EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read more:

[jmotivator]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

LMMFAO. Wrong!

1) The notes are "an integral part of the financial statements" - it says so ON the financials.
2) The audit is of the financial statements, all of them, not some of them with it up to PwC to decide what to audit, what not to audit, and for us to guess which parts they did and didn't. It's not how it works, and you believing it's possible is proof of your near total ignorance.

Right, the notes that actually deal with the FINANCIAL POSITION of the organization are integral to the financial audit, which Note 1 is not.

I also haven't explained, because I don't know, how they audited "Program services" in the statement of activity, nor did PwC, nor did they specifically mention that they audited that line item on the financials. We KNOW they did, however, because the audit opinion indicates they performed an audit of the financials, and expressed an opinion on the financials. It's the point of an audit!

No, you don't know they did. When I ask you how they would go about verifying the claims in that section you state you don't know. For you it is an article of faith.

 

[JasperL]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

You have already claimed ignorance on the process conducted by PWC, and their methodology so we can end this conversation here with that simple fact that we can both agree on: You don't know.

Hey, you're an expert in storage networks, right? And you said you're ignorant of how any given company's system is set up without first hand knowledge.

So why do you think auditing is any different? Is it your impression that there is a standard audit step for any item and if it works for one company with just one local office it will work for the Foundation with operations around the globe, including in developing undeveloped countries? You know that would be stupid, right, just exactly as dumb as assuming the storage network for Amazon is anything like what's needed for a local 12 lawyer office in a single building?

There are just a few audit procedures that are mandated (e.g. for bank accounts) and therefore standardized and will be the same for nearly every job. All the rest is custom, written with the unique situation of the client in the background and custom tailored to their systems, etc.

 

[JasperL]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

Right, the notes that actually deal with the FINANCIAL POSITION of the organization are integral to the financial audit, which Note 1 is not.

Well, part of Note 1 is a required disclosure detailing their accounting methods, so it's critical to understanding the FINANCIAL POSITION to know the methods they use to account for their FINANCIAL POSITION.

And so you're saying that they will audit part of Note 1, and not the rest and we're supposed to guess what PwC verified and what they didn't. Basically, the "financial stuff" is audited but clients can lie all they want about any "non-financial" stuff cause it's not audited.

It's a quite amazingly dumb notion that an audit can work that way or that the accounting profession would put the burden on readers and users of financials to figure out what they can trust was audited and what was not.

No, you don't know they did. When I ask you how they would go about verifying the claims in that section you state you don't know. For you it is an article of faith.

Actually I went through the steps of how the audit team would develop an audit approach to that item, and you ignored it like you ignore anything in your quest to remain totally ignorant on this subject. And I'l just repeat this, since you chose to ignore it and not tell me why this isn't f'ing obvious:

Of course I'm ignorant of the details of the audit program conducted by PwC. The only people who are NOT ignorant are those on the audit team or their associates. Anyone who claims to know the details of how they tested, e.g., "6,000 schools", with no knowledge of their accounting system, the documentation available, how information flows from the source to the summary, the internal controls if any that exist, etc...... is talking out of their ass.

And it's not an "article of faith" that they audited the notes any more than it's an "article of faith" that they audited cash or grants or receivables. It's also not an "article of faith" that the audit is of the financial statements, including the notes, and not just part of the financials and what they feel like auditing in the notes. It's a fact.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

Hey, you're an expert in storage networks, right? And you said you're ignorant of how any given company's system is set up without first hand knowledge.

So why do you think auditing is any different? Is it your impression that there is a standard audit step for any item and if it works for one company with just one local office it will work for the Foundation with operations around the globe, including in developing undeveloped countries? You know that would be stupid, right, just exactly as dumb as assuming the storage network for Amazon is anything like what's needed for a local 12 lawyer office in a single building?

There are just a few audit procedures that are mandated (e.g. for bank accounts) and therefore standardized and will be the same for nearly every job. All the rest is custom, written with the unique situation of the client in the background and custom tailored to their systems, etc.

