The Enron
Debacle
Kavaljit
Singh
The anti-corporate activists
and groups in the
The collapse of Enron was
almost inconceivable a few weeks ago because the company was internationally
known for its risk management practices. In the business schools and
universities, Enron's risk management models and systems were not only taught
but also praised as the "best practice." The company was the darling
of investment bankers in the Wall Street and was often referred as the
"Rolls Royce" of Corporate America. Despite bursting of hi-tech
bubble, the stock of Enron touched as high as $90 in August 2000. Global Finance (a leading international
financial journal) awarded Enron as the world's best company in energy services
and electricity in its annual survey published in September 2001. Enron was
ranked No. 16th on Fortune
global 500 corporations list published in July 2001. In fact, not just the
investment banks, business partners and financial markets, even the critics of
Enron had never anticipated that the most admired company would face a sudden
collapse.
On December 2, 2001, Enron
sought protection under Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws of the
Table 1:
Top 5 Bankruptcies in the
Company Year
filed Assets (in $
billions)
1. Enron
Corporation 2001 49.5
2. Texaco,
Inc. 1987 35.9
3.
Financial Corporation of
4. Pacific
Gas and Electric Co. 2001 21.5
5. Mcorp. 1989 20.2
The extraordinary rise of
Enron is full of scams related to corrupt practices, bending of rules and laws,
concealing facts and embezzlement of accounts. Until the 1980s, Enron was a
small company, primarily engaged in natural gas pipelines. But the company shot
into prominence due to its aggressive and ambitious approach in the 1990s, the
decade of deregulation, privatization and globalization. The company rapidly
expanded businesses from building power projects in
Although large-scale energy
trading is a recent phenomenon in the developed countries but Enron quickly
established its leadership in a couple of years and dominated this business,
with more than 25 per cent of total trading in the
No denying, building
contacts in the corridors of powers facilitated this massive expansion business
of Enron. The top management of Enron maintained close contacts with the
establishments, be it in
The collapse of Enron has
more to do with its fraudulent investment activities rather than wearing down
of its core business of power trading. Although the detailed reports are yet to
be revealed, the initial reports suggest that the company suffered huge losses
in investments which were covered up in the complex web of partnership
investment companies and trusts by its chief financial officer. These losses
were concealed in order to mitigate their impact on reported profits of the
company. The company suffered a $1.2 billion loss in capital, following a bad
hedging deal with a private-equity fund called LJM set up by its chief
financial officer. Further, the third-quarter results of company (released in
mid-October 2001) showed a $1 billion write-off on water distribution,
broadband trading and other investments.
In addition, the company
pursued a deadly practice of getting rid of its asset-based portion of its
business (which in the short run helped the company to attain better returns on
equity) and expanding business on new debts, which became unsustainable in the
long run. Thus, a combination of factors including lack of transparency, lax
internal controls and fraudulent practices (concealing debts from its balance
sheets in order to deceive investors by showing higher profits) were largely
responsible for Enron's debacle.
Apart from lying off nearly
4000 workers, the collapse of Enron has several other wider ramifications.
Although the exact spillover impact of collapse would only be known in the days
to come but one thing is certain that the negative fallout would not be just
restricted to the power trading businesses. Even those subsidiaries of Enron
that are not directly related to power business (such as Enron Leasing Company)
would also be badly hit by the bankruptcy of the parent company. The initial
reports suggest that the major victims of the fallout would be the banks and
financial institutions that provided huge loans to Enron. Two of the major
Some commentators have
compared the collapse of Enron with the collapse of Long-Term Capital
Management (LTCM), a hedge fund that collapsed in 1998. Also known as
"Rolls Royce" of Wall Street, LTCM was a very prominent hedge fund
with sophisticated fund managers and financial wizards on its pay roll. But
following the Russian crisis in August 1998, the LTCM suffered complete erosion
of its capital base. However, timely intervention by the US Federal Reserve
bailed out LTCM otherwise its collapse would have sparked a major crisis at the
Wall Street and the global financial markets. In the case of Enron, analysts
are also expecting a similar bailout package given the close proximity of top
management with the Bush administration. Meanwhile, a
The bankruptcy of Enron also
has serious implications for
The bankruptcy also poses a
serious blow to the Indian banks and financial institutions that had lent huge
amount of money to the project. The three financial institutions namely State
Bank of India ICICI and Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) together
have funded $1.4 billion in the Dabhol power project. Any further delay in the
interest payments would lead to massive erosion of the earnings and
profitability of Indian banks and financial institutions, some of which are
already reeling under the burden of huge non-performing assets. Indian banks
and financial institutions are expected to collectively lose nearly $208
million worth of interest income over the next year. In addition, Indian financial
institutions have given guarantees to loans by export credit agencies (ECAs)
such as US EXIM, OND of Belgium and Japanese Bank for International
Cooperation. Thus, the Enron's debacle not only poses a potent threat to Dabhol
lenders but also to the entire financial sector in