Most people that read my writings know that English is
not my native language.
Lots of them often compliment me, how they think I have a
reasonable command over it.
Still, every time I set out to do any type of research
that involves Leighton Holdings or its subsidiaries; my understanding of the English
language is put to a major test;
Take, for example this statement from their website:
“CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE
Continuous disclosure of the Group’s activities is a
legal necessity for a publicly-listed company such as Leighton Holdings, and is
essential in maintaining shareholder confidence and market trust.”
Are they kidding me? Or is this really serious?
I can scroll through hundreds of pages of reports, media
releases and whatnots and still have absolutely no confidence that this is not
just a carefully crafted PR blurb set out to manipulate me.
OK, maybe not me, I have too much inside knowledge, but
everyone else, the media, present and future shareholders.
Still, even without having 'insider knowledge', it is hard to
imagine that anyone will fall unquestionably for these publications that are
closer to highly made-up political campaign-boards then serious company reports
that one can trust.
The one area that I know a bit more about than the others
LH operates in, are the workings of HLG (Habtoor Leighton Group in the Middle
East);
So, naturally, I look for anything that is relevant to the performance of this subsidiary as I read their ‘reports’.
In one of the latest official reports the writing is ‘world-class’;
Reads almost like a school report;
Habtoor Leighton Group (HLG)
The Group’s business in the
Middle East, HLG, showed some signs of improvement. (1) HLG achieved a break-even result during the first half and
recovered funds from UAE legacy projects. (2) The region’s macroeconomic environment has stabilised and a robust
pipeline of projects is being pursued. (3)
The decision of a Qatar-based
client to call bonds on certain legacy projects delayed HLG from making repayments
on Leighton’s outstanding shareholder loans during the period. HLG believes its
legal position on the matter is strong and it is working to a resolution. (4)
HLG’s focus continues to be the
collection of receivables and ‘IPO-ready 2016’ remains the target. The business
is diversifying its sector and geographic base, and it continues to secure new
work.
Naturally and unfortunately I have no access to
any of the full financial reports of HLG (oh, how I wish I did) to scrutinise
them in any detail;
Also, and sadly, for what I learned over the
last couple of years of the media (global or local) outlets, it is also unlikely
that any of them will any time soon seriously investigate what these guys are
up to; (apart from a couple that may yet come up with the goods, wait-and-see);
Still, aren’t there some ‘paid’ auditors employed
by these and other listed companies, that have the professional responsibility
to question what these companies are doing and publishing on the way?
I really wish they did, but honesty, I’m not
holding my breath. And if the current auditors are listed somewhere on Leighton’s
website with their contacts, sorry, I did miss them, otherwise I would have
given them a bit of free publicity just as I had done for Deloitte
& Touche in my post yesterday.
Regardless of my omission, here are a couple of pointers
to look into for those auditors, all based on the short paragraph published by
LH above and related to the performance of HLG:
1 – really? I worked there for exactly two
years; a large group of highly paid professionals was constantly working on a
large number of bids that never eventuated into real projects for HLG.
All projects won that I had some insight into
(at least 4) were either terribly late, over budget or both;
2 – really? Can these ‘legacy’ project be
listed one-by-one? Projects post-merger with Habtoor (i.e. since HLG was born) can
technically not be called legacy project, or can they?
3 – really? Would any of the company’s management be prepared
to bet personal money on any of the current ‘phantom bids’ eventuating into
real projects? Can this ‘robust pipeline’ get quantified?
4 – really? Based on what? A media war on a weaker media
player with a much stronger ‘factual’ case in hand?
As I shift my weary eyes from this sad, sick, corrupt
industry to the media that is supposed to keep it in check, I can’t help but
end up looking for the ‘auditors’ that seem to failing also in what they are
supposed to be doing and creaming the process financially yet sailing away
unscathed.
They are definitely not very technically savvy if they
are prepared to allow their audited parties to carry on like this (or they can
be easily bought, God’forbid) and they may feel to be in the right zone by covering
their own butts with lots of ‘small print’ at the end of their reports freeing them of any and all
responsibilities from the wrong doings of their clients.
In my mind, - and happy to stand alone holding this view –
no small print will free them being a party to something that can be classified
confidently as a ‘large scale crime’.
(picture came from a cafe street board)
No comments:
Post a Comment