Ya. An audit issue now has turned into a real PR issue. Too many missteps along the way now.

If the ID who is ex-kpmg partner can come out and give his views whether KPMG have done things correctly and appropriately, that will speak volume. But no comment from him is really a worrying sign.

You may not be aware how an audit firm works. When they detected some issue and can’t get a satisfactory explanation, the standard protocol is not to engage their client anymore.

The co have replied to their “extended procedure” (means issues must have been raised up before the board presentation, assumed the presentation slides on the board meeting is real), why would you need to have extended procedures?

The co announced that the board have approved EY previously, but yesterday PC said not yet, and then brushed it off say no need because they said it didn’t warrant it. What they need is not an independent review of KPMg findings, perhaps it is forensic audit.

Agreed. Most retail investors don’t really know how corporate/operator works in a PLC. Irregularities is considered the lowest level in a corporate scene, wait until we get to the masterclass of David Webb Enigma network, which is already happening in Malaysia, then this SB issue will be very very trivial.

Under Section 320 of the Act, auditors are required to report to the Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) and the exchange any cases that adversely affect to a material extent the financial position of the public listed company (PLC), or any breach of securities laws and rules of the exchange.

And if they do so, they will enjoy legal protection in their employment and also be protected from being sued by the PLC.

In my opinion, their move to sue KPMG is to force them to resign. But this is a double-edge sword. Even if KPMG now resign, the new in-coming auditor will be under more scrutiny not only from public, SC/Bursa will also be monitoring them.

So any potential auditor whom previously wanted to take up the job now properly will be having second thoughts.

It is their right to take whatever action they want. But to prove them negligence in court, it is a very high bar. For KPMG to behave in such a way, for sure they have asked other partners/audit team to conduct an internal review of their audit procedures and documents.

SC will not just simply go raid them if they have not also done their own review based on the facts and info given. Dont take AOB lightly.

Actually, they could have a egm to fire them.

Thus, it's they haven't appoint any potential auditor. Not the potential auditor don't dare to accept this case. Serba wasted 1 month for doing nothing.

It's better if they take the legal
action after make the independent report if it proof they did nothing wrong instead of sue when having nothing as a proof isn't it.

Intelligent comment from JH yap intelligent individual. Unlike the rest keep shouting sue kmpg to claim their investment lost, limit up la, Umno lawyer politically powerful all those idiotic 3rd world mindset. If you listened carefully chairman also mentioned substandard auditing...

I totally agreed the logical step is to have solid proof of no wrongdoings done then take legal action. Now it turns into a full blown Public Relation crisis for them.

And also thanks to their legal suit, KPMG can pour all their resources to review their own workings. Not only that, now they can really do a thorough checking also into Petronas and collaborate their findings.

@Peter. Thanks. I believe there are many people got burned not just on SB. The biggest challenge await us in local bourse market is the webs of penny stock... that will have a irreparable effect to our system and we may experience a Lehman impact here. More devastating than John Soh saga.

I’m a dividend stocks investor , I bought Serba last year during the MCO with RM 1.13. I sold some during the March surge, but I still left 60k shares stuck at the top. I do enjoy the dividend given but only from the healthy company with growth. I don’t know much about the financials, but some of my friend told me don’t worry, the NTA is 0.89, now is undervalued and convinced me to join their shopping spree. I didn’t and I doubt the knowledge about NTA from them. How it count? Does it exclude the liability? Is it really reflect the true and nett value of the company? Need help from some of you, I’m deciding whether to dump or keep (definitely No average down). Does anyone willing to explain to me what is the truth concept of NTA please? And some “genius” said it won’t goes PN17, worst case would be taken over, since serba still own many nice and healthy asset , and they even forecast the take over price base on past experience: NTA discount 15% ~ 30%. I doubt that, but still I would like to know more about this. Thanks!

In a corporate world, there are many ways to push up the figure, but ultimately, how do they “recycle” the money to settle the receivables and payables will be key.

I don’t think their collection of the receivables will be any issue. There are 2 ways to do it:

(1) Shares already parked outside via proxy, when share price move up, sell and then transfer the money to the debtor and then the debtor paid the co.
(2) Co, through some purchase transaction, flow the money to the supplier, then the supplier flow the money to the debtor.
(3) all in, 1 round of money flow can recycle 2 times.

One scenario why they sue KPMG, perhaps they are trying to buy time to get those proxies to get things in order, and they need those well-connected person to step in to help and also with network in the middle east to help to sync together on the contracts. The key issue now is who award those contract to the debtor and whether have they inflated the figure when they award to the co.

I don’t think it will be KPMG that will lodge with MACC, if SC is able to obtain information from the debtor, in this case like Petronas and determine whether the contract is genuine or not, then most likely they will be able to find out whether there is any element of collusion between them.

So SB case actually dont really just limit to itself, it may also implicating others if they do get involve in those questionable contracts.

NTA - Net tangible assets are calculated as the total assets of a company, minus any intangible assets (such as goodwill, patents, and trademarks), less all liabilities and the par value of preferred stock. In other words, its focus is on physical assets such as property, plant, and equipment, as well as inventories and cash instruments.

To calculate a company's net tangible asset per share of common stock, divide the net tangible assets figure by the number of shares of common stock outstanding.

But, if you look at their QR, the 0.89 is actually the net assets, not the NTA. Funny…