Countrywide - CWD .....the short ?!

That was me that emailed that question. It was because the guest (Michael Browne from Sofaer Global Research) happened to mention to be suspicious if companies slip out important info between Xmas and New Year because nobody is about to notice anything iffy, as was mentioned by MickConn11 in an earlier post. As is typical I was away from my TV for the few minutes when it finally came up and I just caught the end of that and my Virgin Mobile question.
Glad somebody saw it.


A crucial point about these announcements coming so close to Xmas is that the relevant parties are often on their holidays so it's hard to establish what's what. No-one at KPMG seem to know what the story is. Also, significantly in my opinion, most RNS anouncements have a contact number to call in case of enquiry.CWD's RNSs don't contain a contact name or number as a rule, though the interim results have a number for Harry Hill (which seems to be the general CWD number in the absence of a full staff) and Mr Sporborg's mobile.

Edit: phoned the mobile - according to Mr Sporborg himself, KPMG have been their auditors for 20 years but it was felt that CWD, being a domestic concern, could not justify (or possibly, reading between the lines a bit, afford the extra expense of?) using the services of one of the international big four. Hence the position was put out to tender amongst four others and Stoy chosen. KPMG were not invited to tender and would stay appointed only until such time as new auditors were chosen. He did not seem to think the recent (10th August) appointment of KPMG by Rightmove would be affected as Rightmove does not constitute a subsidiary of CWD. I wasn't able to get any comment on the timing of the announcement.

Mmmm. Dropping your auditors of 20 years and announcing it the day before Xmas eve when it won't hit the headlines until everyone's on their Xmas break. Even taken in isolation with respect to all the other stuff it seems a bit odd. Are they simply being prudent or are they in some kind of financial poo and don't want it speculated upon in the run up to their close period.

Is it reasonable to assume that it might be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of new auditors than ones who know the company inside out?