One little point for the Senior Lecturer

How could the FRC have decided KPMG were in the clear when the issues were known at the time?

Well, possibly, because the issued were known at the time.

With the credit crunch in full swing, a meeting of investment chiefs and senior accounting professionals at the offices of Schroders two weeks before Christmas 2007 heard how the FRC was “fully aware that there might be ‘going concern’ problems” at UK banks.

Yes, and everyone trooped off to the Bank of England and asked, well, if there are such problems, will you support the banks?

“Yes”

So, the accounts were signed off.

This really isn’t difficult Ritchie, it’s really not hard.

5 thoughts on “One little point for the Senior Lecturer”

  1. When you believe GERS are falsified in a colossal conspiracy, and that HMRC are in a criminal conspiracy with foreign tax evaders, stuff like this is childs play.

  2. My email to City has been received. In case anybody else is interested in doing what Snippa did to that blogger, here is the email I sent:

    To: “[email protected]” <[email protected]>
    Subject: Richard Murphy

    Dear Ms Cronin

    I am taking the liberty of writing to you in your capacity as the President’s Senior Executive Assistant. My email concerns the online activities of a certain Richard Murphy who purports to be a professor of economics at City University and who runs this online blog http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/.

    I am writing to you because it seems to me that he is at risk of undermining the credibility of City University because he demonstrably does not understand many of the concepts he is writing about.

    In the second place, he is getting paid by a mix of tax and student loans. If I were a student, I would hate to think that some of my indebtedness was going to pay such a charlatan. As a tax-payer, I am equally bothered that the government is paying for someone who often proclaims his lack of academic credentials as a virtue. He views this as giving him the chance to rethink economics from the ground up. However, most of his pronouncements are obvious rubbish. As regards his students, there was a recent case where an alumnus of Oxford tried to sue that university for not providing tuition of good enough quality. That case failed but a future case against Professor Murphy could easily stand a chance of succeeding and I think you ought to be warned about it. As it is, I know many professional people in the worlds of finance and industry who are starting to wonder whether they should even bother to look at the CVs of students who might have been taught by Professor Murphy.

    In the third place, some of his writings are starting to verge on the libellous.

    I give some examples here.

    Many of his blogposts appear to be of questionable worth but then this is the internet and the same could be said of many blogs. However, in recent days two of his posts have been particularly vitriolic and packed with both dubious data and abuse. I refer you to http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/16/risk-and-uncertainty-why-gilts-can-be-seriously-overvalued/ in which it is immediately clear that Professor Murphy knows nothing about either the theoretical basis for valuing government bonds or what happens in practice. He ends up arguing with actuaries, bond traders, accountants and other experienced professionals and refuses to accept that they might have more knowledge than he. In the end, after insulting their intelligence, he bans them.

    The second post is http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/14/the-bank-of-england-still-living-in-a-world-of-legal-denial-of-the-fact-that-it-makes-new-money-for-the-government/ in which he ends up writing, ” I strongly suspect that the Bank is part of a conspiracy that spreads beyond the City that does not want to know that money can be printed for use for social purposes like creating full employment, funding the green economy, delivering the NHS we need and providing the social security safety net that most have to rely on. They want it to be thought that money is in short supply when the evidence is that the Bank can create it as it wishes”. He writes several times that the Bank of England who wrote the letter on which he is commentating is lying.

    I hope you consider my email of sufficient worth for you to instigate investigations and take appropriate action.

  3. @Diogenes – splendid work. He is nobbut a fraud, snake oil salesman and charlatan. I may second your concerns. Aye. Lizard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *