Of the two leading players Skilling is much more to blame. He had his hand on the tiller, he knew the financial state (lack of cash, mtm "profits" that were the fantasies of the deal maker) of the firm.
Everyone at the firm, with no more and perhaps less access to the finances, knew that Enron had no cash. Anyone who invested in the firm should have known that if the Analysts had been doing their job.
Any investment banker could have known that the work Enron was giving them was simply to generate short term cash by building longer term liabilities. That shhould have alerted them but they continued to do business in order to collect the fees.
Arthur Andersen HAD to know the state of play (as suggested by the shredding.) It was their job to make sure the accounts were accurate and they failed in that.
Hundreds of the employees knew how little cash the firm had and how desperate they were becoming to generate it.
Market competitors started declining Enron credit months before Skilling resigned. They had figured out they had no cash.
There were way more than two people to blame for it all.
It is a fascinating account of the companies collapse. However, I wonder why it doesn't mention Rebecca Mark and her part involving the ill-fated water venture Azurix. The whole power struggle between her and Skilling is very interesting reading.
I would advise anyone interested in the Enron story to read the book the documentary is based upon by Bethany McClean and Peter Elkind.
Originally posted by More4 Editor: Cheer for the recommendation, Hootie, I'd like to read that book.
It's well worth it. The doc is great, but it can only show so much in the time constraints. The book goes a lot further Another good book is the one by Sherron Watkins called power failure (or struggle, I forget which) another good read, albeit from Sherron's point of view.
