Oh boy.
I’ve only done so about twelve times. Each time, you get quiet for a while, and then you bring it up again in recycled form.
The other possibility is that the person in question is a liar and a broken record.
I think I’ve answered that about 5 times.
And if wishes were kisses I’d be covered in lipstick.
Already did that, at least twice. Most recently on the last page.
Not at all. Come up with something new and I’ll address it.
I’ll even help you out.
One avenue that I have not yet seen pursued, and that might provide interesting results stems from a fax from the CEO of Harkens to Bush and the other members of the board.
It lists as attachments the new audited financials, the annual report and the 10-k.
Being on the audit committee naturally Bush was privy to the information that went into making these documents at several different times. He saw the weekly updates (albeit a week or two behind,) he worked with the auditors on the statements and the 10-k.
These documents will show a large portion of the raw data as well as the results of that data to which Bush was surely privy.
If I was looking to find something to suggest insider trading, or an improper investigation, I would look at the public documents (they’re probably all at EDGAR,) listed in that fax, and see if the information jibes with the results of the investigation. Further, I’d look to see if the information and data, paints a clear picture of a company in serious jeopardy, or one with simple temporary liquidity problems. How Aloha is addressed will surely be in there, and perhaps mention of IMR.
The information in those documents was compiled over months, and anything in there, you can safely assume Bush knew about for a minimum of at least two weeks, and as long as 90 days before the publication date. You can even determine this pretty good from the context and dating of the financials.
That’s what I’d look at, because it will give you a pretty clear picture of what Bush knew.
Sam Stone:
This is probably one of the reasons that Larry has his current job. Fraud was hidden from the audit committee and the investors, and when it was uncovered Larry became a veritable pit bull, and almost single handedly cleaned up Providian, exposed the full depth of the fraud to the public, instituted new accounting standards and methods, and restored Providian to good graces and health.
His association with Providian is not a negative. It makes him a white knight. He’s one of the real good guys.
Excutive management trying to hide stuff from the auditors and the audit committee (and being able to successfully do so,) is the whole crux of this thing.
Jeez, careful with that “Uncle Tom” stuff, Sam. I don’t doubt your hearts in the right place, but still…
I only have a cursory knowledge about this company he was with. But if that cursory glance should prove to be factual, then his company deliberately preyed upon people at economic disadvantage. Kind of like those check-cashing places that suck 3-5% of a paycheck out of some poor guy who doesn’t have a bank account.
Of course, jury’s out on that.
Xeno:
You know what? I kind of like that.
If he went into detail about what happened, I’m not sure many people would understand what he was talking about, though, and there’s still the problems I feel are germaine about opening up the whole thing to media review. These fears of mine seem well founded based on what’s happening with what has been released…
That’s not true. It’s really not. There are thousands of publicly traded corportations. We’re having scandals with a handful. There are lots of good responsible CEOs and managers out there who run the ship as they should, and it’s an unfair characterization of this majority.
But, I really think I like the idea of him making a speech explaining Harkens and how it relates to the current problems, and your call for Government transparency is right on.
Done properly, it would be a good thing.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
You did no such thing. You simply proclaim that you have done so. You may be fooling somebody. But not me. Most likely, not even yourself.
But enough…No need to try Doper’s patience and attention span defending my dignity.
Do it! Do it, do it. do it! How much time could it take? Compared with 7 pages of erudite snarling? Piff and tosh, jump on it! You got the skills to understand this, and probably have built up an immunity to the toxic verbiage.
Do it for Cecil!
(Let’s see, now…very prickly about dignity, easily angered…go for the Shameless Goading ploy)
What are ya, chicken?! Hah, ya chicken! Buck-buck-buck…
(**Scyllla ** does the leg work, I get the Pulitzer. Works for me.)
Scylla I think you meant that reply to me about Larry Thompson. Not Sam Stone.
Thanks. I’ll accept what you said. If the execs lied and fed bad info into the works, then Thompson wouldn’t be at fault. I reacted without going into the history of the Providian case.
Yow, we’re on page 7.
Scylla: “There are lots of good responsible CEOs and managers out there.”
I’m sure there are. But there are more than a handful of bad apples, as I attempted to demostrate here. Specifically, GAAP profits and BEA profits diverged starting in 1998. Currently, GAAP measures appear to overstate profits by over 40%. (Perhaps 2 1/2% of that is due to GAAP treatment of stock options.)
I’m not saying that Worldcom and Enron practices are typical. I am saying that support of false accounting is pretty widespread in American executive suites. Put in another way, I don’t know of any top executives that have directed their lobbyists to advocate transparent accounting. If you do, let us know. (One possible exception is Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger, who have spoken out against crooked accounting.)
Bring out the broom, W!
elucidator;
Look at yourself man! You asked me all those questions and promised to answer mine in return if only I answered your “grounding” questions.
Depsite repeated polite requests, you broke your promise and never answered them. Now, I know you’ve posted and excuse, but that does nothing to change it from being a lie.
I said it on page 5
I quote me:
I did it again on page 5 and you did not address it:
[quote]
Your promise to answer my direct questions if I answered your grounding questions remains broken. That was a lie.
Twice you accused me of dodging your questions when I answered point to point. Those misrepresentations as well as several otehrs I addressed where they occured are lies.
[/quote[
Then there was the little gem at the bottom of page 5 where you misrepresent my arguments and say I said things I never said, two which you again did not respond:
That’s from page 5.
