The Australian Financial Report has found that a company may need to cut costs to meet market demand, but its auditor says that’s not necessarily the case.
In an internal audit of the company, Seo Consulting Services found that, despite the fact that its audit found a range of issues in its compliance process, its audit committee was not looking for cost-saving measures.
The audit, conducted by Seo’s auditors, found that the company had not conducted a cost-benefit analysis and had not followed its cost-analysis and compliance procedures.
Instead, Seon Consulting Services said it would consider the recommendations from its audit team.
The audit said that it found “no evidence of any cost-reduction measures” in place.
It said the audit was conducted with the support of its internal audit team, and that the audit committee had been aware of the issues.
The company has been given the opportunity to comment.
“We are not aware of any such cost-effectiveness review and, therefore, cannot provide a cost benefit analysis for the purposes of this audit,” it said in a statement.
“Seo Consulting has been advised that the cost-efficiency review identified in the audit does not support the company’s position and we are therefore unable to provide a detailed cost-effective cost-recovery strategy.”
Seo’s head of compliance and risk, Matt O’Brien, said the company has “an established track record of operating in a cost effective manner”.
“We recognise that the impact of the audit is very significant and we will continue to look at our audit to determine if there is any additional guidance we may need from the company,” he said.
The review by Seon was conducted in January, and has since been published in the Australian Financial Reporting Journal.
It found Seo had not done a cost cost-cost analysis and said it was unclear if any of the measures were cost-efficient.
“The audit did not identify any cost savings that Seo considered significant or important,” the report said.
“In this respect, Seong’s internal control systems were found to be deficient and had a high risk of failure.”
The audit also said Seon had not taken any measures to mitigate the risk of a security breach and that it was not “in a position to identify or monitor any known threats”.
“The company does not have any ongoing security or vulnerability monitoring efforts,” it added.
Seo said in an email that the auditor’s findings were “not indicative of any significant impact on our operations” and that “we will respond to the audit in the appropriate way”.
“As a result, we have taken the following actions to address the auditorial findings and are committed to continue to improve our compliance and operational processes to deliver an industry leading customer service and performance management program,” it wrote.
Seo has not responded to questions about the audit.