Capítulo 2 de 3 · 2'27"
On the surface, someone is selling bankers a fund that buys only Enron assets and answering a conflict question with "There is never any question that I will be on both sides of the transaction." Underneath, others insist Skilling, Lay, and the board signed off, so one man was not the sole villain.
❝ Monólogo · 5 frases Set Up to Fill the Earnings Holes
Always on the LJM Side
A commentator says Andy lacked a strong moral compass and was set up to plug earnings holes while skimming off each deal. Someone wishes he had never heard of LJM. The account rejects Fastow as the sole cause: Skilling, Lay, and the board signed off on his funds. On a secret post-bankruptcy tape, he pitches Merrill bankers and claims he will always sit on the LJM side.
These lines refuse the claim that Fastow was "the sole agent of the apocalypse." Andy "didn't have a strong moral compass." Skilling could set him up to "fill the earnings' holes," knowing he would "skim a little bit off each transaction." He got "suckered into helping all the executives meet their earnings." One line is "I wish I'd never heard of LJM." Andersen and the lawyers are said to have believed the structure was appropriate. A separate line is "I just don't buy it." Skilling, Lay, and the board "had signed off on Fastow's LJM funds" and "saw the benefits of letting Fastow do deals with himself." On the secret tape someone says, "There is never any question that I will be on both sides of the transaction," and "I will always be on the LJM side of the transaction." Someone calls that conflict "a whole 'nother ball of wax": nobody should choose, on every deal, between Enron and the limited partners.
A1–C2 es la escala MCER. Las tarjetas por encima del nivel elegido se atenúan y la reproducción no se pausa en ellas.
“Andy, in many ways, was someone we all knew didn't have a strong moral compass.”
Everyone already knew he lacked that compass, and one image seals the judgment.
Neutral
“You know, in the end, he got suckered into helping all the executives meet their earnings.”
The line refuses the polite story that he simply chose to help.
Informal
“I wish I'd never heard of LJM.”
He wishes he had never heard the name LJM.
Informal
“They saw the benefits of letting Fastow do deals with himself.”
Benefits makes the approval sound calculated, and the counterparty is himself.
Neutral
“There is never any question that I will be on both sides of the transaction.”
He treats the overlap as obvious instead of offering a denial.
Formal
“I will always be on the LJM side of the transaction.”
Always removes any pretense that the company comes first.
Formal
Andy, in many ways, was someone we all knew didn't have a strong moral compass. It's almost like Jeff Skilling said, 'okay, we're hitting some troubled times. Let's set up Andy so we can fill the earnings' holes when we need to', knowing that Andy would probably skim a little bit off each transaction for himself. There's a 'Body Heat' kind of angle to this, you know, where Skilling is Kathleen Turner and Andy is William Hurt. You know, in the end, he got suckered into helping all the executives meet their earnings.
Siguiente · 03losing itLa escena: Skilling Loses It on the CallBecause the lines say Skilling, Lay, and the Enron board had signed off on Fastow's LJM funds and saw the benefits of letting him do deals with himself. The rejection is stated outright: "I just don't buy it."
They signed off on Fastow's LJM funds. One line says Arthur Andersen and the lawyers believed the structure was appropriate. Another says Enron needs the capital.
He does not deny the conflict. He says there is never any question he will be on both sides of the transaction, and that he will always be on the LJM side. He also claims he is not selling the assets to himself, because "They own the assets. They're selling them to LJM2."
Because the speaker says no one should be put in a position where every transaction forces a choice between looking after Enron's best interests and looking after their limited partners. That is treated as a different problem from a routine conflict question.
No. That line sits with the regret of someone who got suckered into helping executives meet their earnings. The claim that the structure was appropriate comes afterward, when Andersen and the lawyers are cited.
