Enron Founder Ken Lay Dies [Archive]

PookiePrincess

07-05-2006, 08:38 AM

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Enron founder Kenneth Lay died early Wednesday in Aspen, Colo., a family spokeswoman said.

Lay, 64, was awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of conspiracy and fraud in the Enron trial in May.

In a statement, spokeswoman Kelly Kimberly said, "The Lays have a very large family with whom they need to communicate, and out of respect for the family we will release further details at a later time."

CNN affiliate KPRC in Houston said Lay was admitted to the Aspen Valley Hospital overnight with a massive coronary.

CNN Article (http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/05/news/newsmakers/lay_death/index.htm?cnn=yes)

allyray231

07-05-2006, 09:04 AM

OK was he sick?

karlatta

07-05-2006, 09:11 AM

OK was he sick?
From what I read, he died of a sudden massive heart attack. He wasn't "sick" and was in Colorado with his family for the week.

allyray231

07-05-2006, 09:13 AM

From what I read, he died of a sudden massive heart attack. He wasn't "sick" and was in Colorado with his family for the week.

I just saw that. Wow crazy stuff

Rose

07-05-2006, 10:04 AM

Wow, that is a shock.

maniach

07-05-2006, 11:26 AM

What I want to know is how a man responsible for the demise of a company in which hundreds or thousands of people were laid off and lost their pensions still has a VACATION HOME?!

December27JJB

07-05-2006, 12:04 PM

I am not going to say I am 'glad' he died. But he was an a$$hole. He led a luxurious life, far more luxurious than most people do and a lot of people suffered because of him. His death is basically the 'easy way out' for him. Shame on him for dying before he got what he deserved, punishment.

Or is this a cover-up by his 'buddies'...he didnt really die, he is in hiding so he doesnt have to serve time. :rolleyes:

kris97

07-05-2006, 12:07 PM

What I want to know is how a man responsible for the demise of a company in which hundreds or thousands of people were laid off and lost their pensions still has a VACATION HOME?!

Without knowing the specifics, it could be because the house in someone else's name (i.e., another family member), or because he had not yet been sentenced (which is when, ostensibly, the Court would order him to turn over profits from his crimes).

KK812

07-05-2006, 12:52 PM

Shame on him for dying before he got what he deserved, punishment.

:rolleyes:

rene'

07-05-2006, 02:09 PM

Without knowing the specifics, it could be because the house in someone else's name (i.e., another family member), or because he had not yet been sentenced (which is when, ostensibly, the Court would order him to turn over profits from his crimes).

I believe his sentencing was supposed to happen on October 23rd.

mermccau

07-05-2006, 02:23 PM

Ding, dong, the witch is dead.

If I was a religious person, I would say that the man is going to have a lousy time when he meets his maker.

katmg

07-05-2006, 02:32 PM

Enron was a client of my office (we were helping build their new building) and we were certainly affected by their downfall.

There is much skepticism here today about whether this heart attack was artificially induced or whether it's actually his body at the morgue...I wouldn't say there was rejoicing, but there was definitely more than a little interest in the story.

KarenS

07-05-2006, 03:05 PM

Shame on him for dying before he got what he deserved, punishment.Yeah, cause being dead is such a great thing. Yowza.

I feel for his family especially. I know it was probable that he'd have died in prison, given his age, but I dunno - I can't imagine the strain his family must have had to deal with and now this.

Karen

Emilie

07-05-2006, 03:10 PM

Or is this a cover-up by his 'buddies'...he didnt really die, he is in hiding so he doesnt have to serve time. :rolleyes:

That was my first thought exactly!

Delta

07-05-2006, 09:28 PM

What I want to know is how a man responsible for the demise of a company in which hundreds or thousands of people were laid off and lost their pensions still has a VACATION HOME?!
It was a friend's home.

The Lays were listed at a small ranch in Old Snowmass, northwest of Aspen. Records show the property belongs to I.V. Pabst, who addressed reporters outside her residence today.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4025339.html

He and his wife still have many close friends who continue to maintain that he was a good man despite flaws. That was my sense as well. May he rest in peace, and may his family and all those hurt by Enron's failure find it as well.

karlatta

07-05-2006, 09:40 PM

My DH's theory is that he somehow caused his own heart attack (drugs or whatever) so that he would die before sentencing and that his family could collect life insurance money. He thinks Ken Lay really is dead.

