itulah itu hari suruh beli harga bawah 0.350 tak nak beli...sekarang meroyan nak harga 0.310...pergi tidur nanti dalam mimpi boleh beli itu harga...haha
- KPMG is a big 4 company. They deal with hundreds of huge company. Serba is just one of their hundreds of big money clients. There is literally no reason for them to make a false call on their valuable clients. The only factor which might make them do so is because the problem in question is just downright/obviously wrong. Obviously they weighted the pro and cons of calling it out vs not calling it out. Therefore they decide to call it out and risk lawsuit. This is not a matter satu orang je decide. They already bincang kaw2 dalam mesyuarat...
2. Tiada kemasukan besar institutional buyers. Malah public bank jual besar-besaran/cut loss besar-besaran.
- Bukan saja tiada institutional buyer baru, malah institutional buyer sedia ada cabut lari.
3. Agent2 pump and dump mula beroperasi di forum.
- Kenapa baru sekarang nak sembang beli? Kenapa bulan lepas masa harga 0.31-0.35 tidak aktif suruh orang beli??
- Dibandingkan dengan Airasia, forumers memang sentiasa mengalakkan beli walaupun harga jatuh teruk.
- Serba tidak, hanya suruh beli bila harga naik meroket tanpa sebab.
4. Black list institutional buyers
- Lets face it, kaunter ni telah menyebabkan kerugian besar pada institutional buyers. You think mereka ni rugi kemudian tak pandai insaf2. They have strict SOP in place. Fund manager untuk EPF saja sudah lebih 30+ orang. Tiada orang akan risiko kan pekerjaan sendiri untuk buat recommendation untuk fund mereka beli Serba
5. Cannot get future contract/Recover order book
- Nowadays its standard operating procedure to prioritize companies with good governance. Serba have proven it self to have very bad governance. This is known throughout the corporate world. If you are in mid tier management of any decent company, you would know this.
This is not because they are scared or they admit they are guilty.(Pls dont misunderstand).
Auditors are generally required to be independent and objective during an audit, because they are responsible to issue an opinion on the truth and fairness of a company's financial statements(f/s).
They cannot be seen to be siding the directors due to fear or favour. Instead, they should be protecting shareholder's interests.
Board of directors are responsible over the preparation of f/s, and the f/s are then audited by the external auditors. The auditors will then issue their opinion to shareholders.
Notice there is a 3 party relationship here.
1)The auditors who audit the f/s, and
2)Directors who are responsible over the preparation of f/s and
3) The shareholders, who are the recipient of the f/s and the auditor's opinion.
Auditors work for the shareholders and not the board.
The board cannot exert their power or influence on the auditors. The legal case initiated by the board, however, shows otherwise.
So,
KPMG has no choice but to resign because they will no longer be able to audit the f/s objectively, there is now a perception that kpmg may compromise in the audit due to the fear over the outcome of the legal case.
(So, the safest thing to do, is resign, and this is the message to shareholders. Resignation is also strongly recommended by auditor's code of ethics)
The board's decision to take a legal action on KPMG represents an intimidation threat, where the board can be perceived as saying, you either accept what we say or face the consequences of the legal prosecution. (Although their true intention maybe something else)
The question now is:
Was there a need to take legal action on the auditor while the audit is not complete and call for a press conference to condemn the auditor, instead of explaining and solving the issues in hand?
Didnt the audit committee give a warning to the board about how a legal case will affect auditor's independence?
A legal case is a serious issue. Wasn't this discussed with all major shareholders? Did they call for an egm to discuss with shareholders, especially the majority or institutional shareholders, before proceeding?
To get more clarity,
We need to know who are the top 3 major shareholders of Serba Dinamik and whether they were consulted before the legal action was taken.
At the end of the day, KPMG will still need to face the legal case and protect their own reputation, and in the process, have to let the shareholders and authorities know their side of the story, with proper evidence.
This is not only about audit and accounting, its moving towards wider governance issues..
jangan layan..dia dari group syndicate..kalau harga tak jatuh hari ni..confirm kena marah dengan boss...kita tunggu Karim bagi green light untuk naik kan harga
Why was KPMG offering SD for settlement last week?
FSX123 Kpmg has resigned as auditors of SD.
This is not because they are scared or they admit they are guilty.(Pls dont misunderstand).
Auditors are generally required to be independent and objective during an audit, because they are responsible to issue an opinion on the truth and fairness of a company's financial statements(f/s).
They cannot be seen to be siding the directors due to fear or favour. Instead, they should be protecting shareholder's interests.
Board of directors are responsible over the preparation of f/s, and the f/s are then audited by the external auditors. The auditors will then issue their opinion to shareholders.
Notice there is a 3 party relationship here.
1)The auditors who audit the f/s, and
2)Directors who are responsible over the preparation of f/s and
3) The shareholders, who are the recipient of the f/s and the auditor's opinion.
Auditors work for the shareholders and not the board.
The board cannot exert their power or influence on the auditors. The legal case initiated by the board, however, shows otherwise.
So,
KPMG has no choice but to resign because they will no longer be able to audit the f/s objectively, there is now a perception that kpmg may compromise in the audit due to the fear over the outcome of the legal case.
