How is what the banks did any different than Ken Lay and the rest

[BR_Parkway]

of that crowd? I'm really surprised that there isn't more news of investigations, criminal charges being bought up against these folks, they're nothing more than modern day swindlers.

And somewhere in the middle of all this mess, we've got to get the rules changed to where they can't shift things 'off the books' so their balance sheets look better. I'm a small businessman, and if I moved things off the books, they'd be handing me an orange jumpsuit and throwing away the key.

[ixion]

1. As a fellow small businessman, I concur

What they did was no different than what Enron did: they gamed the system, which is fraud.

The problem, of course, is that this game was largely sanctioned by the rethug 'base', so there would be (will be?) hundreds of very high profile cases. And prosecuting the top 1% is anathema to our government "of the People". :eyes:

[liberal N proud]

2. Enron happened and was uncovered before bu$h took office

Now the bu$h regime is there to help those who steal the companies funds, force the company into failure and then get more cash from us to continue the party.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. In a way, it's more egregious.

These bright young men and women, these attempted "Masters of The Universe", the people who see themselves as Randian protagonists, they looked at the downfall of Enron and said "Pshaw! Those guys weren't the smartest guys in the room! I'm the smartest person in any room and I can make it work!"

So here we are. Fun with sociopaths akimbo.

[HamdenRice]

4. Enron got in trouble for NOT moving liabilities off the books

There is nothing inherently wrong with that -- the so called vanilla securitrization. I used to work in that field in the 90s. The idea was that banks could loan more money by selling their loans to special purpose companies, which would issue bonds (mortgage backed securities) against the mortgages.

They go through great lengths to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code and Bankruptcy Code to ensure that the bank that sells the mortgage is no longer considered liable for the debt issued against it, and that is disclosed to the bond buyers.

What Enron did -- and I've never for the life of me understood why -- was to securitize certain energy assets. But they did not comply with the UCC and Bankruptcy Code, which meant they were liable for billions and billions in liabilities that should have been matched solely against assets in the special purpose companies.

Moreover, they did not disclose to their investors that they continued to have these liabilities, which means they committed a massive fraud on their investors.

So, in a way, what the banks did was the opposite of what Enron did. What the banks did with certain derivatives, however, is somewhat analogous to Enron, because they misstated their liabilities to investors.

[eilen]

5. Big Oil did it too

I think we should be ashamed for not taking to the streets when gas prices were at $4+ a gallon.

[BR_Parkway]

6. Ok, difference noted - but it still doesn't rule out that the underlying

securities were worthless - If I did it, they'd lock me up for fraud - and I don't get why no one is talking about criminal prosecutions.