11-03-2003, 10:15 AM
For Raza
it is difficult to ascertain as to why your auditor insisted on the treatment, he could have gone for the other treatment you suggested. Its not one standard that affects the stock valuation, its a sequence of standards including, prudence, PBSE, stock valuation and going concern. Most importantly, auditors also tend to take into consideration other factors eg managment representations (directors wishes),,,, so try to ascertain yourself as to why he has gone for this specific treatment. the other treatment you suggested in line with IAS 10 appears to be a better one. but in the absence of financial statements and related information, we cant comment. he must have made the right choice. try discussing this with him and draw his attention to your views and see what does he say.
Pervez
I think you are applying the standards your own way and coming to a different professional judgement, I tend to look at the things differently,.... there is no right or wrong answer,,, it depends whether or not we can convince the quality review guys of our point of view.
The answer to your post and pre exisiting conditions is that it can again be aruged either way. since its an assumed situaiton,,I have to make a lot of assumptions to come to the conclusion as to which one of the four grids this event falls in. I think we leave it there.
I must say that AUditing is highly fluid these days. its quite difficult to make judgements that suit the wishes of managemnet and also have the capacity to withstand in the courts or monitoring units.
Anyway, nice talking to you and SMR on this subject...and good that we all kept our cool......
Thanks
zubair
it is difficult to ascertain as to why your auditor insisted on the treatment, he could have gone for the other treatment you suggested. Its not one standard that affects the stock valuation, its a sequence of standards including, prudence, PBSE, stock valuation and going concern. Most importantly, auditors also tend to take into consideration other factors eg managment representations (directors wishes),,,, so try to ascertain yourself as to why he has gone for this specific treatment. the other treatment you suggested in line with IAS 10 appears to be a better one. but in the absence of financial statements and related information, we cant comment. he must have made the right choice. try discussing this with him and draw his attention to your views and see what does he say.
Pervez
I think you are applying the standards your own way and coming to a different professional judgement, I tend to look at the things differently,.... there is no right or wrong answer,,, it depends whether or not we can convince the quality review guys of our point of view.
The answer to your post and pre exisiting conditions is that it can again be aruged either way. since its an assumed situaiton,,I have to make a lot of assumptions to come to the conclusion as to which one of the four grids this event falls in. I think we leave it there.
I must say that AUditing is highly fluid these days. its quite difficult to make judgements that suit the wishes of managemnet and also have the capacity to withstand in the courts or monitoring units.
Anyway, nice talking to you and SMR on this subject...and good that we all kept our cool......
Thanks
zubair
