Summary

Enron was a U.S. energy-trading and utilities company that housed one of the biggest
accounting frauds in history. Enron's executives employed accounting practices
that falsely inflated the company's revenues, which, at the height of the scandal,
made the firm become the seventh largest corporation in the United States. Once the
fraud came to light, the company quickly unraveled and filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001.
BREAKING DOWN 'Enron'
Enron shares traded as high as $85 before the fraud was discovered, but plummeted
to $0.30 in the sell-off after the fraud was revealed. Shareholders received company
payouts as compensation for their losses, but former company executives also settled
to pay shareholders out of their own pockets. Enron was the first big-name account
scandal, but it was soon followed by the uncovering of frauds at other companies such
as WorldCom and Tyco International, and has become a symbol of modern corporate
crime.
How did Enron Happen?
The Enron bankruptcy, at $63 billion in assets, was the largest on record at the time.
Its collapse shook the markets and nearly crippled energy industry. While the obvious
perpetrators of the scandal were the senior executives, who concocted the accounting
schemes, financial and legal experts determined that none of it would have been
possible without help. Between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the credit rating agencies and the investment banks, Enron was allowed to
operate unscathed and enabled by failed oversight, manipulation, and deceptive
practices of these organizations.
Initially, much of the finger pointing was directed at the SEC, which the U.S. Senate
found complicit for its systemic and catastrophic failure of oversight. It was
determined that, had the SEC reviewed any of Enrons post-1997 annual reports, it
would have seen the red flags and possibly prevented the huge losses suffered by
employees and investors. The credit rating agencies were found to be equally
complicit in their failure to conduct proper due diligence before issuing an
investment grade rating on Enrons bonds just before its bankruptcy filing.
However, it was the investment banks, through their manipulation or outright
deception that allowed Enron to continue to receive positive research analysis,
promoting its stock and bringing billions of dollars of investment into the company. It
was a quid pro quo in which Enron paid the investment banks millions of dollars for
their services in return for their backing.
Can Enron Happen Again?
About the only positive that came out of the Enron catastrophe has been the
protective measures put in place to prevent a similar occurrence. The Enron scandal
gave us the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which did serve to enhance transparency
and criminalize financial manipulation. The Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) standards were strengthened to curtail the use of questionable accounting
practices, and more accountability was imposed upon corporate boards in their role as
management watchdogs.
Introduction
Enron Corporation was a US energy, commodities and services company based in
Houston, Texas. It was one of the worlds largest electricity, natural gas,
communications and pulp/paper companies. It was founded in 1985 be Kenneth Lay

after merging Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth. By 1992, Enron had become the
largest seller of natural gas in North America the trading of its gas contracts earned
$122 million.
Enron Corporation was under the leadership of CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling
and CFO Andrew Fastow.
Under Skillings management, Skilling adopted mark to market accounting, where
anticipated future profits from any deal were accounted for by estimating their
present value rather than historical cost. He also began advocating the novel idea that
the company did not really need assets if it promotes its aggressive investment
strategy. This plan helped make Enron the largest wholesaler of gas and electricity,
with $27 billion traded in a quarter.
CFO Andrew Fastow and other executives not only misled Enrons board of directors
and audit committee on high-risk accounting practices, but also pressured Andersen
to ignore the issues.
Enron went bankrupt in 2001. Apart from being the largest bankruptcy reorganization
in American history, Enron is also commonly known as the biggest audit failure.
Enrons bankruptcy caused the de facto dissolution of Arthur Andersen, its auditor at
that time, which was also one of the 5 largest audit and accountancy partnerships in
the world.
KEY PLAYERS
Kenneth Lay Founder, Chairman and CEO
Jeffrey Skilling former president and COO
Andrew Fastow former CFO
Kenneth Lay
Kenneth Lay was the CEO and chairman of Enron Corporation. In 1999, he was one of
Americas highest paid CEOS with a $42.4 compensation package. He liquidated more
than $300 million in Enron stock from 1998 to 2001, mostly in stock options. He was
indicted on 11 counts of securities fraud in 2004, and was found guilty on 10 counts.
Died 3 months before the start of his sentence.
Causes of downfall
Enron's complex financial statements were confusing to shareholders and analysts. In
addition, its complex business model and unethical practices required that the
company use accounting limitations to misrepresent earnings and modify the
balance sheet to indicate favorable performance.
The combination of these issues later resulted in the bankruptcy of the company, and
the majority of them were perpetuated by the indirect knowledge or direct actions of
Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, and other executives. Lay served as the chairman
of the company in its last few years, and approved of the actions of Skilling and
Fastow although he did not always inquire about the details. Skilling constantly
focused on meeting Wall Street expectations, advocated the use of mark-to-market
accounting (accounting based on market value, which was then inflated) and
pressured Enron executives to find new ways to hide its debt. Fastow and other
executives "created off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and
deals so bewildering that few people could understand them."

