Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? [/quote]
Aldante: “Author Anderson”? Really? You mean Arthur Andersen, right?
Just curious, but have you ever read an Enron financial statement? Probably not, correct? I’m saying this because all of the relevant data, including those billions of off-balance sheet transactions that got them into trouble were disclosed, as was their God-awful cash flow position. You had to do some digging, sure, but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted. There were several prominent analysts who did point out Enron’s flaws and faults, but the rest of Wall Street was too busy buying into the hype (and, more important, buying Enron stock) to really question the solidity and stability of their business model.
I’d suggest you read the Fed’s financials, or have someone help you do so (not a put-down, you might not happen to be an accountant or financial person) and then decide what’s missing.
No, this is not some defense of the Fed; merely pointing out that you’re jumping to quite a few conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence. Personally, I’d love to see the valuation methodology used for all of those toxic assets the Fed swallowed. Now, that would make for some interesting reading and potential grist for your mill.
