What! The! Fuck! Are! You! Talking! About?! I don’t even remember your involvement in anything to do with Wally. I hold you in contempt because I think you are one of the dumbest liars to ever disgrace this message board, based SOLELY on what you post here. And I reply directly to your posts and their content, I don’t fling shit about 5 year old dead issues. If anyone seems to need to let something go, I’d say it’s you.
And they ARE ahead in line. Did you even bother to read the highlighted quoted section of post #34?
That still doesn’t make the defrauded states, the defrauded PUCs, the defrauded shareholders of those PUCs and the defrauded consumers any less defrauded. We’ll get a share of the pie, as we deserve a share of the pie as VICTIMS of this scam. All the rest of your drivel is meaningless, unless you can show why we don’t deserve our share of recompense for our share in the losses. I’ve already said, quite clearly, that the hard-working employees of Enron should have first dibs on the pie. And I think they should get a hell of a lot more than 22 cents on the dollar – they damn well ought to be reimbursed 100% for their losses. Which ought to happen before the defrauded creditors get refunded their losses, which should come before the defrauded shareholders of the PUCs should be refunded their losses, and before the PUCs themselves, and before the defrauded consumers get refunded their losses, and lastly, the states, for their share in the losses. Which seems to me to be, at least somewhat, the order in which the wronged parties are being refunded – and ought to be refunded before more fatcats take more multi-million dollar salaries to fund their bloated, extravagant lifestyles.
Shayna
I think I can see UncleBeer’s point. (Oh boy, I’m in for it now !! :smack: )
Anyway, I would imagine the Enron employees who lost their pensions are the most deserving of getting some kind of compensation. (Maybe not legally - but definitely morally.)
I doubt there are many California consumers who would make a comment like “Jesus - I was gonna get a $3 rebate on my electric bill. But no - it went to those Enron employees who lost their pensions!!!”
After carefully re-reading your reply, I see we are in agreement.
You said that:
*the hard-working employees of Enron should have first dibs on the pie.
*
Yep we sure agree on that.
Did you follow This Year’s Model’s lead and skip straight to the bottom, missing where I have now said this very same thing several times in this very thread?
I doubt that, either. That doesn’t negate the fact that the states, their PUCs, the shareholders of those PUCs and the consumers were defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars. Should those defrauded parties not fight for at least a fair share of the reimbursements they’re entitled to by law?
Besides which, this entire line is a complete hijack from the point of this thread – the new Enron BOD awarding themselves multi-million dollar salaries out of the pot that, IMO, morally, should be going to all the defrauded parties FIRST, starting with the employees. I cannot find the justification in Board members taking those kinds of salaries.
Given that the investigative body of the United States Senate found, in part, that the role of the original Board of Directors at Enron contributed to its collapes by:
This just smacks of history repeating itself to me.
Missing an interim post that came in while composing a reply is hardly the same as not bothering to read a thread in its entirety before commenting. And yet I apologized anyway. And your point is?
No link between what they do and their compensation in terms of what? The amount of work they do? The type of work they do? The amount of reponsibility they hold?
I probably put in more work hours than members of my company’s BOD. However, I wouldn’t say it’s wrong that they get paid more than I do. Frankly, there’s more demand for them than there is for me. Plus, if I mess up (unless I really make an effort to go out in a blaze of glory), you’re not going to see my name in the WSJ. Finally, I really can’t hurt the company too severely or turn it around. The BOD can.
I mean I’ve worked with people who were on board of directors for a number of years. I know what they did, because I was one of the people who helped them do it. It wasn’t nearly worth what they were paid. I saw how people who got picked for one board were in a position to pick others for the board of organizations they served with, and the people they picked were … get this … often the people who had picked them for other boards.
And BODs are who determines executive salaries, right?
Nice work if you can get it.
I’m not going to give you the RL details of my work, Liberal, feel free to disregard what I have said on that account. Sorry if my work has made me more cynical than you think I should be.
Mostly, being on a BOD is about being wealthy or knowing wealthy people. You listen to the staff and most of the time, approve their recommendation. You attend boring meetings (often in nice places) and play golf a lot. It’s hell, sheer hell.
Did they not tell him what his salary would be when he signed on? Did they not tell him there might be work involved. Did he not agree to it? Or did he think it was irrelevent because he could raise his salary?
OMG, it’s SO much better that only ONE guy is personally raping the pot for $1.2 million dollars a year!
Well, by all means then, please allow me to correct and clarify my statement to read:
Besides which, this entire line is a complete hijack from the point of this thread – the new Enron BOD awarding themselves salary increases that collectively amount to multiple millions of dollars annually ($2.52 million, to be precise) out of the pot that, IMO, morally, should be going to all the defrauded parties FIRST, starting with the employees. I cannot find the justification in Board members taking those kinds of salaries, particularly under these circumstances, when there are people who were actually defrauded out of money, who are being refunded pennies on the hard-earned dollars they already worked for and earned, but which was stolen from them by their previously, and similarly, greedy BOD.
