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly.
and if a drunk driver drives on the wrong side of the road.. and kills you! You'd agree that you should have done the reasearch to see if there was a drunk drivers coming around the blind corner before you proceeded?
now your getting it...:)
that is correct...if a person is a victim of a crime, that person is to blame for allowing themselves to become a victim...it the "she should not have dressed so sexy" rape defense...an oldie but a goodie...
I felt sorry for Ken Lay in the end. He reminded me of Elmer Fudd.
That look is just another tool in his bag of deception. To be sure, he was a cold hearted businessman - that was very educated and seasoned and filled with a very comprehensive understanding of how business works and the consequences of his actions.
likely he crafted a clever rationalization to help him sleep at night and wake up in the morning. That skill is sooooo dangerous and very prevalent amonst humans.
that is correct...if a person is a victim of a crime, that person is to blame for allowing themselves to become a victim...it the "she should not have dressed so sexy" rape defense...an oldie but a goodie...
ok.. well then I'd have to agree with you. If you see the similarity - and feel this to be true, there is no arguing.
We accept the dangers of our choices - and therefore we are complicit in all that happens to us.
okey dokey...
I take many risks everyday...... and as my kids get older and don't depend on my for so much.. I will no longer feel the need to believe I will last much longer. No expectations - just choices -
"Thousands of Enron employees and investors lost their life savings, children's college funds, and pensions when Enron collapsed. A lawsuit on the behalf of a group of Enron's shareholders has been filed against Enron executives and directors. This lawsuit accuses twenty-nine of these executives and directors of insider trading and misleading the public.
Because the 401(k) plan is a defined contribution plan, there was no PBGC insurance and employees lost the money they invested in Enron stock. They could only sue those considered a fiduciary for breach of their duty of care based on ERISA Section 404."
First of all, if they are counting contributions (stock purchases) that the company gave them as compensation, then they really didn't put anything into the stock.
Secondly, if they are counting the growth of those stocks in their losses, then they have to attribute that growth to the leadership of the company. "You take the good, you take the bad...."
Thirdly, if they took their other retirement savings and children's college fund, etc., and placed it into a single company's stock, then they were undertaking an EXTREMELY risky financial endevour...probably in the name of personal greed.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
ok.. well then I'd have to agree with you. If you see the similarity - and feel this to be true, there is no arguing.
We accept the dangers of our choices - and therefore we are complicit in all that happens to us.
okey dokey...
I take many risks everyday...... and as my kids get older and don't depend on my for so much.. I will no longer feel the need to believe I will last much longer. No expectations - just choices -
It makes you wonder why we even have laws...;)
as you said, everything is a choice...and if a person chooses to become a victim of a crime because they did not research, then that's on them...
welcome to thunderdome...two enter, one comes out....I'm glad our modern society has finally adopted this line of thinking....:cool:
"Thousands of Enron employees and investors lost their life savings, children's college funds, and pensions when Enron collapsed. A lawsuit on the behalf of a group of Enron's shareholders has been filed against Enron executives and directors. This lawsuit accuses twenty-nine of these executives and directors of insider trading and misleading the public.
Because the 401(k) plan is a defined contribution plan, there was no PBGC insurance and employees lost the money they invested in Enron stock. They could only sue those considered a fiduciary for breach of their duty of care based on ERISA Section 404."
First of all, if they are counting contributions (stock purchases) that the company gave them as compensation, then they really didn't put anything into the stock.
Secondly, if they are counting the growth of those stocks in their losses, then they have to attribute that growth to the leadership of the company. "You take the good, you take the bad...."
Thirdly, if they took their other retirement savings and children's college fund, etc., and placed it into a single company's stock, then they were undertaking an EXTREMELY risky financial endevour...probably in the name of personal greed.
first: if they were compensated (i.e. payed) is stock, in lieu of cash, then I feel they did put something in, they worked...
second: I would agree if nothing illegal was done...
third: I notice the word "if"...perhaps "if" they did so, they had there reasons..as for assuming greed was a factor is just that, assuming...
