Investor backlash

By Goh Thean Eu

Published: 2011/05/04

Kuala Lumpur: Companies that were red-flagged by auditors and those that reported stark difference in their audited net earnings, saw their stocks punished by investors yesterday.

The selldown in some of the companies was systematic, as inves-tors were wary of their long-term prospects.

Since Friday, some 16 companies either had their books qualified by external auditors, or had revealed significant variance in their audited net earnings.

From the 16, eight companies saw their share prices fall, while two closed unchanged. Shares in the other six companies were untraded yesterday.

Sumatec Resources Bhd saw its share price fall by as much as 48 per cent to close the trading day 13 sen a share.
The Sumatec warrant, which also one of the top 10 actively traded securities fell by more than 50 per cent to 7 sen.

Sumatec's auditors SJ Grant Thornton was not convinced of the company's ability to secure new contracts.

The auditor highlighted that Sumatec did not impair goodwill on its subsidiary's consolidation and deferred tax assets of RM33.48 million and RM13.15 million respec-tively.

It also added that the company's trade receivables of RM5.91 million have been long outstanding and not impaired.

"I think, in most cases, the auditors are just making sure that provisions are being made on uncollectable debts. The rule of thumb today is to make provision for debts that can't be collected in six months," said Jupiter Securities head of research Pong Teng Siew.

Other notable stocks that fell include DBE Gurney Resources Bhd and Alam Maritim Resources Bhd.

DBE's shares fell by more than 5 per cent after it reported an audited net loss of RM3.71 million, more than 17 times of its unaudited net loss of RM202,000.

Meanwhile, Alam Maritim's shares fell by 4 per cent after it announced an audited net loss of RM12.9 million for the financial year ended December 2010, as compared to its unaudited net profit of RM2.2 million.

According to analysts, these variance between unaudited and audited numbers will, to a certain extent, change investors' long-term view of the companies.

"As you can see in today's selldown in some of the stocks, investors do take into account all these. Variations like these will make investors cautious of a company's sustainability and the credibility of its unaudited accounts," OSK Research head of research Chris Eng added.

While most analysts feel that most of these "incidents" are mainly driven by companies' misinterpretation of the new accounting standards, some feel that it could be a sign of more bad news to come.

"I think we can't discount the fact that it may be a prelude to bigger adjustments later," said Pong.

Read more: Investor backlash http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/redred/Article/index_html#ixzz1LKi3cT2u

Buffett (2002): The primary job of an Audit committee and the four questions the committee should ask auditors.

Buffet explained some key corporate governance policies in his 2002 letter to shareholders. After driving home his views on independent directors and their compensation, he has now turned his attention towards the audit committees that are present at every company.

Audit committees - Substance and not form

The primary job of an audit committee, says Buffett, is to make sure that the auditors divulge what they know. Hence, whenever reforms need to be introduced in this area, they have to be introduced keeping this aspect in mind. He was indeed alarmed by the growing number of accounting malpractices that happened with the firm's numbers. And he believed this would continue as long as auditors take the side of the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) or the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) and not the shareholders. Why not? So long as the auditor gets his fees and other assignments from the management, he is more likely to prepare a book that contains exactly what the management wants to read. Although a lot of the accounting jugglery may well be within the rule of the law, it nevertheless amounts to misleading investor. Hence, in order to stop such practices, it becomes important that the auditors be subject to major monetary penalties if they hide something from the minority shareholders behind the garb of accounting. And what better committee to monitor this than the audit committee itself! Buffett has also laid out four questions that the committee should ask auditors and the answers recorded and reported to shareholders. What are these four questions and what purpose will they serve? Let us find out.

The acid test
As per Buffett, these questions are -

1.  If the auditor were solely responsible for preparation of the company's financial statements, would they have in any way been prepared differently from the manner selected by management? This question should cover both material and nonmaterial differences. If the auditor would have done something differently, both management's argument and the auditor's response should be disclosed. The audit committee should then evaluate the facts.

2.  If the auditor were an investor, would he have received - in plain English - the information essential to his understanding the company's financial performance during the reporting period?

3.  Is the company following the same internal audit procedure that would be followed if the auditor himself were CEO? If not, what are the differences and why?

4.  Is the auditor aware of any actions - either accounting or operational - that have had the purpose and effect of moving revenues or expenses from one reporting period to another?

Toe the line or else...

Buffett goes on to add that these questions need to be asked in such a manner so that sufficient time is given to auditors and management to resolve any conflicts that arise as a result of these questions. Furthermore, he is also of the opinion that if a firm adopts these questions and makes it a rule to put them before auditors, the composition of the audit committee becomes irrelevant, an issue on which the maximum amount of time is unnecessarily spent. Finally, the purpose that these questions will serve is that it will force the auditors to officially endorse something that they would have otherwise given nod to behind the scenes. In other words, there is a strong chance that they resisting misdoings and give the true information to the shareholder.

 http://www.equitymaster.com/p-detail.asp?date=8/13/2008&story=1