While I was fortunately never involved with Enron, I do recall talking to a good friend in the bubble years trying to talk her out of having so much at stake in Cisco. I don't know if what I had to say had any influence, but she did sell quite a bit of that overvalued company when the price was still high. It was interesting to observe that rogue's gallery of bigwigs that attended "Kenny Boy" Lay's final sendoff. Prominent among them was George Bush the First. I guess they were there to pay respects to their former pay master when he and Enron were such lucrative sources of funding in the past. George Bush the Second had to avoid so public a display of affection for his old buddy due to political considerations. I'm sure many a crocodile tear was shed in commiseration over master thief and liar Kenneth Lay. While I can't overlook his crimes, in fairness I have to say that he did what he did in response to pressures and temptations that are not that uncommon these days. Everyone knows the basic Wall Street game. If an ordinary shareholder, and especially a corporate official, want to get rich quick, they have to own shares in a company that shows constant sequential growth in earnings. If you can report rising profits for several years running quarter by quarter, Wall Street will sing your praises, and the stock price will soar enriching the little shareholder, and most especially the corporate executive with their bonuses and options tied to the share price. And if you fabricate the numbers, few among the self appointed experts in the professional investment community will notice. The dearly departed Ken Lay didn't invent that system, it's just that few did such a masterful job of using it.

I think that this whole story is just another example of why not to put all of your eggs in one basket. No matter what the goverment or anyone does crooks and con men never will be a dieing breed, even if the living do perish.

Shamefully I share the same first name with Ken Lay, and unfortunately I lost money on my Enron investment while he illegally sold his shares. Death is too good for him; may he rot in hell.

I really took a hit in Enron and lost money that i couldn't afford to lose at the time. Having watched the whole senario play out I have some different thoughts. While many investors and enployees got screwed at the same time Ken Lay gave heavily to charities of time, money and influence.

Having been in buracracies for most of my business career [and all big corporations are buracracies] I am aware of how people at all levels can get trapped and lose control.

Ken Lay came for nowhere and rose to the heights of US and world business. He had never lost and thought that no matter what the situation he could pull it off. I think that various people in the corporation took control and set traps for him and he, based on his past experience, thought that he could make it work. Many times the guy at the top or with the money has the least control - just look at Howard Hughes.

I live in Houston and although I didn't lose any money on Enron, my brother lost several thousand dollars. I appears to me that Ken Lay was a very hands-on executive up until the time that Skilling took over. After that, it seems like he was too busy with the baseball stadium and other community projects to have time for Enron. I assume that he agreed to take over again as CEO after Skilling resigned in order to protect his stake in the corporation. However, I don't know why he would have done so if he knew an implosion was imminent. It seems like he would have simply sold his stock and gotten out of the picture. He appeared to be a very arrogant man, and maybe he was somewhat delusional enough to think he could keep Enron afloat. What he did or didn't know will never fully be known. It does trouble me, however, that the government cut deals with admitted crooks in order to obtain testimony against Lay. As far as his eternal soul, nobody - and I mean nobody - other than God and Lay himself knows that.

ThouI've heard the whole "but he donated to charity" bull about Bernie Ebbers, too. I never invested in Enron, but I lost several thousand on WorldCom. Knowing that Ebbers or Ken Lay donated to charity is honestly more of an ego thing for an Ebbers or Lay. I could go rob a bank of $10 million and happily donate $5 million to charity, but I still committed a crime. Of course, how many lives would my little bank robbery negatively affect...a dozen bank employees, a few customers, and my family and friends. Compare that to the thousands of lives negatively affected by Lay and Ebbers. Big deal they donated "stolen" money to charity, I'm more impressed with the man or woman barely making ends meet who donate $20 a year to their favorite charity. Ken Lay was a thief, plain and simple.

To those of you who praise Ken Lays so called charitable work, I counter by saying what's the big deal about giving away stolen money. The real heros are in Iraq, not ex Enron leadership SKUM. It would have been enjoyable to watch "Kenny Boy" getting beheaded...his heart attack cheated those of us who wanted him to suffer and justly pay for his sins.

I thought this was about Cisco, Enron is dead and gone for those who didn't invest.
Is Cisco new with 2006 technology or 1999 lumbering alone.
Is it a stock as of today for the conversative investor?

Response to Ed H.
NO IT IS NOT a stock for a conservative investor. Cisco will grow over time but not much more than the market. Their Asian and Indian competition is growing and Cisco will spend heavily on R&D, patents, legal costs and marketing to defend and maintain their position in the market place. For rock solid investments see:
Scary market -- any safe stocks? and Still scary market -- more SAFE HAVENS