Revenue recognition
Main article: Revenue recognition1
Enron and other energy suppliers earned profits by providing services such as
wholesale trading and risk management in addition to building and maintaining
electric power plants, natural gas pipelines, storage, and processing facilities.[16] When
accepting the risk of buying and selling products, merchants are allowed to report the
selling price as revenues and the products' costs as cost of goods sold. In contrast, an
"agent" provides a service to the customer, but does not take the same risks as
merchants for buying and selling. Service providers, when classified as agents, are
able to report trading and brokerage fees as revenue, although not for the full value of
the transaction.[17]
Although trading companies such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch used the
conventional "agent model" for reporting revenue (where only the trading or
brokerage fee would be reported as revenue), Enron instead selected to report the
entire value of each of its trades as revenue. This "merchant model" was considered
much more aggressive in the accounting interpretation than the agent model. Enron's
method of reporting inflated trading revenue was later adopted by other
companies in the energy trading industry in an attempt to stay competitive with the
company's large increase in revenue. Other energy companies such as Duke Energy,
Reliant Energy, and Dynegy joined Enron in the wealthiest 50 of the Fortune 500
mainly due to their adoption of the same trading revenue accounting as Enron.[19]
Between 1996 and 2000, Enron's revenues increased by more than 750%, rising from
$13.3 billion in 1996 to $100.8 billion in 2000. This extensive expansion of 65% per
year was unprecedented in any industry, including the energy industry which typically
considered growth of 23% per year to be respectable. For just the first nine months
of 2001, Enron reported $138.7 billion in revenues, which placed the company at the
sixth position on the Fortune Global 500.[20]
Mark-to-market accounting[edit]

Mark to market accounting allowed Enron to book potential future

profits on the very day the deal was signed no matter how little cash
actually came through the door
To the outside world, Enrons profits could be whatever Enron said they
were
Almost all wall street analysts who covered Enron had by ratings or strong by
ratings of Enrons stock
John Olson one of the only analysts skeptical of the Enron story was fired from
Merrill Lynch and Merrill Lynch was rewarded with 2 investment banking jobs
worth 50 million dollars by Fastow.

By the fall of 2000, Enron was starting to crumble under its own weight. CEO Jeffrey
1 The revenue recognition principle is a cornerstone of accrual accounting together with the

matching principle. They both determine the accounting period, in which revenues and expenses are
recognized. According to the principle, revenues are recognized when they are realized or realizable,
and are earned (usually when goods are transferred or services rendered), no matter when cash is
received. In cash accounting in contrast revenues are recognized when cash is received no matter
when goods or services are sold.Cash can be received in an earlier or later period than obligations are
met (when goods or services are delivered) and related revenues are recognized that results in the
following two types of accounts:
Accrued revenue: Revenue is recognized before cash is received.
Deferred revenue: Revenue is recognized after cash is received.
Revenue realized during an accounting period is included in the income.

