I understand the principle here, but the specific examples given here are a bit ...

		stegosaurus on April 22, 2016 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder I understand the principle here, but the specific examples given here are a bit odd. >>> shareholders or innocent executives may lose their jobs Shareholders are unlikely to be affected to a large extent because their holdings in Enron would probably make up a small portion of their net worth. Executives are paid large salaries and so can deal with the effects anyway. I'd be much more concerned with the rank and file.

Many Enron "shareholders" were retirees whose retirement plans were heavy on Enron and they were basically wiped out.