Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Im not really sure why this page is being flagged for deletion. I am still working on it and I would welcome any contributions and comments.
Pkearney ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
It appears that some of the objections to this page were founded on a question over whether a discrete philosophy of accounting actually exists. I would suggests it depends on your perspective / philosophical perspective perhaps. One debater suggested that it is might be in the realm of philosophy of washing machines and lawn mowers. Another claimed to have a wide who was a CPA and said that philosophy wasnt something that accountants thought about.
There is a philophy of accounting - it is embedded in the Frameworks issues by the IASB and FASB. Accountants, being mainly procedural people, are not inclined to debate their philophies much - most appear to prefer toa pply the accounting standards almost as though they were handed down by the gods, rather than taking a step back and really questioining whether what they produce is fair, true, ethical etc.
The issue of ethics was also raised I would add that one of the causes attributed to the Enron scandal was that accountants applied the letter of the standards, rather than taking a step back and applying the principles of "fair presentation". This is part of the somewhat "exciting" debate between the US standards setters and the rest of the world as to whose standards should prevail and how they should be applied.
Forgive me, but I believe that there is philosophical debate raging at the moment within the profession and the reason I created this page was to try to get some real academic input on the subject. Perhaps I have made a poor start, but then I understood that the whole purpose of Wikipedia was collaboration. I invite you to help and make this a worthwhile page.
Regards Pkearney ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
I'm grateful for Pkearney's explanation here. I think it illuminates some of the confusion. The term "philosophy of X" in English does not mean "the philosophy that practitioners of X happen to hold", nor does it mean "the philosophical presuppositions underlying X". Rather, it means the philosophical analysis of the concepts, strategies, social contexts, etc., of X. There are many X's for which there is no "philosophy of X" as a discrete thing. For example, there is no subject called "philosophy of television" or "philosophy of postage stamps" or "philosophy of furniture", though to be sure, philosophers have written about all three, and people who are engaged in those businesses (being humans!) do sometimes muse upon the philosophical implications of their work. But now that I see Pkeearney's explanation here, there is a chance to explain the problem:
Tb, You make a valid point. The following is not meant as an objection to your statements - its just an interesting side point.
I had a conversation with someone I know who is a Professor of Finance and Accounting in a Top 50 (global) business school (ie not not too far down the food chain) about "fair presentation". To my surprise, he had never heard of it - which I immediately thought (unfairly and with some jest) "Oh! thats because your'e a CPA - had you been a CA it would have been front of mind." We later figured out that he just knew the concept as "true and fair presentation" and because my academic background is situated in another country and in a different decade - I used a different term.
I do think though that your suggestion that there might be a philosophy of anything is a little extreme. Philosophy is really about truth, ethics, reality and the presentation of that - I still stand by my view that there is a much more substantial philosophy underlying accounting and the concepts of "True and Fair Presentation" (to use my friend's term) than there is in Postage Stamps... There areant many ethical or reality issues associated with postage stamps are there?
Perhaps we could rename the page "Fair Presentation (Accounting)" or "True and Fair Presentation (Accounting)". Then at least the term exists and then we can lay out the papers and references that define what this concept actually is...
Pkearney ( talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice addition.. Thanks. Its very relevant for this field.
Should the 'Ontological Issues' section, particularly 'truth', contain as much detail on the philosophy side? Particularly the list of theories for definition of truth seems a little out of place in terms of level of detail. You could just link to Truth#Substantive theories. Reducing this may make it seem a little less unnecessarily cumbersome for a subject whose very existence is being debated! ;-) Wikiphile1603 ( talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So the previous text said that intangibles didn't "objectively" exist, which is really philosophical nonsense. They don't physically exist (that's what "intangible" means), but that's irrelevant to the question of form/substance, where the question originally was. So I altered the text to fit the substance/legal-form question, since it is true that many intangibles (though not all) have no legal existence as property. For example, goodwill cannot be sold, nor can it be stolen; likewise the unique talents of a businesses employees might be counted as an intangible asset. But then an editor move the question over to truth, apparently because the idea is that intangibles don't "really" exist, which is really nonsense. There is no epistemological issue about intangibles; there is an interesting ontological one, but accounting is irrelevant to it. But, if the substance/legal-form thing is really a genuine issue (we are still waiting for a reference on that absolutely key claim without which the whole article falls) it would certainly fit there. So as I see it, there are two options: drop the mention of intangibles entirely, or put it in the substance/legal-form question.