I don't think auditing is any different. That is my point. I am not going to tell you that any particular procedure or piece of equipment was implemented in a given data center build because I don't have that information... especially when the procedure or piece of equipment has no rational purpose in the expressed function of the given data center. Moreover, I have worked too many policy audits to think that anyone is checking configs that are immaterial to the function of the enterprise.

So if a non-storage network guy asks me if a data center audit I have no functional knowledge of checked the firmware revision of a log aggregation appliance I would say "I have no idea" -- because the particular audit made no mention that the firmware was checked -- rather than call them an idiot and demand the audit must have checked the firmware.

 

[JasperL]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

I don't think auditing is any different. That is my point. I am not going to tell you that any particular procedure or piece of equipment was implemented in a given data center build because I don't have that information... especially when the procedure or piece of equipment has no rational purpose in the expressed function of the given data center. Moreover, I have worked too many policy audits to think that anyone is checking configs that are immaterial to the function of the enterprise.

So if a non-storage network guy asks me if a data center audit I have no functional information of checked the firmware revision of a log aggregation appliance I would say "I have no idea" rather than call them an idiot and demand the audit must have checked it.

So, ultimately you're saying you cannot trust PwC and they are frauds and liars and say they audited the financials, but prolly didn't cause it would be too hard and stuff.

What you keep missing and what is missing in your example is that PwC put the worldwide FIRM'S name and reputation on the line when they signed the opinion and said they DID audit ALL of the financials.

But one thing you said might explain where you're getting lost. An "audit" of the financial statements is a term of art, with extensive and detailed professional standards attached to it, including specific steps required at the planning, engagement letter, field work, etc....... These are standards for EVERY "audit" and if all of those steps are not done in a manner consistent with professional standards, it's not called an "audit" of those books, but a review or a compilation or special procedures or whatever. An "audit" means something extremely specific.

The point is when PwC says they "audited" the financial statements, no one with a knowledge of accounting, auditing, financial statements, opinions, is confused about what that means because an extensive body of accounting and auditing standards defines exactly what that means. We all KNOW it means they "tested" (for lack of a better word) every single material line item on the financials, and including all the material information in the notes.

So you're only argument is that PwC determined, and the partner signed off on a decision, that the discussion on pages 5-7 is 'immaterial' to the intended users of those financial statements, in this case donors and potential donors, and I see that as ludicrous/impossible. Donors WILL care and will possibly base their giving decisions on whether they have signed up 6, or 600, or 6,000 or 6 million schools. No one can say that donors would not care which of those numbers made it into the Note 1 (the actual was 6,000). And the fact that the CF included that information in the Note is strong evidence they believe donors WILL care and will hopefully use that info and that the info will encourage them to give - that's why it's included in that Note. If that's true or potentially true, it is by definition a "material" item and simply WAS AUDITED.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

So, ultimately you're saying you cannot trust PwC and they are frauds and liars and say they audited the financials, but prolly didn't cause it would be too hard and stuff.

No, I am not saying that they are frauds and liars, I am saying that their conclusions on page 1 can be true without ever touching the claims in Note 1.

 

[JasperL]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

No, I am not saying that they are frauds and liars, I am saying that their conclusions on page 1 can be true without ever touching the claims in Note 1.

The say in their "opinion" that they audited ALL the financials, which includes the "claims" in Note 1. If they didn't audit Note 1 and any claim in that Note is material, that is, users would or could rely on that information at least in part to make decisions, then the only option is they are frauds and liars and didn't do what the opinion says they did, and what the partner swears on behalf of the firm worldwide said they did.

Again, what you're suggesting is the CF could say they signed up 6, or 6 MILLION!! schools and no donor or potential donor would care what the actual number is, and therefore the CF is free to put any number in that box and PwC will not care. Why not 6 BILLION schools reaching every child in the WORLD!! - if you're going to lie, go big, right, and, HEY! PwC does not care!!

Are you really going to defend that notion?

 

[Vern]

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway Read mo

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/

This is good IF it is correct.

​

any updates from daily caller on the investigation?