Now, I have no idea if he even had large life insurance policies or anything, so I have no idea how likely his theory would work out.

Delta

07-05-2006, 09:45 PM

My DH's theory is that he somehow caused his own heart attack (drugs or whatever) so that he would die before sentencing and that his family could collect life insurance money. He thinks Ken Lay really is dead.That was actually my FIRST thought too. But really, I do think now that he was just completely overwhelmed and under a lot of stress the past few years and especially after his conviction. To go from living on top of the world to being in prison for the rest of his life - I can imagine it was weighing on him in an unimaginable way.

hockeybrat

07-05-2006, 09:47 PM

My DH's theory is that he somehow caused his own heart attack (drugs or whatever) so that he would die before sentencing and that his family could collect life insurance money. He thinks Ken Lay really is dead.

Now, I have no idea if he even had large life insurance policies or anything, so I have no idea how likely his theory would work out.

That was my first thought when I heard about it this morning.

KarenS

07-05-2006, 10:09 PM

Wow. You guys are harsh.

You know it's not always so black and white, good and evil. Yeah, the man deserved to be convicted and sentenced. But he also did a lot of good in Houston. And he still has familiy who love him. Even if you can't feel for him, feel for his family.

I can't imagine the strain of everything he went through over the last several years and quite honestly I wasn't surprised to hear the news this morning. I didn't expect it, but it didn't surprise me.

But of course some people have to see plot and evil in everything.

Me? I feel so sorry for his family.

Karen

karlatta

07-05-2006, 10:17 PM

Karen - I don't think anyone here has said that they don't feel sorry for his family. I certainly do. It's painful to lose a loved one, no matter what the circumstances. It's often even more painful when the loss is sudden, such as this was. And, FTR, I don't think Lay was an evil man. I live in Houston and know of many of his contributions here. I don't think that posting musings about possible plots surrounding his death negates any of that.

wendalah

07-05-2006, 10:38 PM

I have a lot of opinions on Lay and the people he "ruined"--but I won't get into it. Just suffice to say--don't live on margin, be it stock or housing. If you have the cash buy things. If you don't--you don't have it. Don't live like you do. One day...the broker will call or the market will fall.

I also think that the Enron case is an extreme example of what happens daily in many corporations.

I don't think he's a sterling person per se, but I don't think he's as dastardly as portrayed either. That's all.

batgirl

07-06-2006, 06:27 AM

Or is this a cover-up by his 'buddies'...he didnt really die, he is in hiding so he doesnt have to serve time.

This is what DH and I were thinking, too.

And if he really is dead... well, then I guess his wife still has the $200,000 yacht that she got as a birthday present to remember him by...

Adaya

07-06-2006, 08:42 AM

My first thought was wow, how ironic and weird that he just up and died. Then I was thinking hmmm....is he really dead? Who knows?

Could be a John Grisham novel in the making!

MLA

07-06-2006, 08:58 AM

The thing that sucks about this is that now he won't be sentenced, and anyone hoping to get some sort of money from him is going to have to get money from his estate. I imagine that will be a tougher proposition.

IrisHope

07-06-2006, 09:59 AM

Do you think it was suicide??

flygirl

07-06-2006, 01:47 PM

My DH's theory is that he somehow caused his own heart attack (drugs or whatever) so that he would die before sentencing and that his family could collect life insurance money. He thinks Ken Lay really is dead.That's what I thought, but not because of insurance. I figured he orchastrated it just to avoid prison (I would consider doing that if I were in his position).

I don't think it's such a bad sentiment to wish he had suffered in prison. It may not be the holiest of thoughts, but it's utterly human. If death takes us to a better place (and yes, I think Lay will probably be there), then I don't think some of the hundreds of thousands of people affected by his scheme have been given the opportunity for closure. It's unhealthy to bear a grudge for a long time, but it's completely human and part of the heeling process to want to see him suffering. And yes, I get that he has suffered; I guess it's the culmination of the process.

Delta

07-06-2006, 02:21 PM

I agree with Wendy.

jnettie

07-06-2006, 06:38 PM

DH thought that the government probably offed him. Me, I think he's not actually dead, but in hiding off on a tropical island.

From what I understand, there may be some sort of loophole that once the money goes to his family, then it's theirs and they can't just seize it like if he were alive.

looch

07-06-2006, 06:47 PM

I dunno what to think. I don't think he alone was responsible for the downfall of Enron, but I don't think he was innocent and that it was Fastow's fault completely.
I do think his heart failure was drug induced. The guy was going to do time, and I can't really blame him for fearing it.

