WSJ:
If Mr. [Andrew] McCain had remained on Silver State's board another four days, his position on the audit committee would have required him to sign off on the company's second-quarter financial statements.
So that would be one of the "personal reasons" McCain cited when resigning?
Three weeks after Mr. McCain quit, Silver State had to revise those second-quarter numbers to reflect a loss of $72.3 million, which was larger than previously reported. It warned in the Aug. 15 regulatory filing of "uncertainty about the company's ability to continue as a going concern," a sign the bank's survival was in doubt.
Silver State said at the time its insurance carrier planned to cancel policies protecting Silver State's directors and executives from liability due to the bank's elevated risk profile, effective Oct. 7.
Or this would be one of the "personal reasons" McCain cited when resigning?
William Robert, a co-founder of Choice, says Mr. McCain didn't play an active role on the boards of either Choice or Silver State. "He got on [the Silver State] board, he looked around, and he decided he shouldn't be on it," Mr. Robert said. "There's nothing suspicious here."
Indeed not.
Multiple partners, but one of 'em looks a little sketchy. I'd get out fast, and so did Andy.
Move along people, move along, there's no story here. And as always, the scandal is what's legal.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
WaMu next bailout?
Chief Forced Out at Washington Mutual == http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/busine...
Hmmm...
And the plot thickens. The timing of his departure is rather...convenient, no? lol
no....
its sensible.
The key here is that Andrew resigned before signing off on an audit result that had to be revised three weeks later. He had two choices -- sign off on an audit that he knew/suspected was not legitimate, or resign. So he resigned.
I'd also speculate that the reason that the revision came so rapidly was based on steps taken by Andrew after his resignation. Because it involved 'inside' information, he could not go public with his questions -- but may well have reported irregularities to the relevant federal regulators.
Yeah, Sure...
If you want to play a game of worm, sure, that sounds about right. Of course this new information on its own doesn't prove anything, but it's more of a reach to try and pretend that this makes the whole issue look less suspicious, than saying that something smells fishy. You've got quite a knack for GOP apologism.
What I've got a knack for...
...is in waiting for evidence before condemning someone.
There is simply no evidence that Andrew McCain did anything wrong or even suspicious. NONE. And, in fact, his actions suggest that he did the right thing --- after taking a position on the board of Silver Bank, and discovering irregularities, he quit rather than sign off on those irregularities as a member of the audit committee.
Is quitting enough, though?
That he quit rather than sign off on a bad audit is good -- that's how I read it too (and that wasn't in the initial story when i started sniffing at it, either.)
But is that enough? I'm not sure that it is. Yes, he may have dropped a dime. But that would be nice to know.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
timing and "personal reasons"...
to me, the timing of the "revision" suggests that he either dropped a dime, or was aware that a dime had already been dropped (e.g. someone involved with regulating the bank told Andrew that there were problems that were being looked into...)
In either case, the issue of an ongoing (criminal?) investigation is implicit, and such an investigation would preclude Andrew from discussing "what he knew, and when he knew it" publicly -- thus the "personal reasons" as the rationale for his resignation.