I wonder, are those who work for a paycheck greedy...? how about those who invest...are they greedy..? where is the line crossed..?
You are getting dizzy..
in your first statement - there are estimates.. projections.. they are not expected to match when the actuals come in. they are based upon factual information available at the time of the projection. There is no fraud there.
There's not??? See this is what I'm talking about. Because the company profits and no one gets hurt, you immediately rule out the possibility of fraud in those statements. Reread your own statement above.
This is where Enron, its employees and investors went wrong. They assumed that when everyone is making money, nothing can be going wrong!
so Enron was not a publically traded company? I was not aware of that. but no matter. they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly.
Enron was definitely traded on the public market.
Regardless, the second part of your statement is mostly true and very important. Let's look at it again:
"they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly."
Again, that's mostly true. Some employees and investors were aware, at least in part, of the culture of fraud. But most were not. If they would have known, they never would have invested. Now let's ask ourselves why they didn't know. The information was out there. Enron's stock had fallen nearly 75% during the months leading up to the collapse. Many top-level executives and other shareholders were frantically selling Enron's stock because they knew what they were dealing with. The Enron execs knew they were running a house of cards and other investors knew where their profit was coming from: the confidence of the public, engineered by Lay, Skilling, the media, foolish analysts, institutional investors and the acceptance by the public investors and employees. But that confidence was dwindling and those investors were getting out. Why was the confidence dwindling? Because Enron's profits were getting tighter and tighter, its numbers looking more and more suspicious, and legal insider trading was rising.
If one examines the trail of purchasing and deceit, one discovers something quite interesting. Enron's stock price was based on no objective value for nearly 10 years. Any "gains" anyone made from Enron's stock were gains made via fraud. It's not as if Enron's stock price hit $89 legitimately and then hit $90 via fraud. The objective value of a share of Enron was $0 for years...the market price was based on nothing more than confidence. And every single investor in Enron willingly paid for that confidence based on their own confidence. There was not a single objective piece of evidence that said Enron was a healthy entity. There was only earnings reports showing profit, which as you indicate above, could never mean fraud. It was only when Enron released a report that showed a massive loss that the investigations started, that the labels of "fraud" and "promises" and "lies" were thrown around.
There's not??? See this is what I'm talking about. Because the company profits and no one gets hurt, you immediately rule out the possibility of fraud in those statements. Reread your own statement above.
This is where Enron, its employees and investors went wrong. They assumed that when everyone is making money, nothing can be going wrong!
Enron was definitely traded on the public market.
Regardless, the second part of your statement is mostly true and very important. Let's look at it again:
"they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly."
Again, that's mostly true. Some employees and investors were aware, at least in part, of the culture of fraud. But most were not. If they would have known, they never would have invested. Now let's ask ourselves why they didn't know. The information was out there. Enron's stock had fallen nearly 75% during the months leading up to the collapse. Many top-level executives and other shareholders were frantically selling Enron's stock because they knew what they were dealing with. The Enron execs knew they were running a house of cards and other investors knew where their profit was coming from: the confidence of the public, engineered by Lay, Skilling, the media, foolish analysts, institutional investors and the acceptance by the public investors and employees. But that confidence was dwindling and those investors were getting out. Why was the confidence dwindling? Because Enron's profits were getting tighter and tighter, its numbers looking more and more suspicious, and legal insider trading was rising.
If one examines the trail of purchasing and deceit, one discovers something quite interesting. Enron's stock price was based on no objective value for nearly 10 years. Any "gains" anyone made from Enron's stock were gains made via fraud. It's not as if Enron's stock price hit $89 legitimately and then hit $90 via fraud. The objective value of a share of Enron was $0 for years...the market price was based on nothing more than confidence. And every single investor in Enron willingly paid for that confidence based on their own confidence. There was not a single objective piece of evidence that said Enron was a healthy entity. There was only earnings reports showing profit, which as you indicate above, could never mean fraud. It was only when Enron released a report that showed a massive loss that the investigations started, that the labels of "fraud" and "promises" and "lies" were thrown around.
sigh.. once again I have to sort through all your excuses and rationalizations for your incorrect statements.. I am growing tired.
how about addressing the entire post, rather than cherry-picking...?