That better, love?
I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Rotten Lying details of your work. I’m interested in the fact that you have a four-year-old’s insight into boards of directors despite your claim of working “up close and personal” with them, and especially in the case of a board overseeing a bankruptcy. Most board members have earned their positions because they were major investors — people who risked the loss of substantial sums of money so the damn company could exist. Others are there because they have critical industry contacts. Still others have critical government contacts — these are necessary because of the insistence of people like you on maintaining a behemouth bureaucratic nanny government. Others are experts in the industry, or people with excellent reputations, or people whose advice and counsel have proven track records of success. Your envy of these people and their financial success does not constitute their lack of character. And in the case of bankruptcy boards, the directors are elected by the creditors. Therefore, in this instance, your premise is not only wrong, but moot.
Well, a substantive point after all the nasty little name-calling. Good for you! Maybe you could learn to do this over in Great Debates sometime! Anyway, no one would give a rat’s ass about my interest in government regulation of industry if it weren’t for Enron and many other businesses like them which have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot be trusted without regulatory oversight. But you’re incapable of understanding that, aren’t you?
You’re right, the present board was elected by the creditors. Probably their CEOs and BODs. Saints all, as you would have it.
I think some people here have a misunderstanding of how stocks work. If you own stock in a company, you aren’t promised anything. Workers, and anybody else for that matter, who owned Enron stock owned a piece of the company. The company went bankrupt and the stock became worthless. That means anybody foolish enough to invest heavily in a single company lost a lot of money. That’s too bad. But, it doesn’t mean they are entitled to get paid back.
Bonds, on the other hand, do have a promise to pay. Somebody holding a bond from Enron is owed money and should get it no matter what. The people of CA were defrauded by Enron as consumers. I don’t know exactly what the details of this are, but it sounds like they deserve to get paid back as a result of this fraud.
The investors however, don’t get paid back. That’s the risk of buying stocks. The returns are higher than other forms of investment precisely because of the inherent risk associated with them. If you own stock in a company that goes under, you lose your money. That’s just the way it works.
The management of Enron broke the law. For that they should be punished. I’d be happy to see them all go to prison for a long time. The company “Enron” should not be punished by having to pay back shareholders money they lost in Enron stock. This simply isn’t how stocks work.
Wow, what an ugly thread that could actually have had a decent discussion at one point. Guess that should be no surprise.
One difference might be if the employees were forced to puchase stock as the company matching portion of their 401k, or some similar scheme. That is a practice which I find truly repugnant (the lack of choice in the matter), where the company is essentially giving the employees decorative non-equity stock (DNES) in lieu of allowing them to direct the investments elsewhere (which, admittedly, may be other DNES, but at least they would have a choice). If that was the case, then I believe the stockholders who were subject to that scheme should be in line to get something back. Whether or not they can…
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread. I’ve been crazy busy at work all day–preparing documents and pulling data for a BOD meeting! I’ll likely be coming in on Sunday and working all next week pulling more data and preparing more analysis and documents for the meeting. Bear in mind, I’m not the one presenting to the board. I’m preparing items for the people who do present. Those who do have been working on this long before I was brought in.
Yes, our recommendations are often approved. But not always–and we had damned sure better be able to support those recommendations. That’s why I was pulling data and preparing documents all day. My managers need reams upon reams of backup data to support their claims. The board (similar to the SDMB) requires a high standard of proof. From what I understand, board meetings can get quite heated.
I work for a company that has never been mentioned in a scandal (and there have been plenty in my industry, financial services) yet our BOD takes take their position seriously and considers every decision carefully. Their asses are on the line in ways mine isn’t. If my company goes under, I lose my job. Not to minimize the difficulty of finding another, but the stigma of working for a failed company isn’t going to stick to me. It will stick to the board members. Were things this stringent in the days before Eron, Worldcom and other big name scandals? I have no idea. I was lower level and didn’t interact with those present to the board then. However, even if a board position was a sincure in the past, it’s not one now.
Of course they’re wealthy, but I wouldn’t say that’s evidence that their being selected just because they’re all in some league of wealthly fat cats. They were highly successful people before they were even considered for a board position. If you want the best people with the most knowlege and skills on your board, you’re going to look at people who have shown great success in business. Those people would have been paid for that success.
As I mentioned, this is all for a company that has been scandal free. The creditors picking the Enron board surely wanted top people to clean up that horrific mess. Top people don’t come cheap. I imagine there are some who would be willing to take less just for the prestige of having cleaned up a company like Enron (great resume fodder). However, after a year of finding it’s more trouble than they anticipated, their other opportunities are going to start looking better and better.
They were not limited to buying Enron stock with their contributions, though they were encouraged to do so. However, Enron’s 3% matching contributions was given solely in stock, with restrictions on selling it.