Of course, this points out the serious problems in the article as a whole. What we need is not our judgment on the question, but a suitable secondary source which tells us which philosophical issue is supposed to be raised. And that's just entirely lacking. Tb ( talk) 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
do you want the accountants to speak in philosophical terms, or will you accept a translation? pohick ( talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)The Board concluded that amortization of goodwill was not consistent with the concept of representational faithfulness, as discussed in FASB Concepts Statement No. 2, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. The Board concluded that nonamortization of goodwill coupled with impairment testing is consistent with that concept. The appropriate balance of both relevance and reliability and costs and benefits also was central to the Board's conclusion that this Statement will improve financial reporting. [1]
you know dictionaries are verifiable, even if poor guides. (which is the wiki form) i'm not sure i want to rely on the philosophers to define terms for me. pohick ( talk) 00:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)What is the relevance of philosophy to accounting? Much of philosophy is concerned with morals and ethics. Accoutancy is all about - or should be all about - ethical accounting of business transactions. The current malaise in the financial markets shows that morals and ethics have not been as prominent as they probably ought to have been in the minds of many people. [1]
(break) Yes, since this is an article about a supposed branch of philosophy, I want them to speak in philosophical terms. - well, what if they are talking about philospohical issues in non-philosophical terms: "concept of representational faithfulness". are you imposing the philosophical jargon upon a subculture with their own? like the anthropologist, can we describe the subculture with meta-language? pohick ( talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly true that at one time fixed assets were assigned the value of their purchase cost, less depreciation, and that was that. And it is certainly true that considerations of substantial accuracy have led to a reconsideration of that practice, and the increasing practice of re-valuing them based on current market values. But it is not clear that this has anything to do with the stated purpose of the section it was placed in: the distinction between substance and legal form. There is no "legal form" here; the closest we have are such things as IRS rules that mandate that, for example, charitable donations of property be valued at current market value. And in such cases, far from there being a distinction between substance and legal form, the two are entirely parallel. So, again, what we need is a secondary source which actually says what the philosophical issue is supposed to be. Let's find that citation, and only then add it back, in the proper place. Tb ( talk) 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Inflation accounting calls for restatement of figures to account for the general weakness of a currency. (Oddly, btw, nobody ever talks about deflation accounting. Maybe recent events will suggest that to the profession.) The undocumented and tenuous claim a while ago was that epistemological concerns are supposed to be raised by the requirements of "faithful representation", "neutrality", "prudence", or "completeness" because those requirements somehow imply a coherentist understanding of truth. Though it was entirely unclear what that meant, and the original explanation was so confused that it had to go. Perhaps if we had a secondary source on the point, it would be ok. Still, the question of inflation accounting has nothing to do with it. Tb ( talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This article began as a high-school level listing of philosophical boilerplate, the sort of thing you find on one of those plastic "study guides" in the gas station. And, then it was attached to descriptions of various accounting rules or changes in accounting practice. That's not a very clear article. Instead, the article--if it is to exist--needs to be about the connection, since that's where the "philosophy of accounting" would lie, and it needs to have secondary sources not just for the accounting rules or practices in question, but for the connections between the accounting and the philosophy. Moreover, we must not run afoul of the rule against WP:SYNTH either. So there must be some sources, of some kind, giving an overview of the field of "philosophy and accounting" to justify the arrangement of topics and so forth. Tb ( talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The AfD was closed, with a result of "no consensus" which seems correct to me. So the question is, what now? The proponents of this article's notability now need to make good on their assurance that sources can be found. The key assertions which need to be substantiated are not merely sources which talk about philosophical issues related to accounting, but those which specifically build a notion of a "philosophy of accounting". At the very least, we need sources that substantiate the following key claims of the article:
I would note that for something like "Philosophy of Science", say, it would be absolutely trivial to meet this test. Likewise for the examples Philosophy of Law, or Philosophy of Economics, or Philosophy of Mathematics, or Philosophy of History. There's the standard.
Please note that the issue here is not whether there are some ontological, epistemological, or ethical assumptions buried within the various standards and rules for accounting. The issue is whether anyone has written about them as philosophical issues, in such a way that there is a field called "philosophy of accounting". Even a single journal dedicated to the subject would even do the trick! The question is not whether there are interesting philosophical issues raised by accounting practices--I'm sure there are!--it's whether enough people have written about them to constitute an actual field of study called "philosophy of accounting".