Skilling had a way of hiding the financial losses of the trading business and other
operations of the company; it was called mark-to-market accounting. This is used in
the trading of securities, when you determine what the actual value of the security is
at the moment. This can work well for securities, but it can be disastrous for other
businesses.
In the accounting world, the numbers on a company's books are rarely indicative of
market values. According to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP),
companies are supposed to record the value of assets at their cost in order
to err on the side of caution. In other words, if a bakery buys an oven for $10,000,
the purchase is recorded as an asset on the company's balance sheet for $10,000 even if it could be sold for more in the marketplace.
This system has worked pretty well because it ensures that everything is valued on
an even playing field. While assets may not equal fair value, at least Company X's
assets are the same as Company Y's.
This all changed in the 1980s when companies started to adopt mark-to-market
accounting. Just as the name implies, with mark-to-market accounting, certain
assets are recorded at their fair market values, not at cost, as was
previously the norm. One of the biggest spurs for the change was the new way
America did business; investing had become increasingly popular and accessible, and
businesses had started thinking that padding their coffers with stocks and
bonds was a lot more lucrative than hoarding cash.
It didn't make sense, they argued, to keep recording liquid assets like stocks and
derivatives at their cost when investors wanted to learn the true value of what was on
the books. The accountants capitulated - after all, the point was more transparency
for investors.
Using MTM isn't discretionary - companies can't just decide that they'd rather use it to
value assets like stocks or inventory. Derivatives are assets in which marking to
market is the general guideline because, like stock options, derivatives have finite
lives and tend to fluctuate in value.
Stocks are a different story. GAAP rules dictate that stocks can only be marked to
market if the company doesn't plan on holding onto the securities for a long
period of time. Most of the time, stocks are recorded at cost.
In Enron's case, the company would build an asset, such as a power plant, and
immediately claim the projected profit on its books, even though it hadn't made
one dime from it. If the revenue from the power plant was less than the projected
amount, instead of taking the loss, the company would then transfer these assets to
an off-the-books corporation, where the loss would go unreported. This type of
accounting created the attitude that the company did not need profits, and that, by
using the mark-to-market method, Enron could basically write off any loss without
hurting the company's bottom line2.
2 Bottom line refers to a company's net earnings, net income or earnings per share (EPS). The
reference to "bottom" describes the relative location of the net income figure on a company's income
statement. Most companies aim to improve their bottom lines through two simultaneous methods:
growing revenues (i.e., generate top-line growth) and increasing efficiency (or cutting costs).The
bottom line refers to the net income reported at the bottom of the income statement. The income
statement has a required layout and, although there are multiple types of income statement layouts, all
of them result with net income at the end of the calculations. All income statements begin with sales at
the top of the report. The total revenue figure is subsequently reduced by all expenses. Although
expenses may be grouped and reported differently, all reductions of income are made to leave the
residual income left for company retention or dividend distribution.

In Enron's natural gas business, the accounting had been fairly straightforward: in
each time period, the company listed actual costs of supplying the gas and actual
revenues received from selling it. However, when Skilling joined the company, he
demanded that the trading business adopt mark-to-market accounting, citing that it
would represent "true economic value."[21] Enron became the first non-financial
company to use the method to account for its complex long-term contracts.[22] Markto-market accounting requires that once a long-term contract was signed,
income is estimated as the present value of net future cash flow. Often, the
viability of these contracts and their related costs were difficult to estimate.[23] Due to
the large discrepancies of attempting to match profits and cash, investors
were typically given false or misleading reports. While using the method,
income from projects could be recorded, although they might not have ever received
the money, and in turn increasing financial earnings on the books. However, in future
years, the profits could not be included, so new and additional income had to be
included from more projects to develop additional growth to appease investors.[21] As
one Enron competitor stated, "If you accelerate your income, then you have to keep
doing more and more deals to show the same or rising income." [22] Despite potential
pitfalls, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the accounting
method for Enron in its trading of natural gas futures contracts on January 30, 1992.[21]
However, Enron later expanded its use to other areas in the company to help it meet
Wall Street projections.[24]
For one contract, in July 2000, Enron and Blockbuster Video signed a 20-year
agreement to introduce on-demand entertainment to various U.S. cities by year-end.
After several pilot projects, Enron recognized estimated profits of more than $110
million from the deal, even though analysts questioned the technical viability and
market demand of the service.[23] When the network failed to work, Blockbuster
withdrew from the contract. Enron continued to recognize future profits, even though
the deal resulted in a loss.
Special purpose entities
Enron stashed its debt in Fastows companies where investors couldnt see it. LJM was
Fastows most ambitious creation- allowed FAstow to conjure 45 million dollars for
himself. 96 indiv bankers invested in LJM and Americas major banks put up as much
as $25 million each. Enron fraud example of synergistic corruption lawyers were
supposed to say no, bankers supposed to say no, but no one who was supposed to say
no said no. They all took their share of the fraud and put it into their pockets.
Arthur Andersen received 1 million a week. Convicted for destroying evidence. With its
reputation for honesty destroyed, USs oldest accounting firm fell together with Enron
Enron deliberately created artificial shortages in California for the electicity, 2 days in
a row blackouts to increase the stock price of electricity.
The mark-to-market practice led to schemes that were designed to hide the losses
and make the company appear to be more profitable than it really was. In order to
cope with the mounting losses, Andrew Fastow, a rising star who was promoted to CFO
in 1998, came up with a devious plan to make the company appear to be in great
shape, despite the fact that many of its subsidiaries were losing money. That scheme
was achieved through the use of special purpose entities (SPE). An SPE could be
used to hide any assets that were losing money or business ventures that
had gone under; this would keep the failed assets off of the company's

