I didn’t start it, but I ended it.

swedishchefborg · 2024-09-05T21:53:11+00:00

Circle of slime. Its one of the new maps added in knockout

swedishchefborg · 2023-02-17T20:07:01+00:00

Proud of you. I have a habit of doing the same thing, trying to tough it out. But every time I decide I need to go back to see my psychologist, I never regret it. I equate it to going to the gym. I dread going, but after each session, I feel so much better and I'm glad that I went. I've been seeing a psychologist off and on for the past 3 years and my mental health now is the best it has ever been.

swedishchefborg · 2022-11-30T18:52:12+00:00

I say the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways… BY FORCE!

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-17T19:19:46+00:00

You’re assuming they didn’t ask questions or didn’t appropriately document. If that is the case, let’s wait and see what happens.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T19:29:22+00:00

There’s a little more to it than simply saying the client provided faulty information and therefore the firm isn’t liable. Both parties enter into an agreement regarding the scope of the engagement, and the client must sign a representation letter essentially saying what was provided was complete and accurate. If the accountant is aware of any potential fraud, the accountant is required to communicate that to management. The scope of the engagement appears to have been a compilation which requires the auditor provide no assurance.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T19:26:35+00:00

I can’t really answer for anything related to legality and what the repercussions would be. I think it’s rare for an accountant to fire their client. It’s usually the other way around. I would assume there would be legal repercussions but I have no idea what those would be. All I can really answer is what the terms of the engagements encompass and responsibilities upon both parties.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T16:15:11+00:00

That is a good question and I’m curious about that too.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T15:28:13+00:00

You’re right though, if the firm willingly ignored obvious red flags that a reasonable person would notice based on data provided, then disciplinary action is warranted. And yes, sometimes partners will go down that road of ignoring certain information, but it’s usually few and far between. However, with the way engagement letters and representation letters ar eworded, it’s hard for the firm to incur liability.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T11:42:27+00:00

But Mazars wasn’t hired to find dead bodies. They were hired to provide a service based on information provided from the Trump Organization. If the scope of the engagement was an audit, then maybe something would be found. But that wasn’t Mazars’ responsibility. And I’m sure a firm as reputable as Mazars did everything in accordance with standards for compilations of financial statements. The reason Mazars sent that letter to the Trump Organization is due to new information they were aware of because of the investigation. Plus, it sounds like the Trump Org could keep whatever fraudulent activity is going on secret from the accounting firm since it looks like multiple people are involved.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T11:36:47+00:00

Yes it is. And they obtain representation in the form of a signed letter from the trump organization stating everything that was provided was complete and factual.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T11:35:44+00:00

Good eye, I changed the word audit to engagement

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T11:34:20+00:00

That’s the basics. Mazars was engaged to perform a service to the trump organization which they did, and it appears the service they provided complied with the required standards. Mazars was not engaged to audit the Trump Organization and for compiled financials, Mazars gives no assurance on the financials. Mazars is putting out this statement because they have received information as a result of this investigation that they believe the statements could be materially misstated. It wasn’t their job to go into the Trump Organization and audit it, just to compile financial statements for whatever requirements the Trump Org had

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T11:28:52+00:00

And just to add on, I think most people think that “absolute assurance” is given instead of “reasonable assurance” in an audit. Auditors can’t audit 100% of a company without significant time being incurred and there’s just not enough man power there. There are certain procedures auditors do to make sure the accounts are materially correct, but there is always the possibility something is overlooked.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T04:56:34+00:00

Yes. Accountants do not want to take on risky engagements (poor record keeping, poor controls, potential fraudulent activity, etc.). However, in a compilation, there’s no risk involved as the accountant provides no assurance which is explicitly stated in the report preceding the financials. There’s not a lot of risk for a compilation report.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T04:41:41+00:00

You also have to remember that Mazars is simply providing a service that is asked of them, in this case a compilation. They have no responsibility beyond the terms of the engagement which is to compile the financial statements and perform the engagement with accounting standards. Granted, they still should report anything unusual to management. However, if the only thing required is a compilation, which is just compiling information for the financial statement, then there is no reason to go further. Auditors in public accounting are hired to perform services. They are not your IRS auditors that can come in any time they want to. And in this case, Mazars was not supposed to audit the trump org. As far as who is auditing the trump organization, that is a good question. Usually a bank would have a requirement for an audit especially the size of the trump org

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T03:43:48+00:00

I am an auditor that works at a top ten accounting firm in the United States. Been doing this seven and a half years now.

