Kenneth Lay avoids prison time...

[dexi]

...by DYING.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/05/news/newsmakers/lay_death/index.htm

Don't know how I feel about this. The cocksucker deserved to live a long hard life in prison, being gang raped daily well into his 90s. But, hate for taxpayers (particularly former Enron employees) to have to pay for that, just for his benefit.

Good riddance, Shitbag. I'd wish on you that your soul burn in hell, but it's fairly evident you don't have one. We all just have to hope that you've been living in your own personal hell for the past few years and that's what killed you.

 

[georgebushmoron]

...by DYING.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/05/news/newsmakers/lay_death/index.htm

Don't know how I feel about this. The cocksucker deserved to live a long hard life in prison, being gang raped daily well into his 90s. But, hate for taxpayers (particularly former Enron employees) to have to pay for that, just for his benefit.

Good riddance, Shitbag. I'd wish on you that your soul burn in hell, but it's fairly evident you don't have one. We all just have to hope that you've been living in your own personal hell for the past few years and that's what killed you.

If there was anyone who deserved to be tortured, it was Kenneth Lay. He deserved to be tortured in Guantanamo before death.

 

[Smother]

by having a massive heart attack....this fucker got out easy!!!
Hopefully he'll pay for it in the next life!!!

He guy fucked up alot of peoples lives going forward......

 

[twoblues]

by having a massive heart attack....this fucker got out easy!!!
Hopefully he'll pay for it in the next life!!!

He guy fucked up alot of peoples lives going forward......

Whether or not this guy deserved what death he got, I am not going to get into.

The Enron fiasco really helped open the eyes of a lot of people. So one could say some good came out of it.

As a potential shareholder, never invest with just one company.

As a company, never offer performance stock options to your leaders. That is just asking for it. Now, in most cases after Enron, a lot of companies removed stock options for their leaders.

 

[Ais]

As a company, never offer performance stock options to your leaders. That is just asking for it. Now, in most cases after Enron, a lot of companies removed stock options for their leaders.

I disagree, giving stock options to executives aligns there objectives to those of shareholders, i.e. maximizing shareholder value. Just because a few crooked execs have taken advantage of the situation does not mean they are a bad idea. Not issueing options to executives will not ensure that deals like this are not done, the crooked types will find another channel.

 

[Smother]

Whether or not this guy deserved what death he got, I am not going to get into.

The Enron fiasco really helped open the eyes of a lot of people. So one could say some good came out of it.

As a potential shareholder, never invest with just one company.

As a company, never offer performance stock options to your leaders. That is just asking for it. Now, in most cases after Enron, a lot of companies removed stock options for their leaders.

your dead wrong.....I've been an investor for 12 years....I'm doing pretty well for myself.....stock options have been around for many many years!!!
These companies that removed there options was just a public stunt to reassure investors and people in general that things were not out of control at all companies!!At the time....that's why..... sarbanes oxley .....was put up front!!
Mostly all of the companies that are public still offer options.....don't kid yourself.....do some research and see....Corporate America will never turn there back on money.....just fine tune things....I work for a major US public company....and they offer options .......

Sarbanes oxley is created for the greed....such as enron and world com....global crossing....Tyco....the list goes on ....btu no more.....they had there time!!!

 

[Ais]

And as a follow up, yes there are some companies that are no longer offering stock options on the surface, but give some other compensation that is tied to the stock price and call it long term incentive plans or the like.

 

[gravitas]

I disagree, giving stock options to executives aligns there objectives to those of shareholders, i.e. maximizing shareholder value. Just because a few crooked execs have taken advantage of the situation does not mean they are a bad idea. Not issueing options to executives will not ensure that deals like this are not done, the crooked types will find another channel.

Exactly and twoblues you're detached from reality if you think that companies aren't providing options to senior management or other high value employees. If properly managed they serve as an excellent means to retain talent and as Ais mentioned drive corporate behavior.

 

[dirtydan]

Damn/good

Damn because the bastard won't be serving any time behind bars.

Good because the bastard screwed a hell of a lot people out of their money.

I think we should get that kid who pissed on the War Memorial in Ottawa (the dumbass) to make up for his mistake by pissing on Lay's grave.

 

[bruce_lee]

I wonder if Jeff Skilling is next. This guy was born evil. In his Harvard days he was asked if he knew his product would kill many people would he still continue to market it. He responded with, I would continue to market it hard until the government found out its defects. Its my job as a business man to sell as much and make as much profit I can, its the governments job to maintain the welfare of the society.

 

[LonelyGhost]

If properly managed they serve as an excellent means to retain talent and drive corporate behavior.

which is exactly the problem: too many people are driven by the cash and not their committment to the company ...

i would rather see stock options go to employees than the nuts running most companies these days ... these guys don't bring a lot of talent to the table, and typically seem to screw up more than they actually fix.

at the very least, there should be a 'retirement' clause in stock options to execs ... they need to be out of the company for X number of years before they can exercise their options, and ALL their options should be placed in blind trusts and reimbursed over time as to not influence share prices.

stock options to employees should be part of their retirement fund which benefits them in terms of contribution and tax savings, and gives them a sense of owning part of their work.

