yeah agree lets get it right here speak facts and figures
Posted by Investor126 > Dec 31, 2021 1:09 PM | Report Abuse
Already said no funds want to buy, even Supermax also do not want to buy. Not worth at all at current price. But still got promoters keep promoting how good how undervalued bla bla bla... Investment is to make money, but not followed those sifus blindly ended up lose money. Do not lie by saying you buy for the future. What future will this counter gives you? Anything could happen here in Bursa. What if the next moment, Stanley get caught red handed again? Or he get accused just because someone want to defame him? We have many examples here in Bursa.
Yeah true, still got chance lah, be optimistic about this one. EY and serba confirm got some disagreement but they are working on it at least.
Posted by Beautyseeker > Dec 22, 2021 11:26 AM | Report Abuse
Im pretty sure you can read the latest news right. EY is working on auditing this company. In process means still ongoing and still not fully bad enough. Got more stuff to cover up?
Posted by leno > Dec 22, 2021 11:17 AM | Report Abuse
u cannot convert a bond into share of FRAUD company. U need court order, bursa and sc permission and all this u need to present the AUDITED account. Sudah 24 months sebak got no audited account. No audited account mean cannot tok kok on share consolidation mar. Right ?
The Edge is Biased Against Bumiputera Companies by an unidentified author
KUALA LUMPUR, 7 DECEMBER 2021: The Edge has on many occasions in the past years, as well as currently, done negative write ups on bumiputera companies and seldom on non-bumiputera companies. Serba Dinamik Holdings Berhad (Serba) is a perfect example vis-a-vis its war against Bursa Malaysia, KPMG, Ernst & Young (EY), and possibly the Securities Commission (SC).
What is not right about the Edge's reporting on the Serba saga particularly the one on 6 December 2021? The Edge cherry picked all KPMG points and translated it to EY points for which, EY themselves haven't even completed their work yet, yet alone, make any conclusions. This is the case of the Edge repeating over and over again particular points until readers lock them in their head regardless of the absence of a conclusion from on-going investigations.
For example, KPMG raised suppliers existence issue. However, based on unofficial source, it is understood that EY was able to confirm to the independent directors (INEDs) inclusive of the two who had resigned on the basis of disagreement with Bursa Malaysia, that the vendors exist and are genuinely in operation. These vendors are under affirmative actions to create bumiputera suppliers as championed under the Government's Vendor Development Programme (VDP).
Some of these VDP companies are infact related parties by virtue of their shareholders being people from Serba. This is still within legal boundaries as Serba had always ensured that any related party transactions that are above certain threshold are reported to Bursa.
Another example quoted by the unofficial source is that EY was also able to track customers at the correct address rather than KPMG whom had misread addresses (Example: The Arabic alphabet 'Wau' in the address was erroneously taken as Comma rather than 'W'), as well as merely checking contact details with a receptionist. There are many things EY managed to clear but not surfacing.
Another significant matter, Serba's business model in the Middle East involving an intermediate company for IT business was also not dealt with without bias by the Edge. KPMG had always understood the model of the need for local sponsor companies in the Middle East akin to what we Malaysians call the 'Ali Baba' companies. KPMG had in the past, accepted it and signed audit reports since before Serba got listed in 2017. Why now otherwise?
Then there was the issue surrounding the audit confirmation process. KPMG had always in the past accepted Serba's management efforts to follow up and obtain third party confirmations. KPMG, again, had also signed audit reports in the past on the back of this practice. Why now KPMG raised it as an issue? In fact, the audit partners from KPMG, for Serba's audit, remain the same. What was also interesting is that one of the partners from KPMG for Serba's audit has numerous racial comments on his Facebook account that are not favourable to Bumiputeras in the country.
One should be open to assess the situation. It is rather weird that both Bursa Malaysia (Bursa or Bursa Malaysia) and the SC attacked Serba with the absence of 2 important factors: the necessary warrant and/or a definitive statement of fault by Serba. Until today, the unofficial source from Serba said that Serba's management still has not been communicated by anyone what is their statement of fault.
An authority must have an 'alleged wrong doings' against someone first, then only start their actions. For example, the police must state, " You have heen arrested on the accusation of 'XXX'", before they can do anything. Even so, they will need a warrant and if no warrants, only an inspector and above can do so. Has this been established in the case of SC? Not at all.
It appears that Bursa Malaysia has behaved like a corporate gangster forcing Serba to appoint EY against Serba's will without the said statement of fault and also against Bursa Malaysia's own Main Market Listing Rules (MMLR) of the requirement for a registered auditor to perform audits or reviews. The EY entity appointed is not a registered auditor. It is EY Consulting Sdn Bhd. Therefore the legality is impaired for the purpose of its appointment.
EY had on numerous occasions, state their disclaimer for anyone to rely on its reports. They have stated it in their engagement letter as well as the preliminary incomplete, half-baked progress report for an on-going work pending completion. EY insisted that they only report to the INEDs as per their engagement letter. The INEDs, complying with this confidentiality duty, are not allowed to disclose information to anyone before the completion of EY's work. The EY work is not yet complete.