Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[irspro]

The "BUCK" really stops with the BOD not with a favorable ruling at this juncture!

Cover-up continued until the bitter end when the CEO(he later claimed to be only a coach who the elective BOD must have thought was heaven-sent) received an effective life term and bankruptcy for the company where the shareholders lost everything due to the bottom-line of an ineffective home-grown board of directors, in effect.  Near the end, the CEO ditched his wife and later married an employee from Investor Relations who recently ditched him for a local rich lawyer according to sources. 

If you are a member of an elective BOD of a long-distance telephone provider, you need to know that "access charges" paid to other providers are current expenses rather than assets extending beyond the current accounting period.  The effect of deferring current expenses to subsequent  periods was used as an umbrella to a bad business model generating net operating losses rather than profits over an extended period. 

Many business models can survive one weak-link if it can be changed in an orderly fashion in due process; however, any cover-ups may extend for too long a period into the "point of no return" and into bankruptcy.

Even in not-for-profits, a weak link related to "even alleged moral issues" which may be acceptable to a "jury selected from the general population" but not from a "jury selected from the population of the main revenue source" will never suffice to reconstitute confidence for the main revenue source even when a jury of the general population may render a favorable ruling.  With this thought in mind as a member of any BOD of a not-for-profit, serious thought should be given to a resolution of even alleged moral issues other than the "benefits that may be derived from a favorable decision from either a bench ruling or a jury selected from other than that of the main revenue source.  The main revenue source is apt to continue to see a cover-up rather than a resolution as a break-even solution, rightly or wrongly!


http://www.worldcomnews.com/whoistoblame.html

"Who Is To Blame ?

Naturally no one is stepping up to take the blame. WorldCom blames auditor Arthur Andersen for not uncovering the irregularities. Andersen claims they did not know about the improper accounting. They say former CFO Scott Sullivan never told the firm about the dubious accounting.

So far, Sullivan and former CEO Bernard Ebbers have basically pleaded the fifth and remained silent. Ebbers states he has done nothing fraudulent and has nothing to hide. Sullivan told WorldCom lawyers that Ebbers did know of the money shifted into the capital expenditure accounts.

John Sidgmore, current President and CEO, blames the former management for the company's problems.

Wall Street Analyst Jack Grubman, who gave high favor to the stock, has admitted he rated the stock to high for too long. He insists he was unaware of the company's true financial shape."

[Daryl Fawcett]

Seeing this was posted in the 3ABN forum, how does this relate to 3ABN?

[Bob Pickle]

Daryl,

irspro is laying out a case for the 3ABN Board to not rely on a good verdict in the lawsuit as a means of restoring donor confidence, while neglecting to address the problems that eroded donor confidence.

I think he is trying to draw parallels between WorldCom and 3ABN.

[irspro]

Seeing this was posted in the 3ABN forum, how does this relate to 3ABN?

Daryl:

It's all about Boards of Directors responsibility as the "bottom line" in both "the business model elected", the proper guidance, and the proper resolution of problem areas where character and reputation even become percieved problems that cash flow is affected.  I hope you note that none even today accept any responsibility for the WCOM debacle, even the BOD which was asleep at the wheel and suffering from being "too hand picked' if you understand the vulnerability of such.

I just happened to be within hearing distance when WCOM was $14 while I exited at $46, only to miss the $50s and $60s as well as bankruptcy!  I had thousands of dollars on the line with a vested interest.  I have none here other than the ruputation of my regularly organized church.  As a day-trader, my last block filled at $2 when the S&P downgraded WCOM debt to "junk status" when it dropped to $1.85.  It took 2 legs up for me to exit at $2.15 after WCOM called a CC after the stock market closed.  Management, in effect, was still denying any responsibility.  

I've been analyzing business models for 50 years whether I've admitted it or not.  One of my clients happened to be one of Henry Ford, Sr. suppliers which corrected some errors of 40 years which doubled profits.

While you may not care for either of the classics of WorldCom or Enron in a business setting, I see not-for-profits as being more vulnerable with a "hand-picked-board" with no voting power by the "main counduit of revenue!"

Feel free to close this thread at your will and I will continue to live happy everafter!!!


(spell of not corrected to note)

[irspro]

Daryl,

irspro is laying out a case for the 3ABN Board to not rely on a good verdict in the lawsuit as a means of restoring donor confidence, while neglecting to address the problems that eroded donor confidence.

I think he is trying to draw parallels between WorldCom and 3ABN.

Bob:

I could project your net worth along with that of GAJ and still see a tainted cash-flow still suffering from a tainted character\reputation failing to achieve break-even.  Could you illucidate FBO of all interested parties who may or may no have a dog in this fight, I don't?  Many years of public service are still in my blood here which is affecting my profitable day-trading.

