The Enron bankruptcy and its aftermath have produced that familiar and uniquely Washington phenomenon: a full-scale political, legal and media investigative circus. No fewer than seven congressional committees are studying the collapse, in addition to a criminal inquiry by the Justice Department, a Securities and Exchange Commission review and other departmental investigations.

Will the Enron collapse damage President Bush and his administration?

Enron was, politically speaking, the best-connected company in America. It donated millions to both main political parties but was closer to Republicans, especially Mr Bush, who, when he was governor of Texas, referred to Mr Lay as "Kenny Boy". Half a dozen senior officials in the administration either worked directly for the company or held substantial amounts of equity in it.

Last week it emerged that Vice-President Dick Cheney spoke to Indian government officials in June in an effort to help Enron recoup large debts on an investment in an Indian power plant. The White House said he had not been asked to speak to India by Enron.

There have not been, though, any specific allegations that anyone acted improperly, still less evidence of wrongdoing. But corporate contributions are the life-blood of the American political system, and companies do not give money unless they think they are getting something in return. Enron clearly benefited from a number of policy initiatives, although its defenders claim the policies would have been implemented anyway and the company was not always successful in winning changes.

The risk for Mr Bush - indeed, for all politicians who received donations from the company - is the sheer scale of the investigations now under way. No company can withstand the current level of scrutiny without yielding up embarrassing information, and the record of such investigations suggests they acquire a momentum of their own that can result in unpredictable consequences.

What will happen to the Enron business?

Most of Enron's operations are on the block. While some will be sold, others will simply be closed down.

UBS Warburg, the investment bank, has taken over the employees and physical assets of Enron's energy trading arm, which was generally seen as its most valuable business. Although Enron will not own any equity in the trading arm, it will receive a proportion of the profits from the business for at least five years.

Advisers are also trying to sell most of Enron's international operations, which range from power plants in India to water distribution companies in the United Kingdom. Many of Enron's fledgling trading operations, which were set up to make markets in precious metals and broadband telecom capacity, are likely to be closed down.

This leaves Enron's gas pipelines. However, these have already been heavily mortgaged as Enron sought to stave off bankruptcy. Enron's lenders and Dynegy, the rival energy group, both have claims on the assets.

Will shareholders and the banks get any of their money back?

The true extent of Enron's debts remains unclear, and is likely to be the subject of numerous lawsuits over the coming years.

The value of Enron's assets is equally uncertain. Advisers to the company argued that the transfer of the trading venture to UBS could generate $1bn-$2bn over the length of Enron's profit-sharing agreement. However, it seems almost certain that Enron's equity will prove to be worthless.

The company's lenders are more hopeful. Citigroup, the financial services group, last week said it expected to recover half of its $460m of unsecured loans. But as a recent legal challenge to JP Morgan Chase shows, even secured loans may not be as safe as they seem.

Can Enron survive?

Enron's auditor, Andersen, admits it has never faced a worse crisis. Even before Enron, it had been in trouble for auditing books that were later the centre of inquiries at Sunbeam and Waste Management.

Joseph Berardino, chief executive, said he was meeting clients every day. Many of those clients have said they are monitoring the situation. This scandal is playing out while companies collate their annual reports and put the appointment of an auditor to a vote of shareholders. Managements almost never recommend a change of auditor at their spring annual meetings. Andersen will be desperate to make sure that stays the case. The next three months will be crucial.

Even Andersen's consulting work could be in peril if the name becomes too tainted. While any financial liability seems likely not to hit most of its partners, some are predicting that many valued staff will seek work elsewhere.

Professional services firms stand and fall entirely on the calibre of their staff and their client relationships. Mr Berardino has been on a public relations charm offensive.

If too many staff and clients defect, it may prove to have been in vain. Even a merger could be out of the question if Andersen is seen as damaged goods.

Will there be reform of financial reporting and regulation of accountants?

Harvey Pitt, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has proposed wide-ranging reform of the regulation of accounting.

He attacked what he saw as an indefensible record of audit failures, and said the accountants would no longer be able to run their own regulation.

He envisaged a new regulator, staffed mostly by people from outside the profession, with strong disciplinary powers. But his plan has been under fire for not going far enough.

Mr Pitt has also been criticised for not wanting to stop the firms undertaking audit and consultancy work at the same clients, a situation that might give rise to conflicts of interest. There is as yet no plan for changing how audits are funded, so auditors will continue to be paid by the managements they audit, creating a possible conflict before they even start.

The firms themselves have joined calls for large reforms to financial reporting and the situation is being reviewed by accountancy regulators and the SEC. The types of financial structures employed by Enron seem likely to be made more transparent in future, though no one is promising that this will be changed quickly.

Is it time for pension reform?

Thousands of Enron employees have seen their life savings wiped out because Enron's pension scheme was heavily invested in the company's shares. The scandal has prompted many calls for reform, which Mr Bush acknowledged by initiating a review of pension law.

However, experts are divided on the likely impact of legislation, such as setting a ceiling on the amount of its own stock a corporate pension scheme can own.

Meanwhile, employees are likely to expect broader diversification from their company's pension plans.