Aldante: You completely missed the thrust of my argument, both on Andersen/Enron and the Fed.
I’m not defending Enron, nor am I defending the Fed. I was simply pointing out that your various assertions have been largely specious and unsupported by fact. I’d be very interested in seeing the valuation methodology used for those toxic assets currently on the Fed’s books and would be the first one to say that, in all likelihood, they are considerably overvalued, just as they were overvalued prior to the Fed’s acquisition of them.
To say that most analysts out there were taken by surprise by Enron is a misstatement and a gross simplification. It simply isn’t true, any more than saying that the various banks, investment banks, rating agencies and counterparties were surprised. Enron had been playing with fire for quite some time and it was no secret on Wall Street.
And, yes, the information was disclosed. Does this mean that Andersen didn’t play a significant part and help enable Enron? Nope, not at all. But if you ask a CPA like SK about how the big players like Price, Deloitte, etc pull the same shit on a daily basis, you’ll find that Andersen wasn’t alone. The fees involved, tens of millions of dollars, were simply too big and, at that point, ethical constraints go out the window. Is it right? Again, nope, but it does happen.
And, lastly, what would you define as a “real” audit? I’d challenge you to go back and pore over the Enron financials. I have. The information is available and a fairly rudimentary Statement of Cash Flows is easy to compose on Excel and will tell you everything you need to know about how precarious Enron’s situation was, and was for a long while.
