Hi What,
Appreciate your attempt to argue constructively, but would respect more if you could avoid attacking other profession.
Briefly, I was an auditor until I wasn't 7 years ago, and working as commercial accountant now. Having had telecom, banking and agriculture being my major portfolio and a few small NFP organisation back in the auditor days. I disliked the job, but I still respect the profession in many ways as to get to the top becoming a signing partners requires a huge amount of dedication, and experience in many industries.
Again, to call out another profession not done their job properly is a rather bold move if you do not first understand the purpose and structure of the report. Factually, Note 18 is correct as it was addressing notes to the "Financial Statements For the year ended 30 June 2018" which is of reference to page 18 of 72 under Non-current liabilities amounting $145,887,000. As at 30th June 2018, the facility hadn't been amended so it was still correct as at 30th June 2018 that covenants still stood, and there was NO breach reported at 30th June 2018.
You should look at heading specifically designed to address post 30th June 2018 under "Subsequent Events" in an audited report if you are searching for "forward look" matters post 30th June 2018. To substantiate directors' claim of "We'll be okay" in terms of going concern, auditors generally require evidence from external party(ies) to meet confirm director's claim to satisfy the risk auditors identified. Auditors are groomed to not trust management's claim, but look for evidence to substantiate management's claim to minimise audit risk.
You can also see on announcement made 5th of September 2018 with JB stating "vessel due for arrival in the middle of this month". With scrutiny being put on AJM by ASX lately, do you think JB would put his career on the line to make a statement lightly without any solid backing?
Thanks.
Expand
