-----Original Message----- 
From:   Monley, John M 
Sent:   Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:02 AM 
To:     Immer, Ingrid 
Subject:        Enron 
October 23, 2001 
Where Did the Value Go at Enron? 
By FLOYD NORRIS 
 <<...OLE_Obj...>> 
hat really went on in some of the most opaque transactions with insiders ever seen? 
Wall Street has been puzzling over that since Enron (news/quote </redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=ENE >) released its quarterly earnings a week ago. Yesterday shares in Enron plunged $5.40, to $20.65, after the company said that the Securities and Exchange Commission was looking into the transactions.
The reaction was in some ways puzzling. Given the questions that have been raised since the earnings announcement - some of them prominently featured in The Wall Street Journal - it was likely that the S.E.C. would begin a preliminary inquiry.
Whether it will go farther than that is not clear, but if nothing else the slide in Enron shares over the last week shows the hazards that can confront a company that allows word of a major reduction in its balance sheet value to dribble out. Enron's shares rose 67 cents, to $33.84, last Tuesday, as investors first reacted to the earnings announcement. But since then they have fallen $13.19, or 39 percent.
The $1.2 billion reduction in shareholders' equity was not mentioned in a news release Enron issued on its quarterly earnings last Tuesday. It was briefly mentioned in a conference call with analysts, but many of the listeners seem to have not noticed that, wrongly thinking Kenneth L. Lay, Enron's chairman and chief executive, was referring to a $1 billion write-off that was disclosed in the earnings release.
When questions were asked in the following days, the explanations were less than thorough. Enron explained that the reduction in shareholders' equity was related to the termination of "structured finance vehicles" involving partnerships that had been controlled by the company's chief financial officer.
"Both the debt and the equity people are looking for more clarity about how the company goes about its business," said Ralph Pellecchia, a credit analyst at Fitch Investors Service. He added that the issue of the company's "credibility related to this transaction really seems to have a life of its own."
Enron declined yesterday to allow any officials to be interviewed about its financial reports. But last night it said Mr. Lay would hold another conference call with investors at 9:30 a.m. today. 
The company's earlier disclosures regarding the partnerships baffled many analysts. They referred to such things as "share settled costless collar arrangements" and "derivative instruments which eliminated the contingent nature of existing restricted forward contracts." The disclosures said the company entered into the transactions "to hedge certain merchant investments and other assets."
It appears that Enron was able to report profits from them, even though the underlying assets included investments that declined in value. The Wall Street Journal, citing reports the partnerships made to institutional investors, has reported the partnerships did well enough to make large cash distributions to their investors. Enron officials in recent days have refused to discuss the arrangements in any detail.
One of the questions that the S.E.C. may look into is whether the termination of those transactions should have been treated as a balance sheet item, or whether it should have been taken as a loss that affected reported earnings. An S.E.C. spokesman declined to comment.
Under accounting rules, a company's transactions in its own shares cannot produce profits or losses, whatever the effect on cash flow. So a company that sells its shares for $10 each, and buys them back at $50, or at $1, will report no earnings effect. Enron said that the reduction to shareholders equity, and a related reduction in notes receivable, "is the result of Enron's termination of previously recorded contractual obligations to deliver Enron shares in future periods."
Stephen Moore, an analyst with Moody's Investors Service who has put Enron's debt on review for a possible downgrade, said that while some of the details were not clear, "Essentially, Enron's promise was that a certain amount of Enron's shares would be worth $1 billion. The shares plummeted, and they were not" worth that much.
Enron emphasizes its own version of earnings, which leaves out some expenses, and directs attention away from its balance sheet, which is disclosed only in S.E.C. filings, not in the earnings news release. The reduction in shareholders' equity would be shown only on the third-quarter balance sheet, which has yet to be released.
Earlier this year, Jeffrey Skilling, then Enron's chief executive, reacted strongly when a questioner on a conference call challenged the failure to provide balance sheet numbers when earnings were released. He called the questioner a common vulgarity that surprised many listeners. Mr. Skilling later resigned for what he said were personal reasons and Mr. Lay, the chairman and former chief executive, took back the latter title.
While Enron was riding high, its often difficult-to-understand reports were generally seen as not being a problem. The company appeared to be the dominant force in the business of energy trading, and to be able to produce phenomenal profits. When Mr. Lay was reported as having played an important role in formulating the Bush administration's energy policies, the aura was only enhanced. In January, the shares traded for $84.
But now, with some of the company's ventures clearly having run into problems, it appears that investors are growing less willing to accept the company's reports. That the partnership transactions were disclosed at all was because of the involvement of the chief financial officer, and some have wondered if there might have been similar deals with others.
Mr. Lay has promised to make the company's financial reports easier to understand, and last week's report was at first praised by some analysts for doing just that.
In a news release yesterday, Mr. Lay said the company welcomed the S.E.C.'s request for information. "We will cooperate fully with the S.E.C. and look forward to the opportunity to put any concern about these transactions to rest," he said.