> vze3xykq wrote: > > > > Now there's a new twist. How, exactly, did Ken Lay bilk his employees? > > > > Kevin T. > > Should I start naming the ways you're wrong now, or let you reply? > > The argument would probably go along the lines: > > 1. The employee retirement accounts were *very* over-invested > (IIRC, over 50% of the total money investmented) in Enron > stock. Also (IIRC), there are reports that common (the non > upper-executive) employees were unable to excersize their > employee-incentive stock options. > > This happened during Lay's tenure as CEO. > > 2. Enron filed bankruptcy due to losing billions of dollars in > bad investments. The scandal hit so suddenly because they > used creative accounting methods to hide the losses for as > long as possible (the investments were held as subsidiaries > which eventually posted the losses. However, Enron itself > didn't have to post the losses until the next yearly report > AFTER the subsidiaries posted their losses on their respective > yearly reports. This would have happened during the 2002 > annual report season if Enron hadn't filed bankruptcy first.) > > This situation developed and happened during Lay's tenure as CEO. > > 3. As soon as Enron filed bankruptcy, all of the Enron stock > held by the employee retirement accounts, as well as any > held by investors around the world lost most (90%+) of their > value. > > This happened as a result of Lay's decisions. > > 4. There are several allegations regarding Lay's personal > financial gains (selling stock options, the contents > of his golden parachute when he resigned, etc.) which > will (had better be) resolved in criminal court. > > > While he might not have personally and directly taken money > away from Enron employees, his actions did cause them to lose > most of their retirment savings without any ability to avoid > the loss, with the exception of never participating in the > retirement plan in the first place. > > -- Matt
Right. My point would be that a) the employees were not limited to only Enron stock b) they only ones who lost 90% would be ones who bought all of their shares right at the end. "Hey look at all the money everyone is making, I better shift all my funds to stocks!" c) in the same vein, they certainly weren't unhappy when the stock price was going up. (Don't know what you mean about the "there are reports that common (the non upper-executive) employees were unable to excersize their employee-incentive stock options" Are you saying these people were getting stock as bonuses but couldn't sell them? Or....) Wait, I did just find a article saying that regular employees who wanted to sell their stocks were told that the retirement plan was frozen during a management change, but the upper levels were still able to sell. That is horrible. >From what I know about retirement plans, and it used to be a lot, the most a company could force on an employee was make matching funds in the companies own stock. So that's free stocks, which do not show up in the income statements. And that's only at the most 12 - 15% of their total retirement package. Understand this: I don't agree with the rah-rah sessions they had, it does look like the company was trying to get the employees to buy company stock. Again, you didn't see many frowns when a ten dollar stock goes up to ninety. But that does not mean the employees had to purchase one single share, does it? And unfortunatly 'options' are the way to go. How many Microsoft millionares are there, people who got stock at >dollar and were able to sell it later for 50 to 100 times that? Other companies see that, and the employees, and want the same thing. Hey it sucks for me too. My money is all in one basket and has lost almost half of it's value, and I don't have the money now to buy, to dollar cost average my losses. But I'm not looking to get rich quick either. I'll be glad (and lucky) to get a 6% gain this year. We have 6 years of 22% gains and people start thinking it's forever. Kevin T.
