The Davy scandal

nialler1978

https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/our-people/david-lawton

these guys have been appointed for an audit in Ireland, are they CRO registered?

nialler1978

Danny Garcia wrote: »

I would have thought some people would be happy about this, didn't people want the bondholders to be burned?

I'm concerned about who has been appointed, are you not? Help me out.

These guys are not registered in Ireland? I am looking on CRO, they have offices which look like one token employee.

They have no authority.

It looks like they've hired some pals to do some quick clean sweep on Davy and say all is well.

Who are Alvarez an Marsal and what authority do they have? This will amount to nothing and seems like tokenism. I stand to be corrected.

54and56

Listen to a real financial regulator (Bill Black) excoriate Davy, the CBI, Dept of Justice and even the Journo's who reported the story here from 10:00 minutes in.

Beyond embarrassing comparing how he'd be handling the Davy fraudsters and how the Irish system is (currently) handling the situation.

nialler1978

54and56 wrote: »

Listen to a real financial regulator (Bill Black) excoriate Davy, the CBI, Dept of Justice and even the Journo's who reported the story here from 10:00 minutes in.

Beyond embarrassing comparing how he'd be handling the Davy fraudsters and how the Irish system is (currently) handling the situation.

Thanks, I’m genuinely looking for some profile on Alvarez and Marsal, what company name are they trading under to complete an audit like this in ireland for such a high profile case? I cannot find anything under the CRO

54and56

nialler1978 wrote: »

Thanks, I’m genuinely looking for some profile on Alvarez and Marsal, what company name are they trading under to complete an audit like this in ireland for such a high profile case? I cannot find anything under the CRO

Is it possible they are registered in another EU country and don't need to be registered here unless they are setting up a separate entity here? They could undertake a once off project here without having to get on the CRO radar provided their Paris/Berlin/Madrid office issued the invoice and their people on the ground here were following EU FOM rules etc.

Over the years I've had to do work in other EU countries and as long as my Irish company issued the invoice I never had to register either my company or myself with any local equivalent of the CRO. If I'd worked more than 183 days in another EU country in one year that might have triggered some issues but I never did.

Also, AFAIK there's a different between being a statutory auditor licensed to sign off on company accounts and being a consultant asked to undertake a task loosely described as "an audit".

AIB could engage me to undertake "an audit" of their use of bog roll. Doesn't make me a statutory auditor who has to be licensed etc.

If Davy have appointed these guys to effectively do an internal audit it's quite possibly a PR exercise, their primary duty of care will be to whoever is paying their bill, not to Joe Public or Davy clients or the Irish financial system.

It's often better to get ahead of the problem by being seen to publicly repent, appoint your own external "independent" auditor with a publicly stated brief to leave no stone unturned and follow the evidence etc and in doing so head off the appointment of an actual independent auditor appointed by the CBI or other authority.

nialler1978

54and56 wrote: »

Is it possible they are registered in another EU country and don't need to be registered here unless they are setting up a separate entity here? They could undertake a once off project here without having to get on the CRO radar provided their Paris/Berlin/Madrid office issued the invoice and their people on the ground here were following EU FOM rules etc.

Over the years I've had to do work in other EU countries and as long as my Irish company issued the invoice I never had to register either my company or myself with any local equivalent of the CRO. If I'd worked more than 183 days in another EU country in one year that might have triggered some issues but I never did.

Also, AFAIK there's a different between being a statutory auditor licensed to sign off on company accounts and being a consultant asked to undertake a task loosely described as "an audit".

AIB could engage me to undertake "an audit" of their use of bog roll. Doesn't make me a statutory auditor who has to be licensed etc.

If Davy have appointed these guys to effectively do an internal audit it's quite possibly a PR exercise, their primary duty of care will be to whoever is paying their bill, not to Joe Public or Davy clients or the Irish financial system.

