FM11,
First off, I didn’t accuse you, of accusing anyone, of anything.
I'm well aware of that.
Thanks for the snarky, condescending English lesson all the same.
I see you're point, throwing around "preposterous" and "rediculous" got me cranked up, but, in fact, you only occasionally use that language with me. I rarely respond to mackfish, mainly because I have a hard time following what he is saying. My apologies, I'll tone it down.
I will tell you, I often say things that are directed at other readers. I didn't want anyone to infer what was not implied.
My statement about KPMG isn’t any more preposterous than the initial claim that financials were fraudulent. Rothstein audited Breitling’s financial statements and signed off on them. KPMG later acquired Rothstein.
I stand by what I said. KPMG acquiring Rothstein does not mean that everything Rothstein did is correct with certitude. Why would it? Besides, it's not an auditors job to detect fraud, though sometimes that is included in what they do. However, claiming fraud is at least as baseless as the KPMG claim.
If people want to entertain the theory that Breitling was fraudulent in its financial statements, then you have to consider the auditing firm that signed off on them.
Perhaps, but it is a proven fact that auditors miss fraud. Auditing can lend credibilty, but certitude? That Rothstein signing off on an incorrect report proves there is no fraud is, well, not believable. If you mean you are certain the reports are not completely fabricated and devoid of any reality, then I would say I am also.
We know with virtual certainty that they signed off in incorrect financials, incorrect in a material way. How would they know that the incorrectness is not fraudulent if they didn't know it existed. It's possible, but not a certainty.
My point being, is that while having a reputable auditor doesn’t guarantee anything, it does seem to indicate that Breitling made an effort to retain a larger unbiased firm that would be above any influence or input from Faulkner and provide an honest assessment.
I agree with all of that and if that is your point I have wasted your time and mine. I would say that "doesn't guarantee anything" and "seems to indicate" connote more risk that "certain." I could speculate that management of BECC was so arrogant that they thought they could fool the auditors, but that would be groundless and pointless since it would require inside information to prove or disprove, which is pretty much what I said in my original post.
The short story here is that Breitling could be OTCQB tier by the end of next week if they wanted to. That alone would bump the share price and put an end to the nonsense being posted.
The fact that they aren’t going that route, gives me a small hint at what to expect.
Whatever. That's beyond the scope of anything I have ever posted. Back in June, I talked about red flags and things have gotten nothing but worse. We have differing opinions as to why.
Happy Trading! (oh wait, I forgot….never mind.)
You are correct, I invest on a long term and never would consider BECC. This is investorshub not tradershub. Quite frankly, if BECC involved only traders who were trying to predict where the price would go, I would have no interest at all.
LOL, IMO and FWIW.
