[quote=âRockoâ]
Thereâs something horribly wrong with allowing failed banks to continue unimpeded and expecting them not to repeat the same mistakes.[/quote]
Obviously. I can only assume, perhaps wrongly, that there will be new corporate governance and lending regualtion bills on the table pretty soon.
Also, is there going to be anything done with Fitzpatrick and Fingleton et al? They should be given the choice to die in prison or forfeit their pensions - cunts.
Another point is that statutory audits donât work. Itâs a problem I had when I was an auditor myself and I wouldâve raised it with managers and partners alike. Donât think it made me that popular but I see little value in sending in a few gormless coonts under training contracts to have the wool pulled over their eyes. The problem is that the auditors are reliant on the client for fees. Iâd be in favour of a far more aggressive approach; screw the auditors and bring the statutory audit within the remit of the new, improved Financial Regulator/ODCE.
[quote=âClarkeyCatâ]Obviously. I can only assume, perhaps wrongly, that there will be new corporate governance and lending regualtion bills on the table pretty soon.
Also, is there going to be anything done with Fitzpatrick and Fingleton et al? They should be given the choice to die in prison or forfeit their pensions - cunts.
Another point is that statutory audits donât work. Itâs a problem I had when I was an auditor myself and I wouldâve raised it with managers and partners alike. Donât think it made me that popular but I see little value in sending in a few gormless coonts under training contracts to have the wool pulled over their eyes. The problem is that the auditors are reliant on the client for fees. Iâd be in favour of a far more aggressive approach; screw the auditors and bring the statutory audit within the remit of the new, improved Financial Regulator/ODCE.[/quote]
To be honest I donât think new corporate governance will change much. You need a change of ownership and a complete change in attitude of the management team.
Audit point is something I completely agree with. I remember talking to my boss in audit and he was totally in agreement that the current system is flawed. He suggested that auditors should be on a central government panel and allocated to clients for say 3 year periods and they would have a far greater investigatory remit.
I somehow missed this entire thread but I will contribute in greater detail at a later date if I havenât got anything better to do.
Your view of the audit process outlined above is a sad illustration of your failure to understand and embrace the audit process. Do you honestly think an audit partner with unlimited liability solely bases their audit opinion on the work carried out by the junior members of the team? The real stuff happens in the meetings with the big wigs.
[quote=âbriantinnionâ]I somehow missed this entire thread but I will contribute in greater detail at a later date if I havenât got anything better to do.
Your view of the audit process outlined above is a sad illustration of your failure to understand and embrace the audit process. Do you honestly think an audit partner with unlimited liability solely bases their audit opinion on the work carried out by the junior members of the team? The real stuff happens in the meetings with the big wigs.[/quote]
Aware of that. Was looking forward to your opinion actually. But itâs very easy to fool the big guys too. Plus with the mutually beneficial relationship that exists between CEO/CFO and partner, thereâs a real appetite not to upset the apple cart. Which is just plain wrong. Part of whatâs termed a familiarity threat to independence. I found some pretty dodgy stuff before, brought it to the partnerâs attention and was basically told to sweep it under the carpet. My lack of a belief in adding any value or providing a useful service is one of the myriad reasons I walked away from the profession. Youâre a disgrace.
When did you ever raise this lack of belief in the audit process with partners and managers? Didnât make you popular - get out of it.
I do agree with you though and think Tinnion is talking through his hole. It all depends on the partner in y opinion. You get those that are honestly out there trying to do a good, thorough job and then you have those greedy pompous fucks, slashing budgets so that they can get as much jobs in as they can which means thorough work is not possible to do.
Oh - and they will ALWAYS sign off. I spent three year in external audit and never once heard of an audit not being signed off. Wrong.
When did you ever raise this lack of belief in the audit process with partners and managers? Didnât make you popular - get out of it.
I do agree with you though and think Tinnion is talking through his hole. It all depends on the partner in y opinion. You get those that are honestly out there trying to do a good, thorough job and then you have those greedy pompous fucks, slashing budgets so that they can get as much jobs in as they can which means thorough work is not possible to do.
Oh - and they will ALWAYS sign off. I spent three year in external audit and never once heard of an audit not being signed off. Wrong.[/quote]
Questioned that sort of stuff plenty of times while out on jobs, Farmer. Also, beieve I said it in my performance review in 3rd year. I said it didnât make me popular, not that it did.
Auditors have to sign off Farmer - itâs the audit opinion thatâs important.
[quote=âfarmerinthecityâ]
Oh - and they will ALWAYS sign off. I spent three year in external audit and never once heard of an audit not being signed off. Wrong.[/quote]
This reminds of ex-pros doing football punditry and believing their own experiences are still relevant even though the game has changed completely. Farmer/Clarkey auditing is a very different game since 15 September 2008.
Yes Farmer jobs always get signed off because that is what firms are paid for, why would they not sign off on a job?
[quote=âbriantinnionâ]
Yes Farmer jobs always get signed off because that is what firms are paid for, why would they not sign off on a job?[/quote]
Because the accounts are a mess.
Because they do not have adequate evidence to support their assertion that the accounts are good.
Because they hold a pretty vital role in ensuring that capital markets run effectively based mainly on them being independent.
How many times have you seen Tinnion a pile of shite being given to you as âaccountsâ? It is your job to sort it out into some sort of reasonable shape and the bigger boys look at things such as disclosure requirements etc.
I remember having one particular job like that in your place. The company were getting a fee for accounts preparation as well - disgraceful.
In effect you are doing the accounts, and you are signing off on your own work.
Govt spending âŹ54billion on loans with assets worth âŹ47billion. So paying a âŹ7billion premium on government calculations.
Can someone clarify this for me:
Say a loan was for âŹ70m on land valued at âŹ100m 3 years ago. That asset is now worth say âŹ60m (generously considering itâs development land). So the state is paying âŹ67m to buy the loan of âŹ70m (assuming no repayments).
So originally the bank had:
Obligations from developer of 70m
Supported by asset of 100m
The bank now has no more obligations from the developer. The bank is receiving 67m instead. So he paid out 70m to the developer and he gets 67m back and incurrs a small loss in that example, is that right?
The goverment then have paid 67m to buy the loan. If the developer paid in full would they get 100m back or just the portion the state is entitled to?
[quote=âRockoâ]So we have some actual data now.
Govt spending 54billion on loans with assets worth 47billion. So paying a 7billion premium on government calculations.
Can someone clarify this for me:
Say a loan was for 70m on land valued at 100m 3 years ago. That asset is now worth say 60m (generously considering itâs development land). So the state is paying 67m to buy the loan of 70m (assuming no repayments).
So originally the bank had:
Obligations from developer of 70m
Supported by asset of 100m
The bank now has no more obligations from the developer. The bank is receiving 67m instead. So he paid out 70m to the developer and he gets 67m back and incurrs a small loss in that example, is that right?
The goverment then have paid 67m to buy the loan. If the developer paid in full would they get 100m back or just the portion the state is entitled to?[/quote]
Developers liability doesnt change. If he has any other assets they can be pursued as normal for any losses.
To be honest Im not sure is that what you are asking though, try to phrase it a bit better maybe.