books. In return, the company would issue to the investors of the SPE, shares
of Enron's common stock, to compensate them for the losses. This game
couldn't go on forever, however, and by April 2001, many analysts started to question
the transparency of Enron's earnings. (For more, see The Biggest Stock Scams Of All
Time.)
Enron used special purpose entitieslimited partnerships or companies created to
fulfill a temporary or specific purpose to fund or manage risks associated
with specific assets. The company elected to disclose minimal details on its use of
"special purpose entities".[26] These shell companies were created by a sponsor, but
funded by independent equity investors and debt financing. For financial reporting
purposes, a series of rules dictate whether a special purpose entity is a separate
entity from the sponsor. In total, by 2001, Enron had used hundreds of special purpose
entities to hide its debt.[23] Enron used a number of special purpose entities, such as
partnerships in its Thomas and Condor tax shelters, financial asset securitization
investment trusts (FASITs) in the Apache deal, real estate mortgage investment
conduits (REMICs) in the Steele deal, and REMICs and real estate investment trusts
(REITs) in the Cochise deal.[27]
The special purpose entities were used for more than just circumventing accounting
conventions. As a result of one violation, Enron's balance sheet understated its
liabilities and overstated its equity, and its earnings were overstated.[26] Enron
disclosed to its shareholders that it had hedged downside risk in its own illiquid
investments using special purpose entities. However, investors were oblivious to the
fact that the special purpose entities were actually using the company's own stock
and financial guarantees to finance these hedges. This prevented Enron from being
protected from the downside risk.[26] Notable examples of special purpose entities that
Enron employed were JEDI, Chewco, Whitewing, and LJM.
JEDI and Chewco[edit]
Main article: Chewco
In 1993, Enron established a joint venture in energy investments with CalPERS, the
California state pension fund, called the Joint Energy Development Investments (JEDI).
[28]
In 1997, Skilling, serving as Chief Operating Officer (COO), asked CalPERS to join
Enron in a separate investment. CalPERS was interested in the idea, but only if it could
be terminated as a partner in JEDI.[29] However, Enron did not want to show any debt
from assuming CalPERS' stake in JEDI on its balance sheet. Chief Financial Officer
(CFO) Fastow developed the special purpose entity Chewco Investments limited
partnership (L.P.) which raised debt guaranteed by Enron and was used to acquire
CalPERS's joint venture stake for $383 million.[26] Because of Fastow's organization of
Chewco, JEDI's losses were kept off of Enron's balance sheet.
In autumn 2001, CalPERS and Enron's arrangement was discovered, which required
the discontinuation of Enron's prior accounting method for Chewco and JEDI. This
disqualification revealed that Enron's reported earnings from 1997 to mid-2001 would
need to be reduced by $405 million and that the company's indebtedness would
increase by $628 million.[30]
Whitewing[edit]
Whitewing was the name of a special purpose entity used as a financing method by
Enron.[31] In December 1997, with funding of $579 million provided by Enron and $500
million by an outside investor, Whitewing Associates L.P. was formed. Two years later,
the entity's arrangement was changed so that it would no longer be consolidated with
Enron and be counted on the company's balance sheet. Whitewing was used to
purchase Enron assets, including stakes in power plants, pipelines, stocks, and other

