Great comment--what happened to vindication for the employee? The media paid a lot of attention to employees initially and yet when it came time for reform, it seems that the employees were left out. Moreover, it seems that one of the issues that Enron jurors found especially troubling was the fact that executives were able to dump their stock while employees were not--losing their savings and their job at the same time. And yet, for all the symbolic importance that the verdict may have, it does nothing to compensate the employees. So maybe these trials and other legislation are easy fixes that divert attention from the fact that nothing has been done to either protect or fully compensate employees.

Thanks, Lisa. But while Enron employees got stiffed bigtime, retrospective vindication for them wasn't my point. I meant to raise the larger prospective policy problem they represent--the widespread reliance on individually (mis?)managed defined-contribution plans to fund middle-class retirements, coinciding with the failure of defined-benefit plans and social security, as well as longer lifespans and more expensive health care. In fact, too much focus on the Enron employees as victims of a unique scam is on par with too much focus on Enron as Corporate Enemy #1: compensating Enron employees (while of course important and justified) won't fix our looming retirement-funding trainwreck any more than jailing Lay et al. will cure the problem of corporate fraud.

Ah, yes! More regulation is clearly needed. The Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't enough.

hmm.
with the main post, i tried to up the sarcasm factor for entertainment's sake (thanks, kate, for pitching in on that front), but now that two commenters in a row have misunderstood different parts of the post, maybe i ought to stick to academicianese in the future.

yes, i get your main point--i'm sure you disagree with me on the desirability of 401(k) regulation (or any regulation...).

but note that my last section praises a mythical congress for "ignoring the cheap thrills of perp walks _and_ 'corporate governance reform'" so no, kate, i didn't mean sarbanes-oxley was "not enough"; i meant that it was mainly irrelevant grandstanding. i'm sure we agree there (though you probably have even less kind words for SOx).

so i'm not talking about "more" regulation, but pointing out that the regulatory response didn't even address the more important problem.

trying to be funny is hard. i'm keeping my day job.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never understood why I should feel sorry for the Enron employees who were unable to sell their shares as their prices collapsed.

Every sale requires a buyer. Are people suggesting that Enron employees should have been able to dump soon-to-be worthless shares on other unsuspecting dupes?

As the Enron share price took a screaming nose-dive into the shitter, that it was the employees who got burned is some measure of justice. They were the ones who benefitted from the company's criminality, they were the ones who, for all I know, looked the other way and/or failed to ask questions that needed to be asked.

Sorry, but if someone has to be left holding the bag, let it be the company's employees.

What makes it worse is the legislative response we did get: section 409A.

Poop