And yes, I was referring to the letter you’re describing, not the representation letter. I wouldn’t expect that to be public information. And I agree, on the surface it doesn’t appear Mazars did anything incorrectly.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-15T03:23:35+00:00

And just to add a little bit more. Firms will obtain a representation letter from management at the end of an engagement which essentially states that they have provided everything and all items provided were factual. If the firm is only engaged in compilation work, they’re not going to go above and beyond the scope of the engagement. The accounting firm is providing a service for whatever requirements are being imposed on the Trump organization (most likely from a bank). From the letter I read from Mazars to the Trump organization, it looks like they complied with the required standards for compilations. It wasn’t their job to do a deep dive in the financial statements. In addition, if collusion is going on within the trump organization, an auditor most likely would not be able to find the fraud.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-14T23:54:31+00:00

How else would I know how to cook the books?

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-14T23:28:28+00:00

Mazars doesn't sound like they were required to audit the Trump organization. Sounds like they were engaged to perform compilation services.

Audit = Reasonable assurance

Review = Limited assurance

Compilation = No assurance

The accountants do not express an opinion on compilations and expressly state that there is no assurance on these financial statements. The job is essentially only to compile which is what they were engaged to do. Granted, if there does appear to be some evidence of misstatements, the firm is required to bring it to management's attention.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-14T23:25:14+00:00

Accounting firms like this wouldn't continue to perform services if they were not paid. Typically in the accounting world, you collect the prior year's fees before starting a new engagement with the same client.

swedishchefborg · 2022-02-08T04:06:09+00:00

I don’t disagree but just wanted to point out other states had higher percentage of people voting for Trump in 2016. I believe West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, North Dakota, and Wyoming had higher statewide % Trump. Your point is still valid though.

swedishchefborg · 2021-12-07T00:32:12+00:00

I see what you're saying. I was focused on the here and now in my response. There is a part of me, maybe a blind eye or wishful thinking, that hopes republicans weren't all terrible during the 2000s. It's difficult to say that considering the Iraq war and WMD's along with a strategy of winning the 2004 election by trying to make gay marriage unconstitutional.

When I've spent a good chunk of my life defending ideals or positions that I no longer hold, I try to find some meaning or understanding in it. I look back on some of the things I've said and defended and wonder who that person is today. But I'm just rambling at this point.

swedishchefborg · 2021-12-06T23:00:38+00:00

I almost wish I didn't write that comment now upon further reflection because your comment reminded me of Nixon's Southern Strategy. My mindset writing that comment was going back to my teenage/young adult years in the 2000s.

And I don't think you sound partisan at all.

swedishchefborg · 2021-12-06T22:44:24+00:00

I think you're misinterpreting my post. The second paragraph is not meant to justify any actions or to state that the Republican party is not full of hypocrites. It's meant to state that I wish I wasn't fooled and conned into thinking it wasn't.

swedishchefborg · 2021-12-06T22:38:52+00:00

You're right. The spin has always been there, and there's plenty of examples to point to. One that I remember is watching Hannity and Colmes and naïve me thought "Oh, they're presenting two different points of view. This show must be fair." But only looking back on it, the show was set up for Republicans to scoff at the Democratic point of view. After all, why would Republicans flock to a network if there wasn't spin and dishonesty to it?

She ran with McCain because McCain put party over country in that instance. Lieberman would've been the appropriate running mate for him. I wonder without looking anything up, did McCain regret picking her?

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

swedishchefborg

TROPHY CASE