Slashdot Mirror


WorldCom CFO Accused of $3.6 Billion Fraud

winter was among the first to point out that allegations of fraud have led to a massive stock drop at WorldCom. A flurry of stories have popped up on Yahoo!, none of them good news for WorldCom. CFO Scott Sullivan is accused of misstating the company's revenues, specifically its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization (aka EBITDA), and the stock has slid more than 50% (as of this writing) in after-hours trading.

3 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. history in the making by telstar · · Score: 1, Troll

    The new form of terrorism ... internal sabotage. These guys should be held accountable not only for the losses of this company, but the overall impact that this crap has on the U.S. Economy.

  2. Re:Thank Goodness by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1, Troll

    Uhh we have a crook in the oval office and you want the goverment to tighten up the very laws they've just relaxed. Which presidential candidate do you think used Enrons corporate jet for campaigning?

    I see the seeds of a revolution lets just hope it's bloodless.

  3. Lies, Damn Lies, and Charts ... by UNIBLAB_PowerPC · · Score: 0, Troll

    Um, hello, excuse me, but did the folks at Yahoo fail elementary graphing or what? Notice the units on the vertical axis of the chart (stock value in dollars) -- why is the scale between 1-5 MUCH, MUCH larger than the scale between 5-10, 10-15, and 10-20? FWIW, I can't remember the proper terms and don't care to look them up at the moment (can a mathematician clue us in with a more insightful disection of these charts, please?), but we all know that the distances between points should be equal -- and when they're not equal, the chart is biased and does not properly represent the data. What's up with this, folks?

    And isn't it ironic that even Yahoo's chart makes this type of financial snafu look less severe than it actually is (I.E. that graph should be taking a serious nose dive but the downward slope is less exaggerated because of the biased scale -- in a visible sense, that is)?