All the many for-profit broadcast business models I have examined in the past 50 years are jealous of character\reputation to the extent they spend millions on Neilsen and other type ratings to even guide them in filling non-network slots with public service, weather, local news, syndications, and ads items.  While they dealt in Hollywood-character, the management eschewed Hollywood-reputations on the lowest levels for the locals themselves.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I now understand the connection, therefore, continue with this discussion.

[Snoopy]

While some may choose to use the excuse "I didn't know", that very excuse could be their downfall.

Depending on their position, ie, CEO, Chairman of the Board, etc. "I didn't know" just doesn't work if "they should have known".

The "BUCK" really stops with the BOD not with a favorable ruling at this juncture!

Cover-up continued until the bitter end when the CEO(he later claimed to be only a coach who the elective BOD must have thought was heaven-sent) received an effective life term and bankruptcy for the company where the shareholders lost everything due to the bottom-line of an ineffective home-grown board of directors, in effect.  Near the end, the CEO ditched his wife and later married an employee from Investor Relations who recently ditched him for a local rich lawyer according to sources. 

If you are a member of an elective BOD of a long-distance telephone provider, you need to know that "access charges" paid to other providers are current expenses rather than assets extending beyond the current accounting period.  The effect of deferring current expenses to subsequent  periods was used as an umbrella to a bad business model generating net operating losses rather than profits over an extended period. 

Many business models can survive one weak-link if it can be changed in an orderly fashion in due process; however, any cover-ups may extend for too long a period into the "point of no return" and into bankruptcy.

Even in not-for-profits, a weak link related to "even alleged moral issues" which may be acceptable to a "jury selected from the general population" but not from a "jury selected from the population of the main revenue source" will never suffice to reconstitute confidence for the main revenue source even when a jury of the general population may render a favorable ruling.  With this thought in mind as a member of any BOD of a not-for-profit, serious thought should be given to a resolution of even alleged moral issues other than the "benefits that may be derived from a favorable decision from either a bench ruling or a jury selected from other than that of the main revenue source.  The main revenue source is apt to continue to see a cover-up rather than a resolution as a break-even solution, rightly or wrongly!


http://www.worldcomnews.com/whoistoblame.html

"Who Is To Blame ?

Naturally no one is stepping up to take the blame. WorldCom blames auditor Arthur Andersen for not uncovering the irregularities. Andersen claims they did not know about the improper accounting. They say former CFO Scott Sullivan never told the firm about the dubious accounting.

So far, Sullivan and former CEO Bernard Ebbers have basically pleaded the fifth and remained silent. Ebbers states he has done nothing fraudulent and has nothing to hide. Sullivan told WorldCom lawyers that Ebbers did know of the money shifted into the capital expenditure accounts.

John Sidgmore, current President and CEO, blames the former management for the company's problems.

Wall Street Analyst Jack Grubman, who gave high favor to the stock, has admitted he rated the stock to high for too long. He insists he was unaware of the company's true financial shape."

[Michael Kopper]

did sombody say Enron?

Seeing this was posted in the 3ABN forum, how does this relate to 3ABN?

Daryl:

It's all about Boards of Directors responsibility as the "bottom line" in both "the business model elected", the proper guidance, and the proper resolution of problem areas where character and reputation even become percieved problems that cash flow is affected.  I hope you note that none even today accept any responsibility for the WCOM debacle, even the BOD which was asleep at the wheel and suffering from being "too hand picked' if you understand the vulnerability of such.

I just happened to be within hearing distance when WCOM was $14 while I exited at $46, only to miss the $50s and $60s as well as bankruptcy!  I had thousands of dollars on the line with a vested interest.  I have none here other than the ruputation of my regularly organized church.  As a day-trader, my last block filled at $2 when the S&P downgraded WCOM debt to "junk status" when it dropped to $1.85.  It took 2 legs up for me to exit at $2.15 after WCOM called a CC after the stock market closed.  Management, in effect, was still denying any responsibility.  

I've been analyzing business models for 50 years whether I've admitted it or not.  One of my clients happened to be one of Henry Ford, Sr. suppliers which corrected some errors of 40 years which doubled profits.

While you may not care for either of the classics of WorldCom or Enron in a business setting, I see not-for-profits as being more vulnerable with a "hand-picked-board" with no voting power by the "main counduit of revenue!"

Feel free to close this thread at your will and I will continue to live happy everafter!!!


(spell of not corrected to note)

[Fran]

It's all about Boards of Directors responsibility as the "bottom line" in both "the business model elected", the proper guidance, and the proper resolution of problem areas where character and reputation even become percieved problems that cash flow is affected.  I hope you note that none even today accept any responsibility for the WCOM debacle, even the BOD which was asleep at the wheel and suffering from being "too hand picked' if you understand the vulnerability of such.

