Jeff Skilling?

or Register to post new content in the forum

47 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 23, 2006 4:37 pm

Who thinks 24 years was too harsh?


Not me

Oct 23, 2006 5:55 pm

The sad thing is they'd have to double that to get him to stay there for any reasonable length of time.  Time off for good behavior for a criminal is an oxymoron.  I haven't had a chance to read the news on it yet, but unless they gave it to him without parole, he won't serve all of the time.  Too bad.  The employees who lost everything will be poor for the rest of their lives.

Oct 23, 2006 6:06 pm
ymh_ymh_ymh:

Who thinks 24 years was too harsh?


Not me



How is society served by this sentence?  Will the fools who lost everything they had, or even those who just took a big hit, be made whole?


Mr. Skilling will be playing cards and watching TV in North Carolina rather than at home--society will be picking up his tab.


He is not a threat to society.  It's not like he would be out raping people or car jacking or holding up convenience stores if he were at home with his family.


Nor is it likely that he would be able to get another job--so what's the point of forcing him to be away?

Oct 23, 2006 6:25 pm

He might be out driving while intoxicated running over little kids on bicycles. He won't be permitted to do that while in prison. He also had to pony up $42,000,000.00 so society benefits in that respect.


It's called a DETERRENT and might make the next Skilling think a little before running a scam.


I hope they send him to Richmond, VA. Dan Bayly (Merrill's former head of investment banking) served a little time there (just got out recently) and found it to be very "un" Westport, CT.


Oct 23, 2006 8:25 pm
Devil'sAdvocate:

How is society served by this sentence?


Mosts sentences don't serve society.  Our prisons are jam packed with foks whose only crime was using drugs (except for Rush Limbaugh, of course,) but mandatory minimums keep them in prison longer than most murderers.


[quote=Devil'sAdvocate] 

He is not a threat to society.  It's not like he would be out raping people or car jacking or holding up convenience stores if he were at home with his family.


Nor is it likely that he would be able to get another job--so what's the point of forcing him to be away?

[/quote]

He ruined lives. He raped more people than just about anyone else in history.  Don't forget, prison sentences are mostly about punishment.  It's his turn to be punished.

Oct 23, 2006 8:28 pm
mktsystms:



He ruined lives. He raped more people than just about anyone else in history.  Don't forget, prison sentences are mostly about punishment.  It's his turn to be punished.


Can you explain what was done?

Oct 24, 2006 3:04 am

Yes, he lied on a confie call when asked if the books were cooked by fellow hedge fund manager, Richard Grubman (Highfields Capital Management). He called Rich a "short selling asshole," then bounced him off the confie call. Rich was right and laughed all the way to the bank as did I. I guess Goldie Lox' Abby Joseph Cohen wasn't in on that confie call or hasn't learned how to add/subtract very well yet.


I agree our prisons are too full. They should have just turned him over to former Enron employees who lost it all and let them put a noose around his neck. Hemp's pretty cheap relative to the taxpayers having to foot the bill for a 24 year stint in Club Fed.

Oct 24, 2006 6:15 am
Devil'sAdvocate:
mktsystms:



He ruined lives. He raped more people than just about anyone else in history.  Don't forget, prison sentences are mostly about punishment.  It's his turn to be punished.


Can you explain what was done?



If you're interested in what Skilling did, then go read the trial transcripts.

Oct 24, 2006 6:59 am
mktsystms:
Devil'sAdvocate:
mktsystms:



He ruined lives. He raped more people than just about anyone else in history.  Don't forget, prison sentences are mostly about punishment.  It's his turn to be punished.


Can you explain what was done?




If you're interested in what Skilling did, then go read the trial transcripts.


See, you're just like most other people--you allowed yourself to be manipulated by the media.  You have no idea what they did, or if it was wrong or simply questionable.


All you know is that they were arrogant and that the company went down the tubes.


What they did was take certain liabilities off their balance sheet to partnerships.  The idea was to wait for the value of the assets that were supporting the liabilities to regain value then transfer the liabilities back from the parnerhships.  Was it legal?  It was not illegal.  Was it questionable?  You bet it was, but there is a difference.


Had it worked they would be case studies at every business school in the country, but a whistle blower who was offended by the swaggering attitude of the leadership, and some personal slights by one of them, brought down the corporation.


It's a study in corporate arrogance runniing wild, coupled with a woman scorned.


Had I been on the jury I would have voted to acquit--being arrogant is not a crime, nor is using accounting techniques that are creative as long as they're not illegal.  Had the scorned woman not beein involved what may have happened was a tax audit, the partnership idea would be disallowed, taxes and penalties assessed and life goes on.


The company would have gone down if they did not do what they did, I think it's admirable that they tried to save it.


But then, I'm not willing to be manipulated by the media.

Oct 24, 2006 7:49 am
Devil'sAdvocate:

See, you're just like most other people--you allowed yourself to be manipulated by the media.  You have no idea what they did, or if it was wrong or simply questionable.

All you know is that they were arrogant and that the company went down the tubes.


What they did was take certain liabilities off their balance sheet to partnerships.  The idea was to wait for the value of the assets that were supporting the liabilities to regain value then transfer the liabilities back from the parnerhships.  Was it legal?  It was not illegal.  Was it questionable?  You bet it was, but there is a difference.





1. Skilling was not charged with, or convicted of, "questionable behavior."  He was charged with, and convicted of, illegal activities.



2. The media did not testify or offer evidence in the trial.


Oct 24, 2006 8:16 am
mktsystms:



1. Skilling was not charged with, or convicted of, "questionable behavior."  He was charged with, and convicted of, illegal activities.

2. The media did not testify or offer evidence in the trial.


The trial was long after the implosion of the firm, and by then the media had alreay convicted them.  It was impossible that they would be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the country.


