Quote from Aardvark:
In the larger scheme of things I do think. This verdict is very important. I agree with the person who said this is more important to investor confidence than Sar-Ox. At least for me it is. I thought Martha's sentance totally bogus but as an investor in US public companies I do feel these two ran a company into the ground and ruined the lives of many and need to pay just as any crook who goes into your home and robs you blind. If they had gotten off while Fastow sits in jail I honestly would have to re-evaluate if I want to ever invest in companies again.
ps..never owned Enron but did Worldcom and Global Crossings and how can an investor do due dilligence when the ex's are completely crooked...and in cahoots with analysists
OK I do have a bit of an opinion. I will tell you what I think the most bogus thing about the enron case is, but it has more to do with what I think is a broken US system.
Many crooked ex's specifically position their companies in states such as Texas for the protection that the state's laws allow. In Texas the laws are very forgiving of those companies who would cheat their investors like enron did. For example, certain of the ex's personal assets are protected from liquidation and even piercing the corporate veil cannot touch them. In the case of Texas you are allowed a parcel of land of a certain size that contains a residence. In urban areas the parcel is smaller but in rural areas it is quite expansive. This allows the ex's to build a high-rise office structure in downtown Houston with a suite at the top and while all of their other assets are liquidated, they will still own a billion dollar piece of real estate.
States do this to attract companies for higher tax revenues, but it is very much at the expense of the investors. That really does irritate me.