If a month or so goes by, and nobody's been able to fix these problems, it would probably be appropriate to raise the AfD again. I note that the deeper problems in the article were not apparent at the beginning of the AfD, and the proponents of the article noted at the end of the process that there was barely time for them to fix things. So now, let's get the sources going. And, don't forget the prohibition of original research: it's not enough that various sources talk about things that editors here can combine into a thing called "philosophy of accounting"; the key is whether people "out there" have done so already. Tb ( talk) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Brought the link farm over here as it might be of possible interest to somoene trying to make this a viable article, but it's not appropriate in mainspace. Bali ultimate ( talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |Pages=
ignored (|pages=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Text "University of Essex" ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Text "University of Alberta, School of Business" ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |wolume=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Enron Scandal
Enron's bankruptcy in December 2001 provides a significant example of the issues of trust in accounting. Golden era of Enron
In 1985, Enron was formed by Kenneth Lay merging the natural gas pipeline companies of Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth. [1] From 1990s to 1998, Enron's stock increased 311% percent which was only slightly higher than the average growth. Then the stock increased by 56% in 1999 and a further 87% in 2000. By December 31, 2000, Enron's stock was priced at $83.13. In addition, Enron was rated the most innovative large company in America in Fortune's Most Admired Companies survey.
Downfall timeline
Fall of Enron stock, 1997-2002
August 22, 2001 - Sherron Watkins gave Kenneth Lay a six-page letter further explaining Enron's accounting issues.
October 16, 2001 - Enron announces a third quarter loss of $618 million.
October 31, 2001 - The SEC opens a formal investigation into Enron's transactions.
November 9, 2001 - Enron and Dynegy announce the $7.8 billion merger agreement. It would form Dynegy Corp, in which Dynegy would own 64% and Enron 36%.
November 28, 2001 - Dynegy announces it has terminated merger talks with Enron.
December 2, 2001 - Enron files for Chapter 11 protection, becoming the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history at that time and leaves thousands of workers with worthless stock in their pensions.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0117 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Its great to see the progress that has been made on this page. I originally set it up in 2009 and got burned at the stake for daring to suggest that there was a "philosophy of accounting". It sure has taken on a form now that I could not have produced myself. Pkearney ( talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) 15 Nov 2015.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Im not really sure why this page is being flagged for deletion. I am still working on it and I would welcome any contributions and comments.
Pkearney ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
It appears that some of the objections to this page were founded on a question over whether a discrete philosophy of accounting actually exists. I would suggests it depends on your perspective / philosophical perspective perhaps. One debater suggested that it is might be in the realm of philosophy of washing machines and lawn mowers. Another claimed to have a wide who was a CPA and said that philosophy wasnt something that accountants thought about.
There is a philophy of accounting - it is embedded in the Frameworks issues by the IASB and FASB. Accountants, being mainly procedural people, are not inclined to debate their philophies much - most appear to prefer toa pply the accounting standards almost as though they were handed down by the gods, rather than taking a step back and really questioining whether what they produce is fair, true, ethical etc.
The issue of ethics was also raised I would add that one of the causes attributed to the Enron scandal was that accountants applied the letter of the standards, rather than taking a step back and applying the principles of "fair presentation". This is part of the somewhat "exciting" debate between the US standards setters and the rest of the world as to whose standards should prevail and how they should be applied.
Forgive me, but I believe that there is philosophical debate raging at the moment within the profession and the reason I created this page was to try to get some real academic input on the subject. Perhaps I have made a poor start, but then I understood that the whole purpose of Wikipedia was collaboration. I invite you to help and make this a worthwhile page.
Regards Pkearney ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
I'm grateful for Pkearney's explanation here. I think it illuminates some of the confusion. The term "philosophy of X" in English does not mean "the philosophy that practitioners of X happen to hold", nor does it mean "the philosophical presuppositions underlying X". Rather, it means the philosophical analysis of the concepts, strategies, social contexts, etc., of X. There are many X's for which there is no "philosophy of X" as a discrete thing. For example, there is no subject called "philosophy of television" or "philosophy of postage stamps" or "philosophy of furniture", though to be sure, philosophers have written about all three, and people who are engaged in those businesses (being humans!) do sometimes muse upon the philosophical implications of their work. But now that I see Pkeearney's explanation here, there is a chance to explain the problem:
Tb, You make a valid point. The following is not meant as an objection to your statements - its just an interesting side point.