I wasn't trying to cherry pick. The post was directed at another poster and that one question stuck out to me. But if you want my opinion to the rest of the post, here it is:
first: if they were compensated (i.e. payed) is stock, in lieu of cash, then I feel they did put something in, they worked...
Agreed. They deserve compensation from their work. And they received it in money and in stock. Money is paper whose value is not tied to a company which those people were free to do with as they pleased. Stock is paper whose value is tied to a company's performance. If you receive one share of stock and the company tanks, you still have one share of stock.
second: I would agree if nothing illegal was done...
But the objective value upon receipt of those shares was $0, realized some time later. Without Enron's malfeasance, that share would have been worth less than $1 (and likely $0) at any point in Enron's modern existence.
third: I notice the word "if"...perhaps "if" they did so, they had there reasons..as for assuming greed was a factor is just that, assuming...
But the whole issue hinges on that "if". Enron employees and investors that did not invest in Enron lost nothing.
I wonder, are those who work for a paycheck greedy...?
No. Those who expect a paycheck without reason are greedy.
I wasn't trying to cherry pick. The post was directed at another poster and that one question stuck out to me. But if you want my opinion to the rest of the post, here it is:
Agreed. They deserve compensation from their work. And they received it in money and in stock. Money is paper whose value is not tied to a company which those people were free to do with as they pleased. Stock is paper whose value is tied to a company's performance. If you receive one share of stock and the company tanks, you still have one share of stock.
But the objective value upon receipt of those shares was $0, realized some time later. Without Enron's malfeasance, that share would have been worth less than $1 (and likely $0) at any point in Enron's modern existence.
But the whole issue hinges on that "if". Enron employees and investors that did not invest in Enron lost nothing.
No. Those who expect a paycheck without reason are greedy.
No. Those who invest without reason are greedy.
When one sacrifices reason for money.
I'm sorry I asked...;)
you keep discussing "reason"...is that not a term that is nearly impossible to define...? Honestly, I don't understand what you mean by "without reason"....and what it has do with Lay duping his employees...
Thought is hard. It certainly is easier to find a handful of men and lynch them for mistakes they only paid a part in.
its easier if you are sincere and only say things that are true. and only strive for the truth, rahter that proving some point you feel needs to be made about society.
I don't disagree with your contention that we allow this kind of thing too often and that all large companies use similar tactics to make themselves look better - and imporve their portfolios. In fact i believe our whole economy is built on a foundation of deceipt.
That is a separate issue. The bottom line is that Lay stole from many investers as well as other debtors, suppliers, distributors and anyone else Enron owed money to.
As a whole we do a pretty good job of providing a nice quality of live for many people. We balance many things that allows these billions of people to share the planet. We can not just abandon it - we have to look at it more honestly and make adjustments slowly and continue to analyze honestly and at the same time find a goal that can be agreed upon by many.
being emotional and pretending that what Lay did is OK just because others are worse and still getting away with it, only serves to cloud the issue and perpetuates it.
Lay was a theif, and he hurt many honest hard working people that did their part in good faith - If doing your part in good faith is not enough - then clearly things need to change - but that is not the fault of the people that did their part in good faith.
Comments
Yes.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Good Good
and that is against the law right?
Only if the company loses money.
Hmmm, I am not familiar with that law. I assume you are referring to the enforcement of the law. I can accept that.
Now, these shares of stock were being sold to the public right?
law, smaw...who cares...? the point is the employees should have known they were being duped, done some research and prepared for the consequences of someone doing something illegal...