SingleWhiteFemale

07-06-2006, 07:26 PM

From what I understand, there may be some sort of loophole that once the money goes to his family, then it's theirs and they can't just seize it like if he were alive.Abatement. And his name pretty much gets "cleared," at least legally. Slate explains it really well, Can't the Feds Get Lay's Money? How a heart attack saved Enron's founder $43.5 million. (http://www.slate.com/id/2145158)

jnettie

07-06-2006, 11:55 PM

Abatement! That's the word! It totally escaped me. Thanks!

ejs

07-07-2006, 12:20 AM

Do those of you who have said you think Lay is actually alive really mean that or are you just joking?

jnettie

07-07-2006, 12:28 AM

I'm just joking. But DH totally thinks that Bush had him bumped him off.

ejs

07-07-2006, 12:34 AM

I'm just joking. But DH totally thinks that Bush had him bumped him off.
Why would Bush care? Yes, they were buddies, but Lay already had his trial and was sentenced.

jnettie

07-07-2006, 12:51 AM

He's got some sort of weird theory that Lay knows something and he'd talk to get himself a better deal. :rolleyes: I know, I know, doesn't make much sense, but it's his theory.

flygirl

07-07-2006, 07:36 AM

... but Lay already had his trial and was sentenced.Actually, Lay wasn't sentenced and will technically not be considered a convicted fellon. From the Slate.com link above:
Now that he's dead, he's no longer a criminal. The principle of "abatement" lets a defendant off the hook for a conviction if he happens to die before getting through at least one round of appeals. If he doesn't get a chance to file an appeal, he's missed out on an integral part of the legal process, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. In other words, he's innocent until proven guilty, and then proven guilty again. Since Ken Lay died before he could appeal, the courts will abate his conviction and all the punishments he would have received.
So hey, maybe it is plausible that Rove had him offed to keep Bush from being any more embarrassed than he already is.

kidding, of course

batgirl

07-07-2006, 08:27 AM

Do those of you who have said you think Lay is actually alive really mean that or are you just joking?

All I can say is that now I understand why the need for al-Zarqawi's dead corpse on all the news outlets...

December27JJB

07-07-2006, 08:40 AM

All I can say is that now I understand why the need for al-Zarqawi's dead corpse on all the news outlets...

LOL You have a point there!

wine_o_girlie

07-07-2006, 11:24 AM

Abatement. And his name pretty much gets "cleared," at least legally. Slate explains it really well, Can't the Feds Get Lay's Money? How a heart attack saved Enron's founder $43.5 million. (http://www.slate.com/id/2145158)

It's disgusting that his heirs will be allowed to collect this money.

flygirl

07-07-2006, 11:33 AM

It's disgusting that his heirs will be allowed to collect this money.And even more disgusting that it's *not* going to the people who lost so much when Enron collapsed.

jnettie

07-07-2006, 11:35 AM

Can the former employees or stockholders file a civil suit or anything like that?

Delta

07-07-2006, 12:46 PM

It's disgusting that his heirs will be allowed to collect this money.
Why? They haven't done anything wrong.

There are soooo many more parties to blame in this sordid affair besides just Lay. Everyone was signing off on this stuff - Arthur Andersen, Vinson & Elkins - they all had a hand in it. Lay wasn't even involved that much at Enron after 1997 at the time Skilling and Fastow started screwing around. That was actually part of the problem - Lay came back in 2001. Lay had no clue about the extent of all the SPV's (accounts created off the Enron books to hide debt) Fastow had created that lead to the crash of the company. I'm not saying Lay is blameless by any means, but I do not think he deserves this villification.

flygirl

07-07-2006, 01:18 PM

It doesn't matter if other parties are also to blame, and defending him now is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Lay profited illegally and was convicted. I'm not upset that the money is going to his family; I'm upset that it's NOT going to employees/stockholders etc.

jnettie, I'm not sure about that, but it's possible.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 01:22 PM

The bottom line is that Lay profited illegally and was convicted.

If he profited illegally, so did stockholders in the corporation, including employees.

You don't get retribution if your holdings collapse due to bad corporate management. If they had concern about their livelihood being threatened by any loss of their holdings' value, they should have sold and invested the profits elsewhere.

