to give isx the benefit of the doubt they have been audited by...

First 41 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Senseightynine

2,016 Posts.

712

13/07/20

23:26

Post #: 45839019
Share

Originally posted by aniesbaswedan: ↑

Well the way I see it the only reason why ISX even bothered to appoint clayton Utz to do an independent review to begin with is because the ASX made a direction for ISX to do so. The question is, would ISX had appointed Clayton Utz if the ASX never made the direction? Probably no. The thing to note at present is that ISX has formally declared that the ASX has no power to make directions as written in the amended statement of claims. In my view, ISX basically rejected the direction.

So understanding that, I think it is likely that the review would either never progress beyond mere appointment or alternatively the review may have progressed but designed only to cover a miniscule portion that would cause it to get rejected by the ASX.

My view is that the ISX could very easily solve any problems that they have with the ASX by simply appointing an independent financial auditor to audit all of its financials. It could have done it ages ago and if ISX has been innocent then it would have been exonerated ages ago. Funnily enough, for reasons unknown, ISX never took that easy option.

Expand

to give isx the benefit of the doubt they have been audited by Grant Thornton for a number of years. A financial audit is not fool proof, and I think a mid tier firm like Grant thornton likely won't have as high quality as a big4 hence this issue may have been missed by GT, particularly when ISX was a micro cap back when the performance shares were granted.

there is constant news in Australia and internationally about poor audit quality so it wouldn't surprise me if there is a historical issue with revenue recognition, particularly when the margin was only a few thousand dollars that they met that last hurdle.

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply