Profit gap appears after semi-annual review

Compliance with information disclosure discipline is not only a legal responsibility, but also a soft competitive advantage for businesses.

"Discrepancy" of billions of dong after audit

Recording the "biggest" loss in its history, Binh Thuan Agricultural Services Joint Stock Company (Bitagco, code ABS, HoSE) reported a negative after-tax profit of nearly VND270 billion in the second quarter of 2025, equivalent to more than 33% of its charter capital, raising its net loss in the first half of the year to more than VND271 billion. However, according to the recently released semi-annual audited financial report, the loss figure calculated by the auditing unit is even larger, with an "expansion" of VND23 billion, up to nearly VND295 billion.

The large loss in the first half of the year actually arose in the 2024 financial year, including bad debt provision expenses and financial investment provision expenses. Bitagco did not retroactively adjust the figures in the 2024 financial report, but recorded them in the business management expenses in the second quarter. The additional loss after the review mainly came from the financial investment provision for the capital contribution to Agricultural Materials Import-Export Joint Stock Company III.

“This is a state-owned enterprise that has been equitized and owns many land funds in favorable locations. Bitagco's Board of Directors assesses that Agricultural Materials Import-Export Joint Stock Company III has potential and the shares held will be transferred at a value significantly higher than the original price,” Mr. Do Viet Ha, Director of Bitagco, explained the reason for not yet setting up a provision for the investment.

Despite many seasons of financial statement review and audit, the 2025 semi-annual financial picture of listed companies continues to have a large "gap" between self-prepared reports and post-audit reports. Not only Bitagco, Dong Nai Construction and Materials Investment Joint Stock Company (code DND) is another case showing the lack of updates in self-prepared reports for operations considered by auditors to be material. This company initially announced a loss of less than VND 1.1 billion in the first 6 months of the year, but the post-audit report recorded a net loss of more than VND 11 billion.

The reason is due to additional expenses related to the administrative fine of nearly VND 11.2 billion according to the decision of the People's Committee of Dong Nai province, related to violations at the Tan Cang 5 Stone Mine Project. The penalty decision was issued in early June, but this item was not reflected in the self-prepared report, although the fine stated in the decision is equivalent to 10% of the charter capital of this enterprise.

According to Circular No. 96/2020/TT-BTC guiding information disclosure on the stock market, stock listing organizations and large-scale public companies must publish quarterly financial reports within 20 days from the end of the quarter. Listed organizations must publish audited semi-annual reports within 5 days from the date of signing the audit report, but not exceeding 45 days from the end of the first half of the fiscal year.

Sametel Joint Stock Company (code SMT) also had a large difference after the audit, with the loss increasing from 1.2 billion VND to more than 10.6 billion VND. According to the explanation, the main reason came from the auditor's request to set up additional provisions for inventory price reduction, causing the cost of goods sold to increase by nearly 8.8 billion VND. The misjudgment of inventory quality can significantly distort the financial picture of the enterprise. In addition, Sametel also recorded additional management expenses due to increased provisions for bad debts.

Meanwhile, in the case of Hanoi CPC1 Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company (code DTP), the accounting method caused a significant difference between the self-prepared report and the audited report. The company's after-tax profit after auditing decreased from VND 139 billion to VND 123 billion. The reason is that the corporate income tax expense of previous years was adjusted and accounted for in current expenses, instead of being directly reduced to undistributed profits as in the self-prepared report. This difference does not stem from an unusual factor, but reflects the inconsistency in the application of accounting regulations at the enterprise.

Tighten information disclosure discipline

Information disclosure discipline for large public companies and listed companies, along with specific penalty frameworks, has been clearly stipulated in legal documents. Since the beginning of 2025, the Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exchange (HoSE) alone has sent more than 70 documents reminding listed companies of information disclosure violations, most of which are related to late submission of financial reports or board resolutions.

Most recently, the State Securities Commission fined Simco Song Da a total of VND235 million for information disclosure violations, including VND150 million for falsely announcing business results. Specifically, Simco Song Da incorrectly announced the after-tax profit target for 2023 and the first half of 2024 on its consolidated financial statements for the fourth quarter of 2023 and the second quarter of 2024, causing its business results to change from profit to loss. In addition, the company was also fined VND85 million for late announcement and missing many reports.

Previously, Hung Vuong Joint Stock Company (code HVG), the one-time "king" of pangasius on the stock exchange, was also fined for being slow to publish a series of financial reports for many consecutive periods, seriously affecting investors' right to access information.

Not simply accounting “errors”, large discrepancies after semi-annual reviews or annual audits affect investment decisions and also raise big questions about the capacity and compliance awareness in information disclosure activities of listed enterprises, especially when violations are frequently repeated. Many cases arise from controllable factors, requiring closer compliance with the principle of prudence in accounting, such as setting up sufficient provisions for inventory price reduction, bad debts, or omitting expenses, even though they are not due for payment, but will certainly arise…

Financial statements not only serve internal management purposes, but also form the basis for stock evaluation decisions, business valuation and investor attraction, especially for listed companies. Therefore, compliance with information disclosure discipline is not only a legal responsibility, but also a soft competitive advantage of the company in the eyes of investors.

Source: https://baodautu.vn/xuat-hien-khoang-venh-loi-nhuan-sau-soat-xet-ban-nien-d364190.html