(So, the safest thing to do, is resign, and this is the message to shareholders. Resignation is also strongly recommended by auditor's code of ethics)
The board's decision to take a legal action on KPMG represents an intimidation threat, where the board can be perceived as saying, you either accept what we say or face the consequences of the legal prosecution. (Although their true intention maybe something else)
The question now is:
Was there a need to take legal action on the auditor while the audit is not complete and call for a press conference to condemn the auditor, instead of explaining and solving the issues in hand?
Didnt the audit committee give a warning to the board about how a legal case will affect auditor's independence?
A legal case is a serious issue. Wasn't this discussed with all major shareholders? Did they call for an egm to discuss with shareholders, especially the majority or institutional shareholders, before proceeding?
To get more clarity,
We need to know who are the top 3 major shareholders of Serba Dinamik and whether they were consulted before the legal action was taken.
At the end of the day, KPMG will still need to face the legal case and protect their own reputation, and in the process, have to let the shareholders and authorities know their side of the story, with proper evidence.
This is not only about audit and accounting, its moving towards wider governance issues..
This is not because they are scared or they admit they are guilty.(Pls dont misunderstand).
Auditors are generally required to be independent and objective during an audit, because they are responsible to issue an opinion on the truth and fairness of a company's financial statements(f/s).
They cannot be seen to be siding the directors due to fear or favour. Instead, they should be protecting shareholder's interests.
Board of directors are responsible over the preparation of f/s, and the f/s are then audited by the external auditors. The auditors will then issue their opinion to shareholders.
Notice there is a 3 party relationship here.
1)The auditors who audit the f/s, and
2)Directors who are responsible over the preparation of f/s and
3) The shareholders, who are the recipient of the f/s and the auditor's opinion.
Auditors work for the shareholders and not the board.
The board cannot exert their power or influence on the auditors. The legal case initiated by the board, however, shows otherwise.
So,
KPMG has no choice but to resign because they will no longer be able to audit the f/s objectively, there is now a perception that kpmg may compromise in the audit due to the fear over the outcome of the legal case.
(So, the safest thing to do, is resign, and this is the message to shareholders. Resignation is also strongly recommended by auditor's code of ethics)
The board's decision to take a legal action on KPMG represents an intimidation threat, where the board can be perceived as saying, you either accept what we say or face the consequences of the legal prosecution. (Although their true intention maybe something else)
The question now is:
Was there a need to take legal action on the auditor while the audit is not complete and call for a press conference to condemn the auditor, instead of explaining and solving the issues in hand?
Didnt the audit committee give a warning to the board about how a legal case will affect auditor's independence?
A legal case is a serious issue. Wasn't this discussed with all major shareholders? Did they call for an egm to discuss with shareholders, especially the majority or institutional shareholders, before proceeding?
To get more clarity,
We need to know who are the top 3 major shareholders of Serba Dinamik and whether they were consulted before the legal action was taken.
At the end of the day, KPMG will still need to face the legal case and protect their own reputation, and in the process, have to let the shareholders and authorities know their side of the story, with proper evidence.
This is not only about audit and accounting, its moving towards wider governance issues..
IB's and Fund manager are short sell @0.375 and buy back @ 0.380.. some bilis scare sold @0.375.. they are playing with our heart.. just hold guys.. just few more days..
KPMG resignation is a foregone conclusion. How can KPMG continue to be the external auditor when the BOD decided to sue KPMG. I am sure KPMG will have done some soul searching before making such statement to SC. KPMG is fully aware of the implication of making such public statement. EY and KPMG are both very established firms and will have quite similar SOP in their audit standard. Message from EY audit finding maybe the same but written in a watered down version. The main issue seems to be the authenticity of debtors. I think KPMG will have used their Middle East Office to check on this. Anyway, I wish good luck to all existing shareholders and hope the SIR will turn out well.
aiyoyo, Pearlwhite, i oledi doubt few time, you and interfund sepasukan leh, kalau dia cakap, you akan muncul . kalau you cakap dia akan mumcul jua, cry cry cry. now, proven you dua sepasukan leh, hehehehehe. You boleh deny, but, you deny pun tak guna leh, you know, he know, i also know leh. too obvious leh, You wanna help him, can , but dont too obvious leh, cry cry
lah lah lah, you pergi tengok baik baik yeah, you punya soul mate cakap , run if price drop to 0.365 leh leh leh, aiyoyo, why you like that one leh. mesti jujur yeah, hehehehe
hehehe, you dont know you do that too obvious, perpatah chinese kata, orang tepi boleh baca dengan sekelip mata, orang dalam selalu buta, hehehehehehe. aiyoyo, fahamkeh
Post a Comment
People who like this
New Topic
You should check in on some of those fields below.
Title
Category
Comment
Confirmation
Click Confirm to delete this Forum Thread and all the associated comments.
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 139 views | 15 h 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 394 views | 4 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....
FSX123
298 posts
Posted by FSX123 > 2021-10-21 14:52 | Report Abuse
You all do realise ada group telegram khas untuk pump and dump? It cost around Rm5k-Rm10k to join.