It's often better to get ahead of the problem by being seen to publicly repent, appoint your own external "independent" auditor with a publicly stated brief to leave no stone unturned and follow the evidence etc and in doing so head off the appointment of an actual independent auditor appointed by the CBI or other authority.

yes, that's what i am trying to find, can they audit or investigate without being registered? if so, they do not have a very good reputation, if so, why are national papers reporting this as some kind of positive?

54and56

nialler1978 wrote: »

yes, that's what i am trying to find, can they audit or investigate without being registered? if so, they do not have a very good reputation, if so, why are national papers reporting this as some kind of positive?

I wouldn't equate requirement to be registered with being good. Don't forget lot's of the Davy 16 boys (and I do think it was all men but happy to be corrected) were licensed or registered or qualified in one way or another and it didn't count for much did it?

The company you've linked to have grown to an operation with over 5,000 staff internationally. They must be doing something right to be generating that sort of revenue and profitability.

FWIW I think the circumstances of their appointment and the terms of reference they are given will determine whether the subsequent work they do will be of any value in terms of it being a thorough examination and report etc.

If they are just being paid to do a limited / cursory type review of current policies and practices it'll be a total PR job.

If they are appointed and paid for by Davy they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them, why would they?

The only meaningful investigation would be a Govt or High Court appointed investigator who is independent, ambitious, ruthless and has both a brief and the resources to turn Davy upside down and look in every nook and cranny going back to beyond when the first of the string of frauds Davy got caught doing was uncovered which IIRC was Greencore in 1993.

It's rare that systemic organised fraud just happens to get caught first time they do it so you have to dig much much deeper to get to the root cause.

No one, whether registered auditor or not, is going to do that if they are being paid by Davy. It's the most basic conflict of interest you could imagine.

Mongfinder General

54and56 wrote: »

I wouldn't equate requirement to be registered with being good. Don't forget lot's of the Davy 16 boys (and I do think it was all men but happy to be corrected) were licensed or registered or qualified in one way or another and it didn't count for much did it?

The company you've linked to have grown to an operation with over 5,000 staff internationally. They must be doing something right to be generating that sort of revenue and profitability.

FWIW I think the circumstances of their appointment and the terms of reference they are given will determine whether the subsequent work they do will be of any value in terms of it being a thorough examination and report etc.

If they are just being paid to do a limited / cursory type review of current policies and practices it'll be a total PR job.

If they are appointed and paid for by Davy they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them, why would they?

The only meaningful investigation would be a Govt or High Court appointed investigator who is independent, ambitious, ruthless and has both a brief and the resources to turn Davy upside down and look in every nook and cranny going back to beyond when the first of the string of frauds Davy got caught doing was uncovered which IIRC was Greencore in 1993.

It's rare that systemic organised fraud just happens to get caught first time they do it so you have to dig much much deeper to get to the root cause.

No one, whether registered auditor or not, is going to do that if they are being paid by Davy. It's the most basic conflict of interest you could imagine.

Bite the hand that feeds. Nail on the head.

Compliance department of Davy is paid for by Davy.
Annual audit is paid for by Davy as is the case with every other stockbroker and company in Ireland (if you’ve ever read one of these Audits they are so heavily caveated and qualified that they are a compete waste of time) so auditors will Usually sign off unless there’s major Identifiable fraud or solvency issues

Third party “Independent” audit Or review. Again paid for by Davy

The best way, for me, is for the Central Bank/ODCE/Gardaí to hire an ex stockbroker familiar with the industry to go and investigate. They’ll know where to look at least.

Floppybits

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Bite the hand that feeds. Nail on the head.

Compliance department of Davy is paid for by Davy.
Annual audit is paid for by Davy as is the case with every other stockbroker and company in Ireland (if you’ve ever read one of these Audits they are so heavily caveated and qualified that they are a compete waste of time) so auditors will Usually sign off unless there’s major Identifiable fraud or solvency issues

Third party “Independent” audit Or review. Again paid for by Davy

The best way, for me, is for the Central Bank/ODCE/Gardaí to hire an ex stockbroker familiar with the industry to go and investigate. They’ll know where to look at least.

And send the bill to Davys for the investigation