I had a conversation with someone I know who is a Professor of Finance and Accounting in a Top 50 (global) business school (ie not not too far down the food chain) about "fair presentation". To my surprise, he had never heard of it - which I immediately thought (unfairly and with some jest) "Oh! thats because your'e a CPA - had you been a CA it would have been front of mind." We later figured out that he just knew the concept as "true and fair presentation" and because my academic background is situated in another country and in a different decade - I used a different term.
I do think though that your suggestion that there might be a philosophy of anything is a little extreme. Philosophy is really about truth, ethics, reality and the presentation of that - I still stand by my view that there is a much more substantial philosophy underlying accounting and the concepts of "True and Fair Presentation" (to use my friend's term) than there is in Postage Stamps... There areant many ethical or reality issues associated with postage stamps are there?
Perhaps we could rename the page "Fair Presentation (Accounting)" or "True and Fair Presentation (Accounting)". Then at least the term exists and then we can lay out the papers and references that define what this concept actually is...
Pkearney ( talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice addition.. Thanks. Its very relevant for this field.
Should the 'Ontological Issues' section, particularly 'truth', contain as much detail on the philosophy side? Particularly the list of theories for definition of truth seems a little out of place in terms of level of detail. You could just link to Truth#Substantive theories. Reducing this may make it seem a little less unnecessarily cumbersome for a subject whose very existence is being debated! ;-) Wikiphile1603 ( talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So the previous text said that intangibles didn't "objectively" exist, which is really philosophical nonsense. They don't physically exist (that's what "intangible" means), but that's irrelevant to the question of form/substance, where the question originally was. So I altered the text to fit the substance/legal-form question, since it is true that many intangibles (though not all) have no legal existence as property. For example, goodwill cannot be sold, nor can it be stolen; likewise the unique talents of a businesses employees might be counted as an intangible asset. But then an editor move the question over to truth, apparently because the idea is that intangibles don't "really" exist, which is really nonsense. There is no epistemological issue about intangibles; there is an interesting ontological one, but accounting is irrelevant to it. But, if the substance/legal-form thing is really a genuine issue (we are still waiting for a reference on that absolutely key claim without which the whole article falls) it would certainly fit there. So as I see it, there are two options: drop the mention of intangibles entirely, or put it in the substance/legal-form question.
Of course, this points out the serious problems in the article as a whole. What we need is not our judgment on the question, but a suitable secondary source which tells us which philosophical issue is supposed to be raised. And that's just entirely lacking. Tb ( talk) 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
do you want the accountants to speak in philosophical terms, or will you accept a translation? pohick ( talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)The Board concluded that amortization of goodwill was not consistent with the concept of representational faithfulness, as discussed in FASB Concepts Statement No. 2, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. The Board concluded that nonamortization of goodwill coupled with impairment testing is consistent with that concept. The appropriate balance of both relevance and reliability and costs and benefits also was central to the Board's conclusion that this Statement will improve financial reporting. [1]
you know dictionaries are verifiable, even if poor guides. (which is the wiki form) i'm not sure i want to rely on the philosophers to define terms for me. pohick ( talk) 00:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)What is the relevance of philosophy to accounting? Much of philosophy is concerned with morals and ethics. Accoutancy is all about - or should be all about - ethical accounting of business transactions. The current malaise in the financial markets shows that morals and ethics have not been as prominent as they probably ought to have been in the minds of many people. [1]
(break) Yes, since this is an article about a supposed branch of philosophy, I want them to speak in philosophical terms. - well, what if they are talking about philospohical issues in non-philosophical terms: "concept of representational faithfulness". are you imposing the philosophical jargon upon a subculture with their own? like the anthropologist, can we describe the subculture with meta-language? pohick ( talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly true that at one time fixed assets were assigned the value of their purchase cost, less depreciation, and that was that. And it is certainly true that considerations of substantial accuracy have led to a reconsideration of that practice, and the increasing practice of re-valuing them based on current market values. But it is not clear that this has anything to do with the stated purpose of the section it was placed in: the distinction between substance and legal form. There is no "legal form" here; the closest we have are such things as IRS rules that mandate that, for example, charitable donations of property be valued at current market value. And in such cases, far from there being a distinction between substance and legal form, the two are entirely parallel. So, again, what we need is a secondary source which actually says what the philosophical issue is supposed to be. Let's find that citation, and only then add it back, in the proper place. Tb ( talk) 03:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Inflation accounting calls for