Was Enron truly ever viable?

as Enron ever a viable, long term company? I'm thinking about that because I just read a history of the company from its beginnings as a merger between two oil pipeline companies through the bankruptcy.

At one point early in its history, Enron's top executives decided to make it a modern company, and it expanded enormously. Not just in supplying energy, but in trading it the way Wall Street firms trade options. They even hired some traders from a major bank to come and teach their people how to make trades.

Within a few years, Enron was trading electricity, natural gas, the weather, paper pulp, metals -- almost anything except the sheer paper assets or ordinary exchange-traded commodities which are what we normally think of as "trading." They were making markets in these things, plus financing projects.

The author describes Enron in the nineties as certainly being a very innovative company. They were enormously selective in who they hired, picking only the brightest and most ambitious, and fostered a culture of entrepreneurialism. If you worked for Enron, you had wide freedom to think up your own project and then network among others for support, both financial and material. If you could get the project going, it was yours. If you succeeded you were a hero. If not, try again. The ability to make mistakes and learn from them is attractive. Though it's doubtful that the company as a whole did learn from mistakes, since people came and went so much.

Can a corporation continue indefinitely going hither and thither without any overall purpose or control? There were a few years Enron felt it could trade and profit from any market at all. This also helped lead to losses. Yet they did not enforce trade size limits on their traders, so unless they found truly inefficient markets to trade, there was always substantial risk of overtrading. Always traders to commit you to positions too large is NOT "managing" risk. (Just ask Barings Banks - a hundreds years British institution that allowed one trader in Hong Kong to drive it out of business.)

What lead to their ultimate downfall was applying that mindset of financial manipulations to their own accounting and financial systems. So they "managed" their ever-growing debt as they "managed" risk -- and ultimately couldn't sustain it.

What if a well-managed company positioned to exploit market inefficiencies in energy and with sufficient internal controls and honest, conservative accounting and a long-range vision everybody understands and follows . . . in short, what Enron lacked . . . could they make the same business work?

I don't know, but as an investor I much prefer an "old economy" type of company that sells a well-established and in-demand product or service for a profit. Although I don't think the efficient market hypothesis applies to closed markets such as electricity, I always question the ability of traders to beat the market on a sustained, long term basis.

I suspect that supplying people and businesses with needed and desired goods and services is a better business model.

Enron viability
Enron viability