investments.[32] Between 1999 and 2001, Whitewing bought assets from Enron worth
$2 billion, using Enron stock as collateral. Although the transactions were approved by
the Enron board, the asset transfers were not true sales and should have been treated
instead as loans.[33]
LJM and Raptors[edit]
Main article: LJM (Lea Jeffrey Michael)
In 1999, Fastow formulated two limited partnerships: LJM Cayman. L.P. (LJM1) and
LJM2 Co-Investment L.P. (LJM2), for the purpose of buying Enron's poorly performing
stocks and stakes to improve its financial statements. LJM 1 and 2 were created solely
to serve as the outside equity investor needed for the special purpose entities that
were being used by Enron.[30] Fastow had to go before the board of directors to receive
an exemption from Enron's code of ethics (as he had the title of CFO) in order to
manage the companies.[34] The two partnerships were funded with around $390 million
provided by Wachovia, J.P. Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse First Boston, Citigroup, and
other investors. Merrill Lynch, which marketed the equity, also contributed $22 million
to fund the entities.[30]
Enron transferred to "Raptor I-IV", four LJM-related special purpose entities named
after the velociraptors in Jurassic Park, more than "$1.2 billion in assets, including
millions of shares of Enron common stock and long term rights to purchase millions
more shares, plus $150 million of Enron notes payable" as disclosed in the company's
financial statement footnotes.[35][36][37] The special purpose entities had been used to
pay for all of this using the entities' debt instruments. The footnotes also declared that
the instruments' face amount totaled $1.5 billion, and the entities notional amount of
$2.1 billion had been used to enter into derivative contracts with Enron.[36]
Enron capitalized the Raptors, and, in a manner similar to the accounting employed
when a company issues stock at a public offering, then booked the notes payable
issued as assets on its balance sheet while increasing the shareholders' equity for the
same amount.[38] This treatment later became an issue for Enron and its auditor Arthur
Andersen as removing it from the balance sheet resulted in a $1.2 billion decrease in
net shareholders' equity.[39]
Eventually the derivative contracts worth $2.1 billion lost significant value. Swaps
were established at the time the stock price achieved its maximum. During the
ensuing year, the value of the portfolio under the swaps fell by $1.1 billion as the
stock prices decreased (the loss of value meant that the special purpose entities
technically now owed Enron $1.1 billion by the contracts). Enron, which used a "markto-market" accounting method, claimed a $500 million gain on the swap contracts in
its 2000 annual report. The gain was responsible for offsetting its stock portfolio losses
and was attributed to nearly a third of Enron's earnings for 2000 (before it was
properly restated in 2001).[40]
Corporate governance[edit]
Main article: Corporate governance
On paper, Enron had a model board of directors comprising predominantly of
outsiders with significant ownership stakes and a talented audit committee. In its
2000 review of best corporate boards, Chief Executive included Enron among its five
best boards.[41] Even with its complex corporate governance and network of
intermediaries, Enron was still able to "attract large sums of capital to fund a
questionable business model, conceal its true performance through a series of
accounting and financing maneuvers, and hype its stock to unsustainable levels." [42]
Executive compensation[edit]
Although Enron's compensation and performance management system was designed
to retain and reward its most valuable employees, the system contributed to a

