Sometimes ago, management from B7's companies and Benakat
Petroleum (BIPI) spoke about the bogus deposits funds in Bank Capital (BACA).
The most striking one of course Bakrie Sumatra Plantations (UNSP). UNSP
recorded to save more that Rp3.5 trillion of cash funds in form of deposit in
BACA, and it was the biggest amount among the other companies (not including
BNBR). And what was the management said? That there was ‘unsynchronized of data
between UNSP and BACA was just merely an administrative error, because of the
gap of financial recording time. Simply, it was just a mistype. Whether it
was acceptable excuse? You can judge for yourself.
In essence, UNSP stated that Rp3.5 trillion deposited in BACA has
been drawn exactly on 31 March 2010. That funds then distributed to several
posts, one of them was to acquire Domba Mas, an oleochemical producer. Because the gap of financial recording time, probably UNSP has
compiled the financial statement when the funds has not been drawn from BACA,
so that the funds still recorded as deposit in BACA. And on the other hand,
BACA has just compile its financial statement when the funds has been drawn.
So? The problem here was not merely an administrative error.
We might not know whether the UNSP management’s explanation was
true or just making it up. But although the explanation was true, then it doesn’t mean that this matter is resolved.
Now let’s check the UNPS’s financial statement. There , it was
recorded that on first quarter 2010, UNSP had cash amounted to Rp4.5 trillion,
which was a significant improvement than in first quarter 2009, where UNSP’s
cash was only Rp213 billion. What makes the cash soar up to that amount? It is
because UNSP is said to get fresh funds amounted to Rp5.0 trillion from the
right issue, aka HMETD. Prior to that, UNSP had issued right issue amounted to
Rp9.5 billion of new shares with the price of Rp525 per share, with PT Danatama
Makmur as its stand-by buyer.
Due to the right issue, UNSP had cash funds amounted to Rp4.5
trillion, which if the right issue did not performed, then UNSP’s cash would be
minus Rp500 billion (if the right issue value was Rp5 trillion, but UNSP cash
was only Rp4.5 trillion). Well, here’s the problem: If UNSP stated that the
Rp3.5 trillion of funds was no longer placed as deposit in BACA, then UNSP’s
cash funds is no longer Rp 4.5 trillion, but Rp1 trillion only. The fund amounted
to Rp3.5 trillion was not feasible to be used as cash funds, which if being put
as current assets in the balance sheet, but became non-current assets, because
it was no longer in the form of cash.
If the cash position changed from Rp4.5 trillion to Rp1 trillion
only, the automatically, the current assets ratio will also change, so some of
the fundamental analysis calculation, particularly the current ratio number of
UNSP must be recalculated, because the balance sheet position had also change.
So, there is no other option: UNSP must rearrange its financial statement on
the first quarter 2010.
Has the problem solved? Not yet. Because UNSP is the subsidiary of
Bakrie & Brothers (BNBR) where BNBR’s financial statement is a result of
consolidation of its subsidiaries including UNSP, then BNBR’s financial
statement of the first quarter 2010 must also be rearranged. If the
rearrangement of the financial statement didn’t carried out immediately, then
the ‘mistype’ error will spread to the next financial statements of BNBR and
UNSP. It is because the financial statement from one period is related to the
next period. Although indeed the late mistake can be avoided if UNSP management
conduct a review or thorough audit for the financial statement of the first
half 2010 and the next financial statements.
A financial statement is a very sensitive document, which the
placement error of one number alone can cause the statements to be entirely
wrong. Unfortunately, UNSP management and other members of the B7 (and also
BIPI), does not seem to care about this.
If we look back, the error in the preparation of financial
statements is seems like something common among B7’s companies members. We still
remember that when Bumi Resources (BUMI) issued its financial statement of the first
quarter 2010 some time ago, one of the directors easily said that BUMI’s net
income was not actually fell down, but rose. The reason? Because BUMI’s net
income on the first quarter 2009 was not US$ 125
million as stated in the financial statement, but only US$71 million.
Therefore, BUMI’s net income did not fell 22.3%, but rose 38% because BUMI’s
net income on the first quarter 2010 was US$97 million.
Well, if BUMI’s net income on the first quarter 2009 was only
US$71 million, why it was recorded as US$125 million? The management argued
that the difference was due to the administrative error, where the overpayment
of tax and the impairment of minority values haven’t been included. How can a
company like BUMI with billion dollars of assets can make such severe error
just because an administrative error? No matter what, the sum of US$ 5
million was not a small amount. I would
immediately retire if I have that much money.
So, there’s no need to be 'notified' by any Bank Capital’s case,
we already know that the financial statements of B7 is often not right. And B7
may not be alone, because at least we know that BIPI also had the same problem.
What about the other companies? Who knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment