On your a), b) and c): The information is gathered from publicly available information such as Google maps, grounds of judgment from Courts, licensing authorities, company searches with the SSM equivalent, etc. All sources have been cited.
On your d): Johan did not say wrongdoings have not been found. More importantly, actions for wrongdoings are by the public prosecutor.
On the other hand, you have stated that you have complete evidence to proof that SD is cleared of any wrongdoings. And the information that is in your hand now is non-public insider information.
So, pearlwhite, are you publishing insider information?
pearlwhite .
a) Does it mean taking images from google maps to say the office/project/ site is "unverifiable and uncrediable or dubious" is not fake news?
b) Does it mean taking publicly available information from Annual reports and conducting your own research and presenting them as "unverifiable and uncrediable or dubious" is not fake news?
c) Do a) and b) methodology mean that "obtaining sufficient, appropriate and complete evidence" has been conducted?
d) Does it mean that when "Johan come on record to say INED will take action if any wrongdoings are found" before SIR is announced is disclosing inside information?
3 examples above are criminal offences
pearlwhite,
You are either spreading fake news or disclosing inside information prior to release to Bursa.
Both are criminal offences. 09/09/2021 3:08 PM
pearlwhite . Thanks for highlighting this. This is a great example for which I can use.
Yes, I did fault SD at that time and now, since that date and with the SIR finalised more than 2 weeks ago, that has now changed, with new information at hand.
And now I fault KPMG. Where did I fault KPMG? Apart from the process, I also fault on their "obtaining sufficient audit evidence"
I shall use 1 generic example that you have previously highlighted. No names.
Generic example.
--->> YOUR FINDINGS AND INFO ARE NOT VERIFIABLE USING PUBLIC INFO
Findings (Sufficient, appropriate and complete evidence have been obtained).
a) Receipts of payments from customers and agreed with BNM receipt disclosure b) Office/Project/Site location, with project progress and pictures. Visitation was done. Customer contact was done. c) Confirmation of balances by Customers d) Sighting of assets/equipment where applicable
This information is now what I have at hand.
PSAi3alert Your posting on 19th July 2021 4:28 PM has already provided answer to your 'Tell us where SD went wrong' question. 09/09/2021 2:18 PM
Answer 1 While citing sources (if they are considered an authority) may be legitimate, but would not be sufficient to conclude. That is the bar of "sufficient, appropriate and complete evidence".
Example 1 As there were no further testing (aka verification on the verosity claim) done on say google images, you concluded that say the site is a jungle. Benefit of doubt, what other testing did you do to support further google images? e.g. Confirmation with the Government Ministry of that country where the project resides?
Example 2 SSM/Annual Reports/Court Judgements were past event, what post balance events test was done to further corroborate the findings? These were documents of the past (as at a date). What were the other documents you have obtained? Were they from some Ministry or better confirmation from SD's customers?
This is the substance over form standard. You have the form (legitimate authority, if appropriate) but not the substance (the complete tests of claims) to reasonably let you arrive at a conclusion.
On your a), b) and c): The information is gathered from publicly available information such as Google maps, grounds of judgment from Courts, licensing authorities, company searches with the SSM equivalent, etc. All sources have been cited.
Answer 2
When did I say I have insider information? Yes, I did say I have information/proof based on my experience dealing SIR with Bursa/SC/Bukit Aman. That is all I said. I didn't say I got it or heard it from so and so.
How can I be giving insider information?
And like you said, that will be determined by public procecutor.
On your d): Johan did not say wrongdoings have not been found. More importantly, actions for wrongdoings are by the public prosecutor.
On the other hand, you have stated that you have complete evidence to proof that SD is cleared of any wrongdoings. And the information that is in your hand now is non-public insider information.
So, pearlwhite, are you publishing insider information?.
pearlwhite When did I say I have insider information? Yes, I did say I have information/proof based on my experience dealing SIR with Bursa/SC/Bukit Aman. That is all I said. I didn't say I got it or heard it from so and so.
How can I be giving insider information?
pearlwhite . Thanks for highlighting this. This is a great example for which I can use.
Findings (Sufficient, appropriate and complete evidence have been obtained).
a) Receipts of payments from customers and agreed with BNM receipt disclosure b) Office/Project/Site location, with project progress and pictures. Visitation was done. Customer contact was done. c) Confirmation of balances by Customers d) Sighting of assets/equipment where applicable
>>> This information is now what I have at hand. <<<
. Yes correct, based on the experience dealing with SIR with Bursa/SC/Bukit Aman, all noted in the word document and/or excel and the printed to paper.
Obviously, it will be on my hand if I am holding it.
>>> This information is now what I have at hand. <<<
Buy and hold, this what smart investor do now. Lol
Bet it can release last year result by this month and Q result, but pls expect it may delay further.
Why delay and delay, while other listed company can deliver on time, who care we trust top management...we trust them this the only reason. Lol, who care the red flag, who care the account, those auditor are graduate from kampung, this is why they don't understand SD acc and take so long to audit.
Investment is about trust, Warrent buffet stxpid valuating investing, outdated lo.
Now is ' Trust' investment, we trust SD and top management.
Buy and hold, this what smart investor do now. Lol
Bet it can release last year result by this month and Q result, but pls expect it may delay further.
Why delay and delay, while other listed company can deliver on time, who care we trust top management...we trust them this the only reason. Lol, who care the red flag, who care the account, those auditor are graduate from kampung, this is why they don't understand SD acc and take so long to audit.
Investment is about trust, Warrent buffet stxpid valuating investing, outdated lo.
Now is ' Trust' investment, we trust SD and top management.
New IPO: The largest mini-market player and a leading groceries retailer in Malaysia, 99 Speed Mart Retail Holdings Bhd aims to list on the Main Market!
MQ Trader 686 views | 3 d ago
0:17
New IPO: An enterprise IT solutions provider that provides implementation services, maintenance, support and professional services, Vetece Holdings Bhd aims to list on the Ace Market!
MQ Trader 665 views | 7 d ago
0:17
New IPO: A manufacturing and trading of biomass fuel products, particularly PKS and wood pellets company, Elridge Energy Holdings Bhd aims to list on the Ace Market!
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
shybutter
624 posts
Posted by shybutter > 2021-09-09 16:26 | Report Abuse
When was it reach 0.30?
i3lurker
8553 posts
Posted by i3lurker > Sep 9, 2021 4:13 PM | Report Abuse
looks like will be back to 30 sen soon