I just happened to be within hearing distance when WCOM was $14 while I exited at $46, only to miss the $50s and $60s as well as bankruptcy!  I had thousands of dollars on the line with a vested interest.  I have none here other than the ruputation of my regularly organized church.  As a day-trader, my last block filled at $2 when the S&P downgraded WCOM debt to "junk status" when it dropped to $1.85.  It took 2 legs up for me to exit at $2.15 after WCOM called a CC after the stock market closed.  Management, in effect, was still denying any responsibility.  

I've been analyzing business models for 50 years whether I've admitted it or not.  One of my clients happened to be one of Henry Ford, Sr. suppliers which corrected some errors of 40 years which doubled profits.

While you may not care for either of the classics of WorldCom or Enron in a business setting, I see not-for-profits as being more vulnerable with a "hand-picked-board" with no voting power by the "main counduit of revenue!"... 

 

The 3ABN's "Hand Picked" board sure seem to have a lot to worry about!  The trouble IMO is that they did not know!  However, that is no excuse.  It is their job to know. 

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The 3ABN's "Hand Picked" board sure seem to have a lot to worry about!  The trouble IMO is that they did not know!  However, that is no excuse.  It is their job to know. 

Just how many roadsigns were missed and stop signs ignored? A collission is inevitable!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Habanero]

The 3ABN's "Hand Picked" board sure seem to have a lot to worry about!  The trouble IMO is that they did not know!  However, that is no excuse.  It is their job to know. 

Just how many roadsigns were missed and stop signs ignored? A collission is inevitable!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Actually, the road crew installing the signs were ordered to quit and anyone who dared to try informing the board were crushed or sued by that board.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The 3ABN's "Hand Picked" board sure seem to have a lot to worry about!  The trouble IMO is that they did not know!  However, that is no excuse.  It is their job to know. 

Just how many roadsigns were missed and stop signs ignored? A collission is inevitable!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Actually, the road crew installing the signs were ordered to quit and anyone who dared to try informing the board were crushed or sued by that board.

Thanks for that clarification!!! Boy, did we have that story wrong???
Does that mean we need to sue the board?

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Habanero]

Thanks for that clarification!!! Boy, did we have that story wrong???
Does that mean we need to sue the board?

Gailon Arthur Joy

Don't know. The board might say that it is not Christian of you to sue. They might reference Jesus when he talks about turning the other cheek (like they did when they didn't sue you.) They might say that you have an axe to grind because they sued you and that this means that you don't have any credibility, just like a woman who was raped has no credibility in court because she has an axe to grind with the man who raped her. People who want to see the Gospel spread at any cost might ask you to be the cost, as they have asked so many others to be. You just might be called a son of Satan by someone who is obsessed with Satanic stuff.

You might want to rethink any suit you might be considering. As you see, you could be poorly thought of for it.

[irspro]

Thanks for that clarification!!! Boy, did we have that story wrong???
Does that mean we need to sue the board?

Gailon Arthur Joy

Don't know. The board might say that it is not Christian of you to sue. They might reference Jesus when he talks about turning the other cheek (like they did when they didn't sue you.) They might say that you have an axe to grind because they sued you and that this means that you don't have any credibility, just like a woman who was raped has no credibility in court because she has an axe to grind with the man who raped her. People who want to see the Gospel spread at any cost might ask you to be the cost, as they have asked so many others to be. You just might be called a son of Satan by someone who is obsessed with Satanic stuff.

You might want to rethink any suit you might be considering. As you see, you could be poorly thought of for it.

Habanero, the BOD may be esentially equivalent to that of the Chinese milk companies that laced their products with melamine to make them look and possibly taste better whereby the thought of taste would merely be a thought derived from the appearance.  My business experience has led me through chemical complexes that convert natural gas into fertilizer grade nitrogen, bomb grade nitrogen, animal grade feed nitrogen, and melamine which is used in manufacturing many products such as kitchen wares, paints, etc for coloration as well as mass.

It just happens that the melamine in the milk should have been used to produce the cup from which it was consumed rather than production of the milk itself.  Whenever everything else fails, read directions!  The melamine laced milk consumers who have developed kidney stones with some deaths are alleged to exceed 53,000.  The powdered melamine does not enter and exit the body totally with in the digestive tract like the plastic giftwrap ribbon consumed by one of my kin's cats that required medical attention of over $3,000 to extracate that even a Harvard law graduate failed to forsee.

A number of business bankruptcies are now appearing on the scene which will give you ample opportunity to assess responsibility for such to either management or boards of directors, at your choice.  You may find interlocking directorates among those at issue which can serve as both beneficial as well as detrimental for both business accumen as well as internal control.  If your business product principally involves morals, an extra effort may need to be exercised by both management and boards of directors as a hedge in the long-term assurance of continuity.

[Fran]

I am sure glad I have never drank Chinese Milk!  I would hate walking around looking like a plate or bowl wanna be!

I wonder what is in our prepared food here in the US.  It is a scary thought!