 

[sdw]

which is exactly the problem: too many people are driven by the cash and not their committment to the company ...

i would rather see stock options go to employees than the nuts running most companies these days ... these guys don't bring a lot of talent to the table, and typically seem to screw up more than they actually fix.

at the very least, there should be a 'retirement' clause in stock options to execs ... they need to be out of the company for X number of years before they can exercise their options, and ALL their options should be placed in blind trusts and reimbursed over time as to not influence share prices.

stock options to employees should be part of their retirement fund which benefits them in terms of contribution and tax savings, and gives them a sense of owning part of their work.

I'm very sure that I wouldn't want, nor hold onto options in Air Canada or Nortel.

I always look at how fast the people getting options are turning them into cash when I look at a potential investment.

Too many "investors" only realize that a company exists when it's in the news. Look at how many people bought Bre-X when the partner that was forced on them was redrilling test holes. Didn't they understand that when your partner is spending vast amounts of money because they don't believe your results, there is something wrong?

Enron is another example. Actually reading their financial reports should have discouraged investors from putting money in.

To avoid being robbed; always believe the bad news, verify the good news.

There are lots of investments out there. Gold is a "can't lose" investment right now. Copper, Tin, Iron Ore and Nickle are good investments if people look at cost of production for the individual company.

 

[dirtydan]

I wonder if Jeff Skilling is next. This guy was born evil. In his Harvard days he was asked if he knew his product would kill many people would he still continue to market it. He responded with, I would continue to market it hard until the government found out its defects. Its my job as a business man to sell as much and make as much profit I can, its the governments job to maintain the welfare of the society.

A funny thing responsibility is. We live in a society in which we are constantly being harped at to take responsibility for ourselves. And fair enough. However when it comes to making money, and of course the greed is good element that is the foundation of capitalism, then the concept of responsibiity is treatly are something the other guy should have taken.

 

[dexi]

Whether or not this guy deserved what death he got, I am not going to get into.

The Enron fiasco really helped open the eyes of a lot of people. So one could say some good came out of it.

As a potential shareholder, never invest with just one company.

As a company, never offer performance stock options to your leaders. That is just asking for it. Now, in most cases after Enron, a lot of companies removed stock options for their leaders.

If the lesson learned from Enron was "don't put all your eggs in one basket" I wouldn't say anything good came from it at all.

The lesson that should be taken from it is that "corporate responsiblity" is an oxymoron. Maybe we've watched too many State Farm commercials, but we've anthropomorphisized corporations as "ethical" or "unethical" in their own right. Corporations aren't people and don't have human values or ethics. Laws must be made (and enforced!) to police them, as they won't police themselves. Tell a multinational they have to pay a fine for polluting the atmosphere, they'll do a cost benefit analysis and determine whether it's cheaper to pay the fines and lawsuits or actually clean up their emissions. They'll only do the "right thing" (a human value) if it's cost beneficial to do so, or if a regularatory body threatens to take away their license to do business if they don't.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Another case to prove that karma does indeed work.

 

[OTBn]

shouldn't this dead lay talk be in the review section?

 

[Randy Whorewald]

shouldn't this dead lay talk be in the review section?

No it belongs in the "Married too Long" section.

 

[OTBn]

Sarbanes-Oxley - another gravy train - thanks Kenny boy!

 

[dirtydan]

If the lesson learned from Enron was "don't put all your eggs in one basket" I wouldn't say anything good came from it at all.

The lesson that should be taken from it is that "corporate responsiblity" is an oxymoron. Maybe we've watched too many State Farm commercials, but we've anthropomorphisized corporations as "ethical" or "unethical" in their own right. Corporations aren't people and don't have human values or ethics. Laws must be made (and enforced!) to police them, as they won't police themselves. Tell a multinational they have to pay a fine for polluting the atmosphere, they'll do a cost benefit analysis and determine whether it's cheaper to pay the fines and lawsuits or actually clean up their emissions. They'll only do the "right thing" (a human value) if it's cost beneficial to do so, or if a regularatory body threatens to take away their license to do business if they don't.

Very true Dexi. In fact we are not all that far removed from the days when the car manufacturers were loathed to install any safety devices and designs into their vehicles. They used to claim such would cost too much thus driving up the prices of vehicles and that people wouldn't like such cars and trucks. A lot of safety features that a commonplace today have been around at least since the late 1940's. So attitudes like that of Lay's buddy aren't the exception in the corporation world, they are very much the mainstream.

Then there is the tobacco industry, which has known for at least 70-80 years and likely much longer that their products are terribly unhealthy. I have seen old magazines from the 1940's with ads promoting that a cigarette in your mouth made you look better. It was called back then improving your T-zone (eyes, nose, mouth).

Just goes to show us that the old cliche of "the customer is always right" is easily trumped by that old other cliche of "let the buyer beware."

 

[westwoody]

Too bad for Lay that he didn't live in Canada, he wouldn't have even been prosecuted. Why doesn't Canada have an SEC, and an Eliot Spitzer?