No, you’ll have to do it yourself. I’ll certainly help anybody that cares to do it. I merely suggest it, because we seem to do nothing more than post an article based on the same documents we’ve already examine firsthand.
One good thing, is how amateur those articles are appearing. I think we all have a better understanding of the situation than most of the journalists doing the writing.
So that’s one good thing.
But somebody else’ll have to do it, or track down the links to 'em. If you find the links I’ll look at 'em. I suck at finding links.
(note: the 10-k is the one to really look at. be aware that 10-ks are basically where the company outlines all the risks and problems that they are facing. These things tend to read like horror stories (it’s hard to read any 10-k and still want to buy the stock.) Bear in mind when you look at it, that by their nature 10-ks seem grim.
You gotta be kidding. You try to con me into a lame position, I game you back, you lose, and now I’m a liar.
Well, sure. Whatever. You got this type A thing going on, you know? Not good for you. Sours your karma. A little meditation, some chamomile tea, do you a world of good.
You would likely be surprised to hear that directions regarding that EDGAR thing is posted on one of the cites I give above. I went there and Harken didn’t “catch”. Besides, there’s little enough chance I’d understand what I’m looking at.
What the situation calls for is a left-wing MBA. Jeez, what am I saying.
Maybe he’s got a unicorn.
If you call making promises and breaking them, and deliberately misrepresenting argumest “game,” then I guess you’re right.
Happy?
What say we put it behind us and move on?
You really don’t expect me to go hunting for info to help you, do you? Isn’t it enought that I gave you a good lead?
Isn’t it interesting in its own right that Bush saw these documents and the information that went into making them very early.
If the York cite is correct (and even you must surely have your doubts about that one,) and the information therein is alarming, don’t you think that would be important enough for somebody to check?
Don’t you think some press guy oughtta look at those?
If I was a real cynic I’d suggest that the reason we’re not hearing about them, is that they say nothing on topic, and don’t reveal anything to dreadful.
But in truth, I think the press is kinda focussed on the FOIA stuff, but they’ll get around to it when they think of it.
We’re kind of ahead of the curve here.
Oh, and if you’re looking for a liberal MBA you might check Imclone or Worldcom.
Their CEOs should be just what you need, and they have experience with this kind of thing, if you know what I mean.
(only half to be mean, corporate malfeasance crosses party lines, you know?)
Hell, I ain’t got time to waste with some damn liberal! A fire-breathing, radical MBA with several years of fiduciary experience and a fierce devotion to the advancement of the anarcho-syndicalist cause! That’s what we need here.
The unicorn would be a plus, of course.
Press coverage of this mystifys me as well. You may very well be right about that “behind the curve” thing.
Part of it is the age of the story. Except for Conasons thing about Harvard being the buyer, nobody has much of anything we dont have. Takes away a lot of the juice for a reporter. Plus he has to credit his sources, etc.
Also, its damn hard to concentrate when these fiscal behemoths come crashing down right and left. And the frenzy to reach the pristine state of fiscal transparency will only make it worse.
Now, I’m just conjecturing here, but there’s likely to be a number of companies who have committed indiscretions of a much lower order of magnitude compared to WorldBomb, etc. This sudden surge of investigation won’t give them time enough to get thier cookier jar in order. Pop goes the weasel.
One further thing: if we have just now passed the necessary legislation to make Enron/WorldBomb stuff illegal, doesn’t that mean they walk? Ex post fuckedover. Can’t be tried for a crime that wasn’t illegal.
Somebody please assure us they ain’t gonna fuckin’ walk.
Most likely it’ll be more of a saunter than a walk… The best we can hope for, I think, is a skulk, but the general arrogance at work here probably works against this scenario.
I think people will go to jail for Worldcom.
I’m pretty sure there are crimes they can be convicted of. The nice thing about big government is that everyone breaks so many laws that even when they can’t get you on the one they want, there’s 14 other ones waiting to nab you.
Quoth Xeno:
Yeah, that would be nice, and it would be the least that a true leader would do. I’m sure Fortunate Son will get right to discussing his own example and how he’s learned from it, right after he comes clean about his cocaine and alcohol abuse. Even his DWI criminal conviction, the first ever for a President, had to be forced out of him. So don’t hold your breath, gang.
Unless you’re like Scylla, heartwarmingly sure on the basis of one fairly insubstantial speech and minimal follow-up, that he’s truly reformed and is therefore the “thief to catch a thief”, and not that he’s simply doing (inadequately) what Karl Rove tells him will minimize the political damage after he got caught.
Kinda odd that the self-proclaimed libertarians don’t have much to say about this, isn’t it? Somehow insider trading and its consequences don’t seem to fit into a fantasy land where everyone arrives at contracts individually and openly, and fraud never exists, and the free market corrects all evils.
Well, Elvis, I think the argument is that the market did correct the excesses of Enron and WorldCom. We’re just having to pay a rather stiff bill for that correction…
xeno, in the cases of the corporate entities themselves, you’re right. But the collateral damage is pretty intense and widespread, as well as uncorrected, ain’t it?
Collateral damage? No, no; that’s from the fact that the market is still overregulated, which leads to sluggish macroeconomic response to temporary market corrections. Silly.
Let’s stop this. I’m making my head hurt.
xeno, Elvis, please let’s not forget the Hand. The Hand protecteth, guideth, maketh us prosper. Believe in the Hand that You Cannot See. Surrender thy faith, thy wallet, thy profession security to the Hand. We are all one under the Hand.