If anything, the stockholders would have been better off if the scandal had not gone to the point it did. Lay and co. may have had a chance to make good on their inflated projections, and the stock value would have held.

ejs

07-07-2006, 01:31 PM

Actually, Lay wasn't sentenced and will technically not be considered a convicted fellon. From the Slate.com link above:

So hey, maybe it is plausible that Rove had him offed to keep Bush from being any more embarrassed than he already is.

kidding, of course
You're right and I knew that. I meant had had his trial.

Delta

07-07-2006, 02:04 PM

It doesn't matter if other parties are also to blame, and defending him now is irrelevant.I know other parties have nothing to do with what his family will receive. My post didn't make that clear though - I was addresssing two different points. I don't think 'defending' him (or pointing out that the story is much more complicated than how it is presented in the media) is irrelevant in the least though.

LittleFredPunkinHead

07-07-2006, 02:37 PM

If he profited illegally, so did stockholders in the corporation, including employees.

I don't think this is correct. Lay was cashing in his own stock holdings while telling employees and public investors things were good and that they should buy.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 03:17 PM

By that, I mean, if he was involved in shady activity to create profit for his company (and therefore for himself), he was creating profit for his shareholders as well.

Also, nothing stopped shareholders from diversifying their portfolios instead of putting all eggs in the company basket.

bookworm

07-07-2006, 03:20 PM

Also, nothing stopped shareholders from diversifying their portfolios instead of putting all eggs in the company basket.

I thought there was a freeze on diversifying the company contribution to retirement accounts.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 03:21 PM

I thought there was a freeze on diversifying the company contribution to retirement accounts.

What does that have to do with diversifying your personal portfolio?

bookworm

07-07-2006, 03:27 PM

Sorry--I wasn't clear. When I think of the employees wronged by Enron, I mostly think of those who lost a big chunk of their retirement savings. While they certainly could have diversified their own contributions, I can't fault them for being upset about losing retirement savings due to management playing fast and loose with GAAP.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 03:36 PM

Of course I don't blame them for being upset, either. But, again, my point was--I am highly skeptical regarding investments, I think a lot of companies fiddle around with GAAP, and investments and finances need to be very carefully scrutinized on a personal level IMO.

At any rate, I can't point the finger at one person as being culpable.

bookworm

07-07-2006, 03:38 PM

Gotcha. I don't disagree about diversification--I guess I was reading a sentiment that wasn't there.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 03:42 PM

Well, if anything, every financial planner in the country is using the Enron case as a way to terrify people into diversifying their portfolios, so at least there's some good there!

flygirl

07-07-2006, 05:34 PM

If he profited illegally, so did stockholders in the corporation, including employees.Back to what LFPH said, his profits are considered illegal because he acted illegally. Regular stockholders did not act illegally.
You don't get retribution if your holdings collapse due to bad corporate management. If they had concern about their livelihood being threatened by any loss of their holdings' value, they should have sold and invested the profits elsewhere.If only it were that easy. First of all, employees could make no changes to retirement plans during October & Novemeber 2001. There's no "shoulda" about that; they simply could not sell or invest profits elsewhere during a period when stocks fell 64.8%. Investigations have shown that while Enron had valid reasons for changing bookkeeping at this time, they did NOT need to freeze it.

Second, employees had 2 retirement plans: Employee Stock Ownership, basically an Enron stock-only pension plan available at age 59.5, and a 401k, to which all matches were made *only* in company stock. The matches could not be divested until the employee reached age 50. The average employee's retirement fund was locked into more than 75% Enron stock, not counting the strong encouragement of buying Enron stock as part of the employee's 401k contribution. (Senate Committee on Finance Report (http://www.gpo.gov/congress/joint/jcs-3-03/vol1/index.html))

If anything, the stockholders would have been better off if the scandal had not gone to the point it did. Lay and co. may have had a chance to make good on their inflated projections, and the stock value would have held.Do you mean the scandal itself? Or the revelations of the scandal? I assume you mean the latter, since the former is pretty obvious :). The scandal wasn't about inflated projections; it was about past accounting scams that led to mis-reported earnings. Had the company made a mistake rather than acted illegally, the company probably would have remained viable and the stock prices would have corrected to reflect the value of the company (ideally). But even if it was just a "mistake," Lay was still selling off his stock while strongly encouraging employees to buy more. With that stock valued at ... (gotta go; be back to finish later)

The "scandal" did not break until well after the company was heading in a downward spiral. On Oct. 16, 2001, Enron reported a $618M 3rd quarter loss & a $1.2B reduction in shareholder equity (partly related to Fastow's partnerships). The SEC investigation (the first official acknowledgement of a possible scandal) was announced on Oct. 31.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 06:12 PM

RE: Illegal, of course stockholders did not act illegally. However, if fraud of any sort led to profits within the business, my point is, it's not just Lay who profited. There are people who made money off the company besides him.