dysfunctional corporate culture that became obsessed with short-term earnings to

maximize bonuses. Employees constantly tried to start deals, often disregarding the
quality of cash flow or profits, in order to get a better rating for their performance
review. Additionally, accounting results were recorded as soon as possible to keep up
with the company's stock price. This practice helped ensure deal-makers and
executives received large cash bonuses and stock options.[43]
The company was constantly emphasizing its stock price. Management was
compensated extensively using stock options, similar to other U.S. companies. This
policy of stock option awards caused management to create expectations of rapid
growth in efforts to give the appearance of reported earnings to meet Wall Street's
expectations. The stock ticker was located in lobbies, elevators, and on company
computers.[44] At budget meetings, Skilling would develop target earnings by asking
"What earnings do you need to keep our stock price up?" and that number would be
used, even if it was not feasible.[24] At December 31, 2000, Enron had 96 million
shares outstanding as stock option plans (approximately 13% of common shares
outstanding). Enron's proxy statement stated that, within three years, these awards
were expected to be exercised.[45] Using Enron's January 2001 stock price of $83.13
and the directors beneficial ownership reported in the 2001 proxy, the value of
director stock ownership was $659 million for Lay, and $174 million for Skilling. [41]
Skilling believed that if employees were constantly worried about cost, it would hinder
original thinking.[46] As a result, extravagant spending was rampant throughout the
company, especially among the executives. Employees had large expense accounts
and many executives were paid sometimes twice as much as competitors. [47] In 1998,
the top 200 highest-paid employees received $193 million from salaries, bonuses, and
stock. Two years later, the figure jumped to $1.4 billion.[48]
Risk management[edit]
Main article: Risk management
Before its scandal, Enron was lauded for its sophisticated financial risk management
tools.[49] Risk management was crucial to Enron not only because of its regulatory
environment, but also because of its business plan. Enron established long-term fixed
commitments which needed to be hedged to prepare for the invariable fluctuation of
future energy prices.[50] Enron's bankruptcy downfall was attributed to its reckless use
of derivatives and special purpose entities. By hedging its risks with special purpose
entities which it owned, Enron retained the risks associated with the transactions. This
arrangement had Enron implementing hedges with itself.[51]
Enron's aggressive accounting practices were not hidden from the board of directors,
as later learned by a Senate subcommittee. The board was informed of the rationale
for using the Whitewing, LJM, and Raptor transactions, and after approving them,
received status updates on the entities' operations. Although not all of Enron's
widespread improper accounting practices were revealed to the board, the practices
were dependent on board decisions.[52] Even though Enron extensively relied on
derivatives for its business, the company's Finance Committee and board did not have
enough experience with derivatives to understand what they were being told. The
Senate subcommittee argued that had there been a detailed understanding of how
the derivatives were organized, the board would have prevented their use.[53]
Financial audit[edit]
Main article: Financial audit
Enron's auditor firm, Arthur Andersen, was accused of applying reckless standards
in its audits because of a conflict of interest over the significant consulting
fees generated by Enron. During 2000, Arthur Andersen earned $25 million in audit
fees and $27 million in consulting fees (this amount accounted for roughly 27% of the
audit fees of public clients for Arthur Andersen's Houston office). The auditor's

methods were questioned as either being completed solely to receive its annual fees
or for its lack of expertise in properly reviewing Enron's revenue recognition, special
entities, derivatives, and other accounting practices.[54]
Enron hired numerous Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) as well as accountants who
had worked on developing accounting rules with the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB). The accountants searched for new ways to save the company money,
including capitalizing on loopholes found in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), the accounting industry's standards. One Enron accountant revealed "We
tried to aggressively use the literature [GAAP] to our advantage. All the rules create
all these opportunities. We got to where we did because we exploited that
weakness."[55]
Andersen's auditors were pressured by Enron's management to defer recognizing the
charges from the special purpose entities as its credit risks became known. Since the
entities would never return a profit, accounting guidelines required that Enron should
take a write-off, where the value of the entity was removed from the balance sheet at
a loss. To pressure Andersen into meeting Enron's earnings expectations, Enron would
occasionally allow accounting companies Ernst & Young or PricewaterhouseCoopers to
complete accounting tasks to create the illusion of hiring a new company to replace
Andersen.[56] Although Andersen was equipped with internal controls to protect against
conflicted incentives of local partners, it failed to prevent conflict of interest. In
one case, Andersen's Houston office, which performed the Enron audit, was able to
overrule any critical reviews of Enron's accounting decisions by Andersen's Chicago
partner. In addition, after news of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) investigations of Enron were made public, Andersen would later shred
several tons of relevant documents and delete nearly 30,000 e-mails and
computer files, causing accusations of a cover-up.[54][57][58]
Revelations concerning Andersen's overall performance led to the break-up of the
firm, and to the following assessment by the Powers Committee (appointed by Enron's
board to look into the firm's accounting in October 2001): "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".[59]