restatement of figures to account for the general weakness of a currency. (Oddly, btw, nobody ever talks about deflation accounting. Maybe recent events will suggest that to the profession.) The undocumented and tenuous claim a while ago was that epistemological concerns are supposed to be raised by the requirements of "faithful representation", "neutrality", "prudence", or "completeness" because those requirements somehow imply a coherentist understanding of truth. Though it was entirely unclear what that meant, and the original explanation was so confused that it had to go. Perhaps if we had a secondary source on the point, it would be ok. Still, the question of inflation accounting has nothing to do with it. Tb ( talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This article began as a high-school level listing of philosophical boilerplate, the sort of thing you find on one of those plastic "study guides" in the gas station. And, then it was attached to descriptions of various accounting rules or changes in accounting practice. That's not a very clear article. Instead, the article--if it is to exist--needs to be about the connection, since that's where the "philosophy of accounting" would lie, and it needs to have secondary sources not just for the accounting rules or practices in question, but for the connections between the accounting and the philosophy. Moreover, we must not run afoul of the rule against WP:SYNTH either. So there must be some sources, of some kind, giving an overview of the field of "philosophy and accounting" to justify the arrangement of topics and so forth. Tb ( talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The AfD was closed, with a result of "no consensus" which seems correct to me. So the question is, what now? The proponents of this article's notability now need to make good on their assurance that sources can be found. The key assertions which need to be substantiated are not merely sources which talk about philosophical issues related to accounting, but those which specifically build a notion of a "philosophy of accounting". At the very least, we need sources that substantiate the following key claims of the article:
I would note that for something like "Philosophy of Science", say, it would be absolutely trivial to meet this test. Likewise for the examples Philosophy of Law, or Philosophy of Economics, or Philosophy of Mathematics, or Philosophy of History. There's the standard.
Please note that the issue here is not whether there are some ontological, epistemological, or ethical assumptions buried within the various standards and rules for accounting. The issue is whether anyone has written about them as philosophical issues, in such a way that there is a field called "philosophy of accounting". Even a single journal dedicated to the subject would even do the trick! The question is not whether there are interesting philosophical issues raised by accounting practices--I'm sure there are!--it's whether enough people have written about them to constitute an actual field of study called "philosophy of accounting".
If a month or so goes by, and nobody's been able to fix these problems, it would probably be appropriate to raise the AfD again. I note that the deeper problems in the article were not apparent at the beginning of the AfD, and the proponents of the article noted at the end of the process that there was barely time for them to fix things. So now, let's get the sources going. And, don't forget the prohibition of original research: it's not enough that various sources talk about things that editors here can combine into a thing called "philosophy of accounting"; the key is whether people "out there" have done so already. Tb ( talk) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Brought the link farm over here as it might be of possible interest to somoene trying to make this a viable article, but it's not appropriate in mainspace. Bali ultimate ( talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |Pages=
ignored (|pages=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Text "University of Essex" ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Text "University of Alberta, School of Business" ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |wolume=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Enron Scandal
Enron's bankruptcy in December 2001 provides a significant example of the issues of trust in accounting. Golden era of Enron
In 1985, Enron was formed by Kenneth Lay merging the natural gas pipeline companies of Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth. [1] From 1990s to 1998, Enron's stock increased 311% percent which was only slightly higher than the average growth. Then the stock increased by 56% in 1999 and a further 87% in 2000. By December 31, 2000, Enron's stock was priced at $83.13. In addition, Enron was rated the most innovative large company in America in Fortune's Most Admired Companies survey.
Downfall timeline
Fall of Enron stock, 1997-2002
August 22, 2001 - Sherron Watkins gave Kenneth Lay a six-page letter further explaining Enron's accounting issues.
October 16, 2001 - Enron announces a third quarter loss of $618 million.
October 31, 2001 - The SEC opens a formal investigation into Enron's transactions.
November 9, 2001 - Enron and Dynegy announce the $7.8 billion merger agreement. It would form Dynegy Corp, in which Dynegy would own 64% and Enron 36%.
November 28, 2001 - Dynegy announces it has terminated merger talks with Enron.
December 2, 2001 - Enron files for Chapter 11 protection, becoming the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history at that time and leaves thousands of workers with worthless stock in their pensions.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0117 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Its great to see the progress that has been made on this page. I originally set it up in 2009 and got burned at the stake for daring to suggest that there was a "philosophy of accounting". It sure has taken on a form now that I could not have produced myself. Pkearney ( talk) 02:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) 15 Nov 2015.