Plan, plan and plan some more

QUESTION: Is Stonewall Central a better name for the property?
UPDATE (click): 2012 Audited Financial Statements
UPDATE (click): 2013 Annual Meeting packet
UPDATE (click): 2013 Special Meeting packet

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ANALYSIS 2009-2012 (click): A CPA analysis of SOHO Central Condominium Corporation's Audited Financial Statements

The Fantasy Vision

Does everyone remember this among the wonderful ads and brochures and how about the salespeople and what they told us. I hear such fantasies continue. So after watching and remembering, cry and then laugh at the truth that is being exposed.









And, if the above is not enough and you need elevated blood pressure, here is the project's brochure.

Many posts are still issues and need to be read once again. At this main hub of postings watch for new posts and updates. Please get involved by spreading the word as to the issues here. We must document all that is taking place. Many documents need retrieval and assistance is needed in getting them scanned and posted.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Audited Financial Statements: Revenue - Assessments

Audited Financial Statements:  Revenue - Assessments

Under Statements of Comprehensive Income for Revenue see Assessments for years 2009, 2010 and 2011.  Notes for 2009 and 2010 are number 10 and numbers 10 & 13 for 2011 in their respective Audited Financial Statements.  In 2012, what was covered solely under Assessments was divided between Assessments and Other Income with notes under 12 & 13, respectively.  As with much else in the Audited Financial Statements in 2012, under note 16. Reclassification, only a general statement is made with no details as to the changes.
 
2009-2010
 
In 2009-2010, Assessments for electricity and water in the second sentence were not exactly described well given the situation in the building.  Why a clear sentence was not constructed at the time is not known.  I would suggest the following clear explanation: 

Assessments for electricity for the common areas are billed by the electricity provider based upon actual consumption used in the common areas.  Assessments for water computed using the rate per cubic meter for the common areas and individual units are billed in total by the water provider for actual consumption.  In turn, individual units are billed by the condominium corporation based on the developer installed meters for individual units.
 
If this suggested revision is not correct, someone had better explain.
 
Additionally, no meter is installed in “each unit” as written.  Electricity for individual units is a transaction handled directly between the individual unit and Meralco with meters in the utility rooms on each floor.  The electricity in the statements concerns the common areas.  Water is handled by the building as whole with individual units having meters not in each unit but in cabinets throughout the hallways.  Please know that a main meter for water is the transaction with the water company, Manila Water.  That is their meter.  The individual unit meters in all the cabinets are the property of the condominium corporation.  Those meters are read for consumption and billed by the administration office.  Of course, water used in the common areas have their own meters and are the financial responsibility of the condominium corporation.
 
While Association dues is understood with insurance briefly explained in the note and electricity & water having now been explained and questioned above, Real estate tax and Others need clarification.  It may be understood that Real estate tax is for the common areas of the building.  Each individual unit are also billed by the city for real estate tax which is not included in the financial statements.  Many unit owners were and some still may be confused by this real estate tax division.
 
What is “Others?”  There is no explanation.
 
The second paragraph has a question that has been asked in conversations and there seems to be no logical answer.  Logical?  Listen to me speaking of logic regarding the situation with this building.
 
The first sentence of the second paragraph:  “The Condominium has two commercial spaces located in one of the floors of the residential area.”  What floor?  What commercial spaces?  Why was this not clarified by the auditor and the Board at the time?  Of course, there is also a problem with this statement as written given known floor locations.
 
Sentences two through four also bring up some questions.  Again, what are these “two establishments” during the 2009-2010 financial years?  “The Corporation granted two years of free lease to these establishments...”  Nice of the developer controlled Board that meets in private & secret meetings to deny income to the condominium corporation.  How many favors have they done for us?
 
The fourth sentence makes no sense as written given that the previous sentence stated that the establishments were given a free lease:  “As of the period ended, no rent income has been recognized by the Corporation since the rental fees are yet to be determined.”  The fees were determined to be a free lease if one were to be logical given what is written.  So why write the sentence in this manner?


 
2011
 
In 2011, Assessments under the Statements of Comprehensive Income have notes in 10 and 13.  The first paragraph in note 10 has less explanation in comparison to the prior audited statements.  Additionally, electricity and water have been removed as separate categories.  Were they placed in Others?
 
The second paragraph is basically the same once again explaining that there were free two-year leases and once again the odd remark “the rental fees are yet to be determined.”  Again, if the leases are free, what rental fee is to be determined?
 
I was told the term should not be “free lease” as written but lease free for rent to give a better sense of reality the members’ condominium corporation was stuck with in contracts not openly discussed.



 
2012
 
In 2012, Revenues under the Statements of Comprehensive Income no longer has the two categories of Assessments and Interest Income.  The two categories under Revenue are now Assessments and Other income.  Assessments notes are with note 12 and Other income notes are with note 13.  Water and electricity reappear as separate categories and a new category of Penalties is introduced in note 12.  The explanation for note 12 is minimal at best.
 
I have also noticed that the word “Company” is now used instead of Corporation.  Who let this slide?  Soho Central is a condominium corporation and the term corporation needs to be used for such matters as audited financial statements.  Who missed the sloppy term?
 
For the three and a half years in row no one noticed and corrected the commercial space locations.  Why?  Does anyone on the unelected Board of Directors read the statements?
 
Given that there are a declared two commercial spaces in the residential area of the building, would someone explain the construction and grammar of the following sentence:  “During the year, the Company entered into various lease agreements with tenants for the lease of the commercial spaces at the residential area.”  Various suggests more than two in common language usage. Then lease is singular suggesting that there is one lease for the two commercial spaces.
 
The last part of this note discusses future minimum rental income.  Since many documents have been refused in violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code and Board meetings are private & secret, we have not witnessed meetings and have not seen the contracts for the leases.  So going by what is written, the wording seems to suggest when trying to squeeze some answer out of the scant information that lease fees were ₱330,000 for one year.  But, the second statement, “Due more than one year but no more than five years”, would suggest that only ₱467,500 is the lease fee agreement divided between four years.
 
And who is reading all this on the Board for clarification much less full information for members, Unit Owners, of Soho Central Condominium Corporation?  Yes, Corporation not generic “Company.”  Was this on those CPA exams?




 

No comments:

Post a Comment