I am confused as to why we are concentrating on company retirement plans as the only method of investment. Besides, the plan you are describing is not unusual. There is strong encouragement in many corporations to purchase company stock.

Misreported earnings lead to inflated projections. I don't believe the company made a mistake; I believe they overreached with intent of correction and missed the mark badly. Again, I believe this is an exaggerated case of what happens in corporations more often than we'd like to think.

Finally, the CEO of a corporation in a position of hoping for correction is not going to publicly switch midstream and start telling his employees not to buy stock, when the company has previously encouraged it. That would be madness. Any hope of the stock holding value would vanish if that got out to the public, which it surely would.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 06:32 PM

BTW, the document you reference itself strongly recommends investment education and diversification. Whether this sort of education is a responsibility of corporations, and actually carried out by the majority of corporations out there today, is debatable. I don't disagree with the need for it nor the principle of having corporations more involved in educating its employees thusly. However, my point again is, this remains largely a personal responsibility as of now. According to the document you reference, the Enron situation is not unique--there are numerous plans that tie up a fair amount of retirement assets in non-diversified company interests. (As I figured and noted above.)

Additionally, stock options as executive incentives are rampant practice in corporate America, which leads to a lot of what I would consider pretty natural grounds for greed (not even necessarily evil greed. Just the natural inclination). Which leads to getting fudgy in terms of reporting and projections. Not saying it's right, just saying again: This is happening elsewhere--probably to a lower degree, but it's not a unique Enron thing. I would say that if we are going to think Lay is an evil guy, we should probably take a hard look at all CEOs and determine whether or not we simply want to just call them all "evil." I think they all are "evil" in this manner to some degree.

Yes, it sucks that people are misled by the companies they work for. But it happens, and sometimes as we have seen quite dramatically. So it strengthens the need to be really, really effing careful about your own assets and what you do with them.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 07:14 PM

And one final point:

If only it were that easy?

It was easy. According to the document you reference, employees were offered approximately 20 investment options as part of the Enron Savings Plan other than Enron stock. "Consisting of a broad range of alternatives offering various risk and return characteristics."

The average employee's retirement fund was locked into more than 75% Enron stock

Aside from the matching contributions being tied to stock...this appears to be their own choice. Matching contributions certainly is an attractive incentive, I don't dispute that. And sure, the company didn't need to encourage so much interest in employer assets. But, again, caveat emptor.

bookworm

07-07-2006, 07:21 PM

I will look at it again, but if it's like ours, the multiple investment options are entirely for the employee contribution. The match is all in company stock.

Post-Enron, they changed the policy so we can diversify that immediately (it had been wait-until-50-something). That reminds me that I have to do that, actually....

wendalah

07-07-2006, 07:30 PM

Right, as I noted, I don't think it's an unusual plan. My company doesn't do that, but they do offer options like crazy. There's no requirement for a company to match contributions, so even if the stock is worthless in the end, stock is better than getting nothing because at least you have the chance of it having value.

bookworm

07-07-2006, 07:39 PM

Apparently I am destined to misunderstand today....

wendalah

07-07-2006, 07:43 PM

Post-Enron, they changed the policy so we can diversify that immediately

Hooray! :D

princesse

07-07-2006, 07:47 PM

How did I miss this news??? RIP Ken and may the employees you screwed Live In Peace.

LittleFredPunkinHead

07-07-2006, 09:16 PM

Regardless of whether Lay's actions were common or not, they were still ethically egregious.

You know, rape is much more common than most people imagine. Does that mean that it's not so bad?

wendalah

07-07-2006, 09:25 PM

Regardless of whether Lay's actions were common or not, they were still ethically egregious.

