InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 5
Posts 580
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 02/13/2005

Re: pual post# 7411

Friday, 03/04/2005 11:00:48 PM

Friday, March 04, 2005 11:00:48 PM

Post# of 19547
Paul, yes I see your point

The audit of 2003 has been delayed. I agree with King that the auditor probably wanted to wait until 2004 year end, then verify bank balances, accounts receivable, cash flow etc. Then, after a balanced set of books was attained, he/she could then effectively "back into" 2003 numbers by taking the end of 2004 balance sheet, subtract 2004 income statement and have the end of year 2003 balance sheet calculated.

In my opinion the delay is actually a positive from the standpoint that the auditor is exercising due diligence.

You also can't predict exactly when someone will answer the auditor's questions? Remember, the auditor sends questions to banks, suppliers, customers, etc. He/she will not complete the audit until they receive all or nearly all of the responses.