Toubani Resources Ltd T.TRE

RE: whoa - Read it and weep, dumbass

[whoa_rimcheese]

Not sure what your point is pinecone. The article basically confirmed everything I have said. Perhaps you need to re-read.:

To the auditing industry, the fact that investors tend to blame auditors when frauds go undetected reflects unrealistic expectations, not bad work by the auditors. The RULES say auditors are supposed to have a “healthy degree of skepticism,” but not to detect all frauds. 

I guess part of the problem is the general investing public don't realize the extent of accounting errors, control weaknesses, and other issues auditor's identify and are corrected prior to the issue of the financial statements. People just tend to assume an audit is to catch fraud and bad guys. The accounting world is complex, and the standards are comple. What do you propose as an alternative to the current audit process?

You are so off-track, it is humorous - you clearly don't have the mind for accounting or finance. The world is imperfect unfortunately, and a signed auditor's report does not mean the statements are perfect. It also doesn't mean that there wasn't a fraud that went undetected. It provides reasonable assurance - not absolute.

Will an accounting firm defend itself if it feels the expectations of their audit work was too high - you bet - will they be successful - that is for the courts to decide - using the professions OWN standards against them. Using an example, if a bank statement WAS FORGED, AND WAS FORGED WELL, it is reasonable for a financial statement auditor to be sued by investors for being deceived by management? That is a REAL question for you. A yes or no answer will suffice - just curious what I am dealing with here....

I am curious, pinecone - what line of work are you in? Clearly nothing to do with finance I imagine.