I-Glow, let me put closure on this topic for you...
Again, here's why you are wrong. Before reading why you are wrong, I ask that you be a man about this debate. Attack the content not the character. This is not about me and how I'm the "Big Bad Boogey Man" to you. Stay on topic. If you prove me wrong with facts and substance, then I will admit it. However, can you do that? Heck, I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will be wrong again someday. This ain't about how bad one of my valuations posts are to you. Save that for some day soon I'm sure when the company puts out more news that motivates me to want to do a valuation post again. As for making me your project, I've been the project for you and your basher buddies for over 30 years. Let's be adults about this topic. Again, attack the content not the character so people can fairly see both the pro and con sides of the situation without all of the other childish BS that you like to throw in. But today, I am right!
With some things, you are not telling the story at all and with some other things, you are only telling half the story that applies to SPZI and their audit. You are correct in saying that... the PCAOB requires the name of the engagement partner responsible for the audit to be disclosed in a separate filing called Form AP. This ensures transparency and accountability without exposing the individual auditor to undue personal risk. ... But here's the other half of that story that you left out. Since they are not a fully reporting company that files with the SEC, the auditor is not required to do so. The auditor is not required to file a Form AP. Please, reach out to some professionals like I did to get this confirmed. This links might help a little too: https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/implementation-resources-PCAOB-standards-rules/form-ap-auditor-reporting-certain-audit-participants https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/pcaob/2016/34-77787.pdf
Again, the SPZI audit is a PCAOB opinion. The Auditor, Astra Audit & Advisory, LLC, would have needed to give SEC consent before ever giving the company the approval for them to be filed anywhere. Just so you know, the SPZI audit is filed on OTC Markets: https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/407053/content
You said... The audit report may not comply with SEC requirements if it lacks a manual signature from the individual auditor responsible for the audit. Rule 302(b) of Regulation S-T requires that a manually signed signature page or other document authenticating the signature appearing in an electronic filing be retained and provided upon request. ... Again, that's only half the story. The rule changed during COVID times for a few reasons. I'll let you look them up for yourself. Still, regardless to that rule, the Opinion Letter for the audit does not need to be signed by an individual auditor to be legit. That is 100% wrong. Many companies use a basic signature stamp of their company's name for an electronic signature. Are you going to tell me that Microsoft is wrong and don't know what they are doing? Their audit was signed by "/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP" on their Opinion Letter for their audited financials as you can see below. I can show you lots more documents where many multi-billion dollar companies have done the same. Here is the example of MSFT doing it below:
AI
