amandajm said:As everyone seems to have finished for now, i will take it upon myself to ask Mr Corfman a question here, as it is nion related and he prolly checks here.
What are your thoughts about the TGTR please?
Anything remotely related would be interesting for me to hear.
Much obliged, J.
Amandajm: I've copied your question to a different thread, I guess because I really don't want to keep putting a thread with a slanderous title to the head of the recently posted forum list when the content is no longer related to the title in any way.
In terms of your question quoted above, I'm sure there is plenty of room for negative opinions given the general scandals around accounting consulting firms. However, my opinion is that the business dynamics here make it likely that the audits are accurate, and my personal inclination is to place a fair amount of trust in them.
1. If there were significant flaws in the methodology, then I think it would not be easy to sell the methodology to large operations deciding whether they should pay the fees for the audits to establish credibility. The risk of being caught in some future wave of bad publicity would make sales harder if there were such issues, resulting in the natural product development dynamics weeding out major issues. Also, in reviewing how the process works, my personal opinion is that it is well thought out.
2. Given the independent gathering of data on both the gaming and financial side of the house involved in TGTR methodology, one would need to have mistakes on both sides that happen to match (perhaps possible, but I think highly unlikely), or there would need to be collusion between both PwC and the client in the production of the audited results.
3. Collusion between an accounting firm and the firm being audited is certainly not as uncommon as one might hope. However, this sort of collusion is typically only sustainable in an environment where there is a very large financial gain to the involved players, tempting the compromise of principles for a very significant personal return.
4. I just don't see the potential for a large enough return to justify the sort of risks involved here even for someone ethically challenged. I don't see the economic benefit to an executive at a large gaming corporation for adding a bit to an audit statement in todays competitive climate. In my view things like bonuses, product quality, etc. are all much larger drivers of success than these figures. Land-based casinos have had their returns published within many jurisdictions for years, and have survived in the marketplace with much worse returns from a player perspective than those available at online casinos. The downside risk, however, is significant for all of the stakeholders - both the casinos and PwC.
Anyway, that's my two cents on how I see the dynamics here.
Just as a note, one thing we have been thinking of doing on Casino City is to create a database of the history of some of these figures both for land based and online casinos. We have tons of such ideas, so I have no idea whether that would happen anytime soon, but I wouldn't be having those sort of ideas if I felt the audited results were likely to be discredited.