Replies to post #7714 on Cemtrex Inc (CETX)

[ksuave]

Glad you agree about the firm's respectability, Bob, and CETX's too:

The Firm is recognized, registered and in good standing with PCAOB as a "Non-US" Public Accounting firm." The Firm, just like any other PCAOB registered firm, follows the same standards, rules and guidelines as issued by the PCAOB and SEC to perform any public company audit in USA whether a smaller reporting company or a large filer.

The firm since its inception 3 decades ago has performed multiple US GAAP and IFRS Audits of globally located private and public companies and has remained in good standing with the professional regulatory body ICAI without receiving such allegations before.

The Firm is also a registered Peer Reviewer with the ICAI's "Peer Review Board" and is authorized to peer review any firm including the multinational public accounting firms as allotted by the ICAI.

[236T568]

Excellent

worth another read:

Thank you, Bob, for finally admitting that Cemtrex was a client of Bharat Parikh and Associates. I just set the door a-swingin’. You’re the one who walked straight into it. The PCAOB report revealed that BPA had only two issuer audit clients. You have confirmed that Cemtrex was one of them. Here is what the report had to say about client Issuer A and client Issuer B:

The audit deficiencies that reached this level of significance are described below.

Issuer A

(1) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence and valuation of revenue (AS No. 14, paragraph 30);

(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test equity (AS No. 13, paragraph 8); and

(3) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of cash (AS No. 13, paragraph 8).

Issuer B

(1) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence and valuation of revenue (AS No. 13, paragraphs 8 and 11; AS No. 15, paragraph 27);

(2) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of accounts receivable (AS No. 13, paragraphs 8 and 11; AU 330, paragraphs .34 and .35); and

(3) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence and valuation of inventory (AS No. 13, paragraph 8; AU 331, paragraph .09; AU 342, paragraph .04).

It makes no difference if Cemtrex is Issuer A or Issuer B. The PCAOB said of the audits of both issuers that there was a “failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence and valuation of revenue”. Therefore, the revenue numbers cannot be relied upon.

[tripple7]

the way I read this is cemtrex has no issue acknowledging their accounting firm - from 3-2 17

"Pearson falsely claimed that the auditor for Cemtrex’s 2014 and earlier financial statements was defunct at the time of these reports, which it was not, and made numerous false statements regarding [b]Cemtrex’s current auditor, Bharat Parikh Associates, suggesting that the firm was run by a disbarred accountant. In fact, Cemtrex’s accounting firm is a PCAOB recognized and compliant auditing firm, in good standing in all respects."

[gs9090]

thank you such fantastic reporting:

now from the same report for another auditor... lets pick one... how about PWC?

Of the 12 clients that PCAOB reviewed in 2015 7 of them were considered DEFICIENT AUDITS with respect to financial statements!!!!

To QUOTE:

Of the 12 issuer audits that appear in Part I.A, deficiencies in 10 audits relate to
testing controls for purposes of the ICFR opinion, and deficiencies in nine audits relate
to the substantive testing performed for purposes of the opinion on the financial
statements, as noted in the table below. Of the nine audits in which substantive testing
deficiencies were identified, two audits included deficiencies in substantive testing that
the inspection team determined were caused by a reliance on controls that was
excessive in light of deficiencies in the testing of controls.

from the report dated:

PCAOB Release No. 104-2016-140
Inspection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
August 10, 2016
Page 4


so whatever you are implying about every BPA client you are also implying about many PWC clients.

[gs9090]

ACTUALLY WRONG, THE REPORT REVIEWED 2 CLIENTS, IT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT IT IS CETX