Violence... The story so far

Michael France

[ED comments]

What Cheney Should Have Known

...Let's get this straight. In the second quarter of 1998, Halliburton, HAL, made a big change in the way it accounted for cost overruns at its massive global construction projects. As a result, it received a boost to its pretax income for the year of 46.1%, to $278.8 million -- even though its underlying business had not changed at all. The accounting maneuver was legal, but it's certainly the kind of major news investors have a right to know.

Nonetheless, somebody at the company decided not to tell them about it.

...VERY RARE SCENARIO. Who's accountable? According to the Securities & Exchange Commission, the buck stops with Halliburton's former controller and chief financial officer, who are being fined and sued, respectively, for their roles in the debacle. But the one person whom the agency specifically excluded from blame is the man who served as CEO at the time: Vice-President Dick Cheney. In a rare move for federal law enforcers, the SEC issued a press release on Aug. 3 declaring that "the investigative record developed by its staff" did not justify any further charges.

This resolution raises more questions than it answers. The second-most important political executive in our country claims to be ignorant of one of the key business decisions his company made during his tenure as CEO.

"...The thing executives care the most about is how they look in terms of the numbers," says University of Texas School of Law securities expert Henry T.C. Hu. "An accounting decision that is going to affect performance by nearly half is usually the type of thing the CFO would discuss with the head of the company."

MORE CHAIRMAN THAN CEO? Even if Cheney didn't know about the disclosure decision, he should have. CEOs are paid big bucks for a reason: To stay on top of the important events going on in their companies. When it comes to maneuvers that have such a critical -- and obvious -- impact on earnings, ignorance is no excuse.

While Cheney's lack of knowledge may well have kept him out of court, where proof of state of mind is critical, it should not spare him from the wrath of investors. Moreover, he would never get away with such a head-in-the-sand defense now that Sarbanes-Oxley is law. In fact, one of the main reasons the law was passed was to force CEOs to assume more responsibility for their companies' public statements.

Will the issue of what Cheney knew, and when he knew it, ever be resolved? So far as the feds are concerned, it already is.

[Can a man who ran Halliburton--who actually was ignorant of such a profound matter--be trusted to guide this nation? Can a man who did know and lied about it be trusted to guide this nation? What do you think?]

"...WHY THE SECRECY?" But because of the obvious political sensitivity surrounding Halliburton, the SEC's verdict probably won't be accepted by many -- at least until the underlying records in the case are released. Indeed, that's just what former Assistant Secretary of Defense John White, an informal adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, was calling for on Aug. 4. "There are a lot of questions here that simply aren't being answered," he said in a press conference. "Why the secrecy?"

It will be a long time before the facts behind this case emerge, if ever. But it's hard to imagine any way in which Cheney will come out looking good...

With Stephanie Forest Anderson in Dallas and Mike McNamee in Washington.

France is a senior writer with Business Week in New York

BW on line 5 Aug 2004

Road to Peace is a a non-profit organization. As such we make fair use of copyrighted material if it is pertinent to an issue we deal with on our site. We credit our sources for such excerpts