Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Quid prodest Bankia?

One of the main reasons that have brought this debacle in financial markets, as well as Greek and French elections, has been the involvement of Bankia.

This has been facilitated by Deloitte's refusal to sign bills. Asserts a wealth gap due to the valuation of accounts Bankia in BFA.

The paradox is that the same auditing firm validated the same accounts for just six months and also a little earlier because of the bank's IPO.

Although it is true that the price has since fallen and Bankia traded well below book value, as other banking stocks, does not seem a sufficient reason for varying the auditor's opinion to the point of refusing to sign the audited accounts.

Is responsible for the auditor to have signed a few bills on time last year were virtually equal to those who have refused to sign? What motivated this change of opinion? Is there a conflict of interest, since it also was responsible for auditing the accounts of members of the merger saving banks? Nobody will say anything, not even the CNMV also validated the IPO? Does repeated Enron?, Do not forget that the current Deloitte emerges from the ashes of Arthur Andersen and the Ibex that Deloitte audits from the current portfolio of clients from the old defunct auditing firm and disappeared but auditors reappeared on the other hand.

Rato is now known that he wanted to change the auditors, can revenge?. Costs the country dearly.

No comments:

Post a Comment