John Olson - let's relive the 15 microseconds
For a class I am taking, we watched the movie Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. We were to look for examples of both congruency and incongruency in the characters as presented. Sure, there are the obvious examples of Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay, as well as the other main players like whistle-blower Sharon Watkins.
But I noticed that my attention was naturally drawn to the analysts of the story, given that I have worked as an analyst for the last 7 years (not in the high-pressure world of securities, but at least a similar job -- an industry and technology analyst). I was impressed with John Olson of Merrill Lynch, who refused to give Enron a "buy" rating in the late 1990s because he felt he did not have enough information about how Enron was making its money.
He did not make any accusations, but he was unwilling to endorse ENE without appropriate supporting data. This takes deep integrity, and his verbal statements about what he was doing are congruent with his actions.
So I went and looked up some more information about him. I love this:
(Source: UPenn Gazette 2002)
There is also some pretty interesting Congressional testimony from Olson from the 2002 Enron hearings.
Analysts have some authority as "neutral public commentators" about companies, and are therefore pressured behind the scenes to say certain things by the companies. I regularly got calls from marketing and PR folks "advising" me about how they wanted to present themselves, and "suggesting" things I might highlight when I made public comments. I am thankful that my own firm supported its analysts in maintaining integrity-- in fact, we were discouraged from making public statements in press releases or in other places where our comments could be construed as favoring or disfavoring particular products.
It is worth noting that John Olson was fired from Merrill Lynch in 1998 due to pressure from Ken Lay. He accepted this fate because he stood by his own integrity. That is congruency.
He mentioned at one point in 2002 that he felt he was getting his "15 microseconds of fame" in life. I'm pleased to relive them here. Thank you for the inspiration, John.
But I noticed that my attention was naturally drawn to the analysts of the story, given that I have worked as an analyst for the last 7 years (not in the high-pressure world of securities, but at least a similar job -- an industry and technology analyst). I was impressed with John Olson of Merrill Lynch, who refused to give Enron a "buy" rating in the late 1990s because he felt he did not have enough information about how Enron was making its money.
He did not make any accusations, but he was unwilling to endorse ENE without appropriate supporting data. This takes deep integrity, and his verbal statements about what he was doing are congruent with his actions.
So I went and looked up some more information about him. I love this:
Olson told U.S. News & World Report that Enron was "not very forthcoming about how they make their money," and added: "I don’t know an analyst worth his salt who can seriously analyze Enron."
Lay’s response came in the form of a handwritten note to Olson’s boss, Donald Sanders. "John Olson has been wrong about Enron for over 10 years and he is still wrong," Lay had scrawled in the margins of the U.S. News story. "But he is consistant [sic]." It was signed, "Ken."
According to The New York Times, when Sanders showed him the note, Olson replied, "You know that I’m old and worthless, but at least I can spell consistent."
(Source: UPenn Gazette 2002)
There is also some pretty interesting Congressional testimony from Olson from the 2002 Enron hearings.
Analysts have some authority as "neutral public commentators" about companies, and are therefore pressured behind the scenes to say certain things by the companies. I regularly got calls from marketing and PR folks "advising" me about how they wanted to present themselves, and "suggesting" things I might highlight when I made public comments. I am thankful that my own firm supported its analysts in maintaining integrity-- in fact, we were discouraged from making public statements in press releases or in other places where our comments could be construed as favoring or disfavoring particular products.
It is worth noting that John Olson was fired from Merrill Lynch in 1998 due to pressure from Ken Lay. He accepted this fate because he stood by his own integrity. That is congruency.
He mentioned at one point in 2002 that he felt he was getting his "15 microseconds of fame" in life. I'm pleased to relive them here. Thank you for the inspiration, John.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home