It's ethically egregrious to lay it all on Lay. Rape is between two people. Corporate scandal spreads out much further. Why does he have to bear the full burden? Why not everyone involved, from the accountants, to the VP/Ops, etc.?

jnettie

07-07-2006, 09:26 PM

Well, I think all CEOs are evil anyway. ;)

Yeah, it's not uncommon these days for companies to do this, and I find that really sad. If only they were all caught and did some jail time, maybe it wouldn't be so common.

wendalah

07-07-2006, 09:28 PM

Also, the allusion to rape isn't really solid as rape is pretty much across the board negative. Sometimes corporate "evil" actions work for the good of many, including the rank and file. And not all CEOs or high-level execs are necessarily bad people because they are not exactly modeling their business plans after the life of Christ. You wouldn't want all CEOs or companies to be caught, seriously. Too many people would be affected negatively.

LittleFredPunkinHead

07-08-2006, 10:27 AM

It's ethically egregrious to lay it all on Lay. Rape is between two people. Corporate scandal spreads out much further. Why does he have to bear the full burden? Why not everyone involved, from the accountants, to the VP/Ops, etc.?
It isn't all being put on Lay. My first Google hit on Enron charges: (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/14/news/companies/enron_scorecard/index.htm) As of 1/2004, 14 executives had been indicted, and 7 had pleaded guilty. I have no doubt that more have been charged in the two years since then.
Also, the allusion to rape isn't really solid as rape is pretty much across the board negative. Sometimes corporate "evil" actions work for the good of many, including the rank and file. And not all CEOs or high-level execs are necessarily bad people because they are not exactly modeling their business plans after the life of Christ. You wouldn't want all CEOs or companies to be caught, seriously. Too many people would be affected negatively.
We're not talking about corporate "evil" actions as in plain old, law-abiding money-hungry capitalism here. I agree, that does often work for the good of many. What we are talking about is white-collar crime, that might bring profit to a handful, but it screws over so many, many more.

Believe me, I do know what this case is about. It brought down one of my company's competitors. And I do, in fact, wish that all companies who pull this kind of crap would get caught. Although I'd prefer that they'd just start cleaning up their acts themselves.

And BTW, I would never call someone evil just because they didn't model their life after Christ. ;)

jnettie

07-08-2006, 05:48 PM

And I do, in fact, wish that all companies who pull this kind of crap would get caught. Although I'd prefer that they'd just start cleaning up their acts themselves.
What she said. :)

ejs

07-08-2006, 07:34 PM

Believe me, I do know what this case is about. It brought down one of my company's competitors. And I do, in fact, wish that all companies who pull this kind of crap would get caught. Although I'd prefer that they'd just start cleaning up their acts themselves.
Don't you think that Sarbanes-Oxley is actually helping accomplish this?

LittleFredPunkinHead

07-08-2006, 09:59 PM

Don't you think that Sarbanes-Oxley is actually helping accomplish this?
Yes, absolutely. My company is inundated with questions about SOX now- how will you help us with this, how does your organization deal with it? And that's a great development. I want them to worry about/be concerned with it.

But, I guess I'm just disappointed that it had to be created, you know? I sincerely wish that orgs could be trusted to police themselves.

wendalah

07-09-2006, 06:10 PM

LittleFredPunkinHead

07-10-2006, 09:32 AM

LF: I never meant to allude you don't know what the case is all about! My point is, it seems as if Lay is taking all the blame as the satanic asshole who should rot in hell here, which I don't agree with necessarily. Also, I grew up with a high-level corporate executive father, so I have sympathies toward big business and its positive sides that I know not everyone shares.
No, I understand. :) Lay is getting the brunt of it in the media, and that isn't fair. And I actually do get your sympathies to big business. DH is an exec with an insurance company, and it chaps my hide when I hear the blanket statements about evil insurers. Meh.

artist

07-10-2006, 02:18 PM

Guess that's one way to get out of jail time.

flygirl

07-10-2006, 02:26 PM

I didn't mean to run out on this; sorry. I love how this thread has become all about apologizing for misunderstandings :).

Wendy, caveat emptor, absolutely. But the company took every step possible to get employees to put their money into its stock. That's all I'm sayin' ;). Also, I think you said earlier that corporations aren't responsible to stockholders when their shares tank, but that's not entirely true, especially if the company files for bankruptcy. The stockholders are entiteld to a portion of the proceeds. They aren't *entitled* to the windfall of bad execs, unless said execs are convicted of a crime & so ordered by a judge to pay restitution. In this case, it's just sad that the employees won't get the money.

I completely agree with you that Lay shouldn't bear the brunt, and I really don't think he is. He did his part & feelings toward him are regardless of other execs' contributions. I totally understand the sympathy, though. It chaps *my* hide when anyone talks about the evil airlines or the pilots who make too much money ;).