Just 'cause I want to know...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and if a drunk driver drives on the wrong side of the road.. and kills you! You'd agree that you should have done the reasearch to see if there was a drunk drivers coming around the blind corner before you proceeded?
In part, yes. But think about it for a second. Every quarter hundreds of companies beat their expected published earnings. Meaning that they sold more than they told people they were going to. But most would never consider prosecuting such an act or questioning how they did that. Why?
Furthermore, Enron's malfeasance was going on for a long time. But the investigation only started after it was too late to do anything about it. Why?
Depends on what you mean by "the public". Those shares were sold to employees, 3rd party investors, and Ken Lay and his cronies.
You are getting dizzy..
in your first statement - there are estimates.. projections.. they are not expected to match when the actuals come in. they are based upon factual information available at the time of the projection. There is no fraud there.
so Enron was not a publically traded company? I was not aware of that. but no matter. they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly.
now your getting it...:)
that is correct...if a person is a victim of a crime, that person is to blame for allowing themselves to become a victim...it the "she should not have dressed so sexy" rape defense...an oldie but a goodie...
That look is just another tool in his bag of deception. To be sure, he was a cold hearted businessman - that was very educated and seasoned and filled with a very comprehensive understanding of how business works and the consequences of his actions.
likely he crafted a clever rationalization to help him sleep at night and wake up in the morning. That skill is sooooo dangerous and very prevalent amonst humans.
I'm unsure...but it's a good question...
ok.. well then I'd have to agree with you. If you see the similarity - and feel this to be true, there is no arguing.
We accept the dangers of our choices - and therefore we are complicit in all that happens to us.
okey dokey...
I take many risks everyday...... and as my kids get older and don't depend on my for so much.. I will no longer feel the need to believe I will last much longer. No expectations - just choices -
I thought so too. From Wikipedia:
"Thousands of Enron employees and investors lost their life savings, children's college funds, and pensions when Enron collapsed. A lawsuit on the behalf of a group of Enron's shareholders has been filed against Enron executives and directors. This lawsuit accuses twenty-nine of these executives and directors of insider trading and misleading the public.
Because the 401(k) plan is a defined contribution plan, there was no PBGC insurance and employees lost the money they invested in Enron stock. They could only sue those considered a fiduciary for breach of their duty of care based on ERISA Section 404."
...........................................................................
First of all, if they are counting contributions (stock purchases) that the company gave them as compensation, then they really didn't put anything into the stock.
Secondly, if they are counting the growth of those stocks in their losses, then they have to attribute that growth to the leadership of the company. "You take the good, you take the bad...."
Thirdly, if they took their other retirement savings and children's college fund, etc., and placed it into a single company's stock, then they were undertaking an EXTREMELY risky financial endevour...probably in the name of personal greed.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It makes you wonder why we even have laws...;)
as you said, everything is a choice...and if a person chooses to become a victim of a crime because they did not research, then that's on them...
welcome to thunderdome...two enter, one comes out....I'm glad our modern society has finally adopted this line of thinking....:cool:
I know that's serious, but the phrasing is making me laugh.
Good discussion though, I think.
A good read.
first: if they were compensated (i.e. payed) is stock, in lieu of cash, then I feel they did put something in, they worked...
second: I would agree if nothing illegal was done...
third: I notice the word "if"...perhaps "if" they did so, they had there reasons..as for assuming greed was a factor is just that, assuming...
I wonder, are those who work for a paycheck greedy...? how about those who invest...are they greedy..? where is the line crossed..?
There's not??? See this is what I'm talking about. Because the company profits and no one gets hurt, you immediately rule out the possibility of fraud in those statements. Reread your own statement above.
This is where Enron, its employees and investors went wrong. They assumed that when everyone is making money, nothing can be going wrong!
Enron was definitely traded on the public market.
Regardless, the second part of your statement is mostly true and very important. Let's look at it again:
"they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly."
