Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chaz who wrote (51924)	7/8/2002 6:29:10 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz, Care to explain the 14 months that he was on the job while the fraud was being conducted? To me, the importance should be placed on the person who comitted the fraud, not the person who failed to catch it. It's easy for us to pay a lot of attention to the auditor because he testified before Congress, as opposed to the CEO who took advantage of his Fifth Ammendment rights. Don't forget that if, indeed, fraud was committed, the audit firm and lead auditor ware lied to. If you're familiar with the audit process (I'm only vaguely familiar with it), you realize that it's a process of occasional testing. An audit doesn't test every entry in a company's books. And as a shareholder, I doubt that you'd want to pay the expense of doing so. --Mike Buckley