Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd (SLJB)

[gwikley]

Lake, you build an hypothesis:

Company has audit. Though company claims a misinterpretation or language problem, you assume NOT. Because:
A. All persons able to perform the audit, in that region where the audit is being done, are highly fluent in English and USA/CANADIAN accounting terminology. This audit was done with that caliber of language interpretation/translation. AND NO LANGUAGE MISTAKES were made.
B:Therefore; Audits must show company in a bad light. Reason:
C: All companies with good or normal audits publish them
D: All companies with bad or negative audits stall them.

Seems to me a bit of a hypothetical stretch.
1. No inappropriate translation/interpretation was made.
2. All companies with good or normal audits release on time.
3. All companies with bad or negative audits stall them.
4. Therefore this company has a bad audit and is stalling it.

Presumes an apriori knowledge of something you have never seen, as well as a statistical sample of the presentation rates of good or normal audits over a representation period of time, and a statistical sample of bad or negative audit presentation rates for that same time period. None of which accompany your hypothesis.