Great points, everyone. It is true, I think, that the board’s failure to manage the conflict between its auditing and consulting services is key. As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, the board was negligent in other ways too. Anderson and Enron employees were very close — too close, many people observe — as they frequently participated in voluntary social activities organized by the other party – ski trips, fundraising events, etc. This was considered, later on by examiners, to be ‘inappropriate and atypical’ familiarity. Given that 27% of Anderson’s auditing revenue came from Enron, this should have raised eyebrows. Did the firms have codes of conduct that were ignored, or were their policies inadequate? Were any questions raised by the board regarding such conduct, which could so easily facilitate collusion?