Audit committee[edit]
Main article: Audit committee
Corporate audit committees usually meet just a few times during the year, and their
members typically have only modest experience with accounting and finance. Enron's
audit committee had more expertise than many. It included:[60]
Robert Jaedicke of Stanford University, a widely respected accounting professor and
former dean of Stanford Business School
John Mendelsohn, President of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Paulo Pereira, former president and CEO of the State Bank of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil
John Wakeham, former United Kingdom Secretary for Energy
Ronnie Chan, a Hong Kong businessman
Wendy Gramm, former Chair of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Enron's audit committee was later criticized for its brief meetings that would cover
large amounts of material. In one meeting on February 12, 2001, the committee met
for an hour and a half. Enron's audit committee did not have the technical knowledge
to question the auditors properly on accounting issues related to the company's
special purpose entities. The committee was also unable to question the company's
management due to pressures on the committee.[61] The United States Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental
Affairs' report accused the board members of allowing conflicts of interest to impede

their duties as monitoring the company's accounting practices. When Enron's scandal
became public, the audit committee's conflicts of interest were regarded with
suspicion.[62]
Ethical and political analyses[edit]
Commentators attributed the mismanagement behind Enrons fall to a variety of
ethical and political-economic causes. Ethical explanations centered on executive
greed and hubris, a lack of corporate social responsibility, situation ethics, and get-itdone business pragmatism.[63][64][65][66][67] Political-economic explanations cited post1970s deregulation, and inadequate staff and funding for regulatory oversight. [68][69] A
more libertarian analysis maintained that Enrons collapse resulted from the
companys reliance on political lobbying, rent-seeking, and the gaming of regulations.
[70]

Other accounting issues[edit]

Enron made a habit of booking costs of cancelled projects as assets, with the rationale
that no official letter had stated that the project was cancelled. This method was
known as "the snowball", and although it was initially dictated that such practices be
used only for projects worth less than $90 million, it was later increased to $200
million.[71]
In 1998, when analysts were given a tour of the Enron Energy Services office, they
were impressed with how the employees were working so vigorously. In reality, Skilling
had moved other employees to the office from other departments (instructing them to
pretend to work hard) to create the appearance that the division was larger than it
was.[72] This ruse was used several times to fool analysts about the progress of
different areas of Enron to help improve the stock price.
Mark to market/fair value accounting

Accounting for the fair value of an asset or liability based on the current
market price. Fair value is rational and unbiased estimate of the potential
market price of a good, service or asset. It takes into account objective factors
like acquisition/distribution costs, costs of close substitutes, supply v demand,
actual utility
Can be contrasted to historical cost accounting, which summarizes past
transactions transactions and is simpler, more stable and easier to perform, but
does not represent current market value. Historical cost is the original nominal
monetary value of an economic item.

Example: If an investor owns 10 shares of a stock purchased for $4 per share, and
that stock now trades at $6, the "mark-to-market" value of the shares is equal to (10
shares * $6), or $60, whereas the book value might (depending on the accounting
principles used) only equal $40.
Similarly, if the stock decreases to $3, the mark-to-market value is $30 and the
investor has an unrealized loss of $10 on the original investment.
Result

20,000 employees lost their jobs and medical insurance

Employees lost $1.2 billion in retirement funds
Retirees lost $2 billion in pension funds
Enrons top executives cashed in $116 million in stock.
Top executives were paid bonuses totaling $55 million

Aftermath
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002