The prosecution declared that the accounting techniques used were illegal, the defense experts said they were not legal or illegal, they were an unexplored area of accounting.


The fact is that the company went down, the leadership was arrogant, and the media had convinced the average nimrod that they were guilty.


That twelve people found them guilty is not unexpected--but it was a miscarriage of justice.


I'll bet you think that OJ Simpson is innocent too, right?

Oct 24, 2006 9:10 am

Something else about Enron.  It was not like the Tyco, Adlephia and Worldcom abuses where the officers were using their positions to loot the company.


The Enron deal truly was an attempt by the officers to save the firm.  If you ran a company you would quite like do the same thing--not only to save your own career and fortune but you would be looking out for thousands of employees and tens of thousands of investors.


It's actually a Shakespearean style tragedy.

Oct 24, 2006 9:32 am
ymh_ymh_ymh:

I guess Goldie Lox' Abby Joseph Cohen wasn't in on that confie call or hasn't learned how to add/subtract very well yet.




That's just a cheap shot.

Oct 24, 2006 9:54 am
Devil'sAdvocate:

Something else about Enron.  It was not like the Tyco, Adlephia and Worldcom abuses where the officers were using their positions to loot the company.


The Enron deal truly was an attempt by the officers to save the firm.  If you ran a company you would quite like do the same thing--not only to save your own career and fortune but you would be looking out for thousands of employees and tens of thousands of investors.


It's actually a Shakespearean style tragedy.



Amen:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


 Nobody is being served by his 24 year in Federal Prison. And 24 years means just that. The sentencing guidelines are a joke, especially when you see child abusers and murderers walk free.


Whoever mentioned Club Fed; have you been there, or is this more media hype?


I had not thought about the "scorned woman' syndrome. She is making a nice living out of all the publicity. Jeff Skilling and his family have been publicly humiliated and shamed. I hope the people who lost everything in Enron put as much energy into making more money as they do holding all the anger towards Enron management.


 


I have a feeling Skilling will not make it to jail; then they will be really angry.


Oct 24, 2006 10:02 am
Biasedrecruiter:

I have a feeling Skilling will not make it to jail; then they will be really angry.



I agree.  I have tried to put myself in his place and sure do think that checking out early would be a better deal for myself and my family.


I'm not convinced that Ken Lay didn't cause his heart attack with drugs--in any case he certainly died of a broken heart.


The class envy that is displayed by such a huge percentage of our population is troubling.  These guys--the Enron executives--lived large, but they were not stealing from the company.


I ask again, who would not do whatever they could to keep the company going?  If somebody asks, "Is that legal?" and others say, "We can't find anything about it, legal or illegal."  Who would not decide, "OK, let's do it--we've got too much to lose if we don't."


Then, after the scorned woman blows the whistle, the company comes down.  If there is an evil player in this saga it is that woman.  We'll never know what may have happened if the (admittedly agressively creative) accounting techniques had not been exposed.

Oct 24, 2006 10:27 am

Devils Advocate; we think alike; only you express it so much better.


Glad there are people like you in our world.

Oct 24, 2006 11:05 am
Devil'sAdvocate:

The Enron deal truly was an attempt by the officers to save the firm.  If you ran a company you would quite like do the same thing--not only to save your own career and fortune but you would be looking out for thousands of employees and tens of thousands of investors.

Really?  So was it an attempt to save the firm by fostering organic growth?  Or by cutting expenses?  Did this attempt to save the firm have anything to do with addressing the core problems that were dragging Enron down?

Or was it an attempt to hide the actual problem from the market?  An attempt to deny the free market its opportunity to correctly value the company?

I'm not an attorney- so I can't claim to understand the applicable
laws.  And I was not on the jury- so I have not heard all of the
evidence. 

But I do know that the Feds regularly punish companies and individuals who come down on the wrong side of gray areas of the law (especially GAAP as it applies to securities and tax laws).

Enron is a very complex situation.  As a Houstonian, I personally know many people who were hurt badly by this.  I also know people who quit Enron in the late 90's saying "something strange is going on there".  I don't need the media to tell me these things.

I also spent a lot of time sitting in the dark in Northern California thanks to these guys.  But that's another topic.

They decided to shuffle millions of dollars through vague and unsavory accounting
tricks in order to hide the true condition of the firm from its
owners.  How could they possibly claim surprise when the Feds came down on them?


Oct 24, 2006 11:16 am
JCadieux:



They decided to shuffle millions of dollars through vague and unsavory accounting tricks in order to hide the true condition of the firm from its owners.  How could they possibly claim surprise when the Feds came down on them?


Again, if their techniques had worked the company may well have survived.


Unsavory accounting techniques that save a company are more savory than acceptable techniques that bring a company down.


If they had not used them the stock would have zeroed out too.  They tried to save it, and for that they deserve more than spending years in prison.


In the movie "Love Story" one of the leads is sent to the penalty box in a hockey game.  His girlfriend comes down to him and asks, "So what did you do to end up here?"


He responds, "I tried too hard."


That's what happened with Enron.  They had to make a choice and they chose to try to save the firm.  It amazes me that people who suffer class envy are so unwillinig to deal with that reaity.

Oct 24, 2006 11:50 am

Anyone other than Rich Grubman and me on that Enron confie call when Skilling got caught lying and got upset about being caught?


Mike Butler, to my recollection, Dear Abby was NOT on that confie call so I guess she's got an excuse.

Oct 24, 2006 11:52 am

I remember reading a story about Ken Lay trekking up to Omaha to see the Oracle and solicit his investment in the company. Buffet declined. The article related that Warren didn't feel too comfortable with Kenny boy and his goings on. Was that a similar issue with the guys that left to form Kinder Morgan? Gee... I think Kinder Morgans' turned out ok haven't they?