Ken Lay

1234579

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    Did Ken take actions that would give a false impression of the value of the company that was being sold in the form of shares of stock?

    Yes.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes.

    Good Good

    and that is against the law right?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    Good Good

    and that is against the law right?

    Only if the company loses money.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abuskedti wrote:
    Good Good

    and that is against the law 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...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    know1 wrote:
    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.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    inmytree wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    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.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • Jim Colyer
    Jim Colyer Posts: 17
    I felt sorry for Ken Lay in the end. He reminded me of Elmer Fudd.
    Jim Colyer wrote Save The Planet
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abuskedti wrote:
    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...
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    Jim Colyer wrote:
    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.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    Just 'cause I want to know...


    I'm unsure...but it's a good question...
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    inmytree wrote:
    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...

    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 -
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    inmytree wrote:
    I'm unsure...but it's a good question...

    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.
    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.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abuskedti wrote:
    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:
  • likepilateihaveadog
    likepilateihaveadog Posts: 1,083
    Abuskedti wrote:
    That look is just another tool in his bag of deception.


    I know that's serious, but the phrasing is making me laugh.

    :D
    Teamwork. Rawk. Pwnage. Infinite Possibilities. YIELD. Hells yeah.
  • likepilateihaveadog
    likepilateihaveadog Posts: 1,083
    And all I had to say was dead


    :D


    Good discussion though, I think.
    A good read.
    Teamwork. Rawk. Pwnage. Infinite Possibilities. YIELD. Hells yeah.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    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.


    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..?

Categories