do you know what the federal reserve is?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=aldante]

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.

[UCGal]

semi hijack…

What say you folks about the House bill HR 1207 and Senate bill S 604.

These are the companion bills to audit the Fed more openly. I think we can all agree that the Fed has *some* auditing going on. Should there be a more open/broad audit?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
“Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009”, introduced in the House by Rep. Ron Paul, currently languishing in committee. Has 319 cosponsors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604
“Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009”
introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, currently languishing in committee. Has 32 cosponsors.

Looking at the cosponsors – it’s got bipartison support… But looking at the status… It’s probably dead in committee.

[UCGal]

semi hijack…

What say you folks about the House bill HR 1207 and Senate bill S 604.

These are the companion bills to audit the Fed more openly. I think we can all agree that the Fed has *some* auditing going on. Should there be a more open/broad audit?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
“Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009”, introduced in the House by Rep. Ron Paul, currently languishing in committee. Has 319 cosponsors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604
“Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009”
introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, currently languishing in committee. Has 32 cosponsors.

Looking at the cosponsors – it’s got bipartison support… But looking at the status… It’s probably dead in committee.

[UCGal]

semi hijack…

What say you folks about the House bill HR 1207 and Senate bill S 604.

These are the companion bills to audit the Fed more openly. I think we can all agree that the Fed has *some* auditing going on. Should there be a more open/broad audit?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
“Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009”, introduced in the House by Rep. Ron Paul, currently languishing in committee. Has 319 cosponsors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604
“Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009”
introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, currently languishing in committee. Has 32 cosponsors.

Looking at the cosponsors – it’s got bipartison support… But looking at the status… It’s probably dead in committee.

[UCGal]

semi hijack…

What say you folks about the House bill HR 1207 and Senate bill S 604.

These are the companion bills to audit the Fed more openly. I think we can all agree that the Fed has *some* auditing going on. Should there be a more open/broad audit?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
“Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009”, introduced in the House by Rep. Ron Paul, currently languishing in committee. Has 319 cosponsors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604
“Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009”
introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, currently languishing in committee. Has 32 cosponsors.

Looking at the cosponsors – it’s got bipartison support… But looking at the status… It’s probably dead in committee.

[UCGal]

semi hijack…

What say you folks about the House bill HR 1207 and Senate bill S 604.

These are the companion bills to audit the Fed more openly. I think we can all agree that the Fed has *some* auditing going on. Should there be a more open/broad audit?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
“Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009”, introduced in the House by Rep. Ron Paul, currently languishing in committee. Has 319 cosponsors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-604
“Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009”
introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, currently languishing in committee. Has 32 cosponsors.

Looking at the cosponsors – it’s got bipartison support… But looking at the status… It’s probably dead in committee.

[aldante]

Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.

[aldante]

Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.

[aldante]

Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.

[aldante]

Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.

[aldante]

Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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.

[Author]

Posts