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: Mike Buckley who wrote (53563)	1/29/2003 5:05:56 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, Anderson was in trouble long before they were convicted. Reputation is everything in the audit business and most boards came to the conclusion that having Anderson audit the books was not acceptable to the investment industry. Of course, this had a snowball effect. If company X said Anderson was not good enough, how could company Y still support Anderson. I think the best way for KPMG to manage the situation would be to settle very quickly. It is uncertainty that will kill them. If KPMG is being sued by the SEC and you do an audit review, why would you consider them at all? Soap box: I think the idea of independant audits is a fiction. Auditing should be a service of the stock exchange which the exchange charges the listed company for. Different exchanges could develop different audit standards (published standards, of course). If you don't like the NYSE standards, fine, move to the AMEX but know that the risk premium for your stock would increase. Paul