RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Do not understandYou just reiterated your initial point that quarterly statements are not audited and I will reiterate my point that although they are not audited they under go a review by the auditors (as opposed to an audit). During a review the balances are still assessed (by the auditor) via detailed variance analysis and management inquiry ~ the risk areas will still be critically assessed by the auditors.
Reviewed financial statements provide the user with comfort that, based on the auditor's review, the auditor is not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the financial statements for the statements to be in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework.
Audited financial statements provide the user with the auditor’s opinion that the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework.
The review that is carried out by the auditors, therefore provides some (although limited) level of assurance over the financial figures.
Your post further supports the fact that you take a point which is factual i.e. quarterly financial statements are not audited and twist it into something absurd i.e it's therefore likely the numbers are fudged. Also, I don't see how me explaining the fact that a public company's quarterly statements undergo a review by the auditors means I'm not a CPA (which I am). Your remark makes zero sense, but then again what else is new.
ps To clarify when I said I work in public practice I meant that I am an auditor specializing in providing assurance services for listed/public entities.