Again, that's mostly true. Some employees and investors were aware, at least in part, of the culture of fraud. But most were not. If they would have known, they never would have invested. Now let's ask ourselves why they didn't know. The information was out there. Enron's stock had fallen nearly 75% during the months leading up to the collapse. Many top-level executives and other shareholders were frantically selling Enron's stock because they knew what they were dealing with. The Enron execs knew they were running a house of cards and other investors knew where their profit was coming from: the confidence of the public, engineered by Lay, Skilling, the media, foolish analysts, institutional investors and the acceptance by the public investors and employees. But that confidence was dwindling and those investors were getting out. Why was the confidence dwindling? Because Enron's profits were getting tighter and tighter, its numbers looking more and more suspicious, and legal insider trading was rising.
If one examines the trail of purchasing and deceit, one discovers something quite interesting. Enron's stock price was based on no objective value for nearly 10 years. Any "gains" anyone made from Enron's stock were gains made via fraud. It's not as if Enron's stock price hit $89 legitimately and then hit $90 via fraud. The objective value of a share of Enron was $0 for years...the market price was based on nothing more than confidence. And every single investor in Enron willingly paid for that confidence based on their own confidence. There was not a single objective piece of evidence that said Enron was a healthy entity. There was only earnings reports showing profit, which as you indicate above, could never mean fraud. It was only when Enron released a report that showed a massive loss that the investigations started, that the labels of "fraud" and "promises" and "lies" were thrown around.
When one sacrifices reason for money. That is the fine line.
sigh.. once again I have to sort through all your excuses and rationalizations for your incorrect statements.. I am growing tired.
Thought is hard. It certainly is easier to find a handful of men and lynch them for mistakes they only paid a part in.
However, I reserve the right to think and say that both Lay and the drunk drivers are ass holes!
how about addressing the entire post, rather than cherry-picking...?
that, my friend, is quite reasonable....
I wasn't trying to cherry pick. The post was directed at another poster and that one question stuck out to me. But if you want my opinion to the rest of the post, here it is:
Agreed. They deserve compensation from their work. And they received it in money and in stock. Money is paper whose value is not tied to a company which those people were free to do with as they pleased. Stock is paper whose value is tied to a company's performance. If you receive one share of stock and the company tanks, you still have one share of stock.
But the objective value upon receipt of those shares was $0, realized some time later. Without Enron's malfeasance, that share would have been worth less than $1 (and likely $0) at any point in Enron's modern existence.
But the whole issue hinges on that "if". Enron employees and investors that did not invest in Enron lost nothing.
No. Those who expect a paycheck without reason are greedy.
No. Those who invest without reason are greedy.
When one sacrifices reason for money.
I'm sorry I asked...;)
you keep discussing "reason"...is that not a term that is nearly impossible to define...? Honestly, I don't understand what you mean by "without reason"....and what it has do with Lay duping his employees...
its easier if you are sincere and only say things that are true. and only strive for the truth, rahter that proving some point you feel needs to be made about society.
I don't disagree with your contention that we allow this kind of thing too often and that all large companies use similar tactics to make themselves look better - and imporve their portfolios. In fact i believe our whole economy is built on a foundation of deceipt.
That is a separate issue. The bottom line is that Lay stole from many investers as well as other debtors, suppliers, distributors and anyone else Enron owed money to.
As a whole we do a pretty good job of providing a nice quality of live for many people. We balance many things that allows these billions of people to share the planet. We can not just abandon it - we have to look at it more honestly and make adjustments slowly and continue to analyze honestly and at the same time find a goal that can be agreed upon by many.
being emotional and pretending that what Lay did is OK just because others are worse and still getting away with it, only serves to cloud the issue and perpetuates it.
Lay was a theif, and he hurt many honest hard working people that did their part in good faith - If doing your part in good faith is not enough - then clearly things need to change - but that is not the fault of the people that did their part in good faith.