?

If you need to vent, do so over there, not here…I did not want to fill up this board with posts about a stock which Saul no longer covers…

http://discussion.fool.com/latest-bofi-piece-on-seeking-alpha-by…

2 Likes

If you need to vent, do so over there, not here…I did not want to fill up this board with posts about a stock which Saul no longer covers…

Well, there’s nothing like dropping a big, nasty one in the punch bowl and then telling everyone else to ignore it.

9 Likes

I didn’t say no one should post about Bofi on the board. I just promised that I wouldn’t. However, it is a little like arguing about religion or politics: no one on either side is ever going to change their mind, and it is divisive to the board. We seem to be able to discuss a lot of subjects on which we disagree without bad feelings, but not this one.

Saul

2 Likes

Hello Saul,

However, it is a little like arguing about religion or politics: no one on either side is ever going to change their mind, and it is divisive to the board

Isn’t that a little like “My mind is made up, please don’t confuse me with any facts?”

Mike

7 Likes

I did not want to fill up this board with posts about a stock which Saul no longer covers…

Why not post about this on the BOFI boards for those who are members to that service which covers it and the global BOFI boards for those who do not have the service? There is already a thread started though not many posts. Personally I think it would be nice to get the full conversation on one single board vs jumping around and trying to cross post arguments.
Just a suggestion.

I did not want to fill up this board with posts about a stock which Saul no longer covers…

Saul is not a stock covering service, so any stock should be worth discussing. I am quite sure he has bought into a couple of stocks that were brought up and discussed on the boards. Plus, even if he has exited a stock, many still hold and discuss.

4 Likes

soth12: Why not post about this on the BOFI boards for those who are members…

I’m not a member so I’ll make this short and sweet. Aurelius’ allegation is built on a false premise. Aurelius writes that:

During the call, one of Mr. Garrabrants’ key assertions was that BOFI’s independent external auditor, BDO, was made aware of the whistleblower’s allegations, completed a review, and found them to be without merit.

As Mr. Garrabrants stated in his prepared remarks:

The Bank has never omitted a calculation which would impact the allowance for loan loss and leases… A review by the Bank’s external auditors and examiners concluded that there are no significant findings.

See those ellipses? Nine times out of ten ellipses mean that the writer is distorting a speaker’s (or writer’s) remarks.

Here is the full quote [emphasis mine]:

“The Bank has never omitted a calculation which would impact the allowance for loan loss and leases. After reviewing the plaintiffs’ internal audit it was clear that he did not understand which of the bank’s loan types had unfunded commitments and that he did not understand the generally accepted accounting principles that would apply to this area. A review by the Bank’s external auditors and examiners concluded that there are no significant findings.”

Garrabrants is not addressing whistleblower allegations at all. He is addressing only the “plaintiffs’ internal audit” and the plaintiff’s lack of understanding of unfunded commitments.

As far as the nonsense about BDO’s unwillingness to issue a comfort letter, there is a legal action against BofI and a countersuit against Matt Erhart. Does anyone believe that BDO’s attorney’s would let it step into this litigation until absolutely necessary?

23 Likes