On Thursday February 29 Grifols chose to report its quarterly results without the customary signed auditor report. The company declined to publish the audit opinion from its auditor, KPMG, even though it is under investigation by the National Securities Market Commission of Spain for alleged questionable accounting practices. The announcement came at a time when the stock price had already fallen sharply in the year, and there was growing market skepticism over the clarity of its communications to analysts. Investors and analysts were left with questions about whether the financial statements reflected a true and fair view or carried notes of concern, a situation that weighed on confidence and, in turn, on the company’s market value.
While the choice to present unaudited figures was not the sole driver of the stock’s slide, the decision raised serious doubts about governance and credibility, given the broader scrutiny surrounding the firm. The stock declined about 35 percent during the session on Thursday, with a partial rebound of roughly 15 percent on Friday as some traders recovered a portion of losses. This sequence underscored how a single decision can ripple through market perception, especially when auditors are not publicly endorsing the numbers.
Why did Grifols present unaudited accounts
Sources close to Grifols have not offered a concrete explanation for releasing figures without the auditor’s endorsement. They do note that in an initial meeting with analysts after a prior campaign from a short-seller, the company indicated that the accounts would be released on February 29. This fact naturally drew attention to the missing auditor’s report. In subsequent communications, a note stated that the audit would be published by March 8 on or before that date, with the executive leadership claiming that the report would be clean and without reservations. Comments from KPMG did not confirm or deny the exact date for the report, but they stressed that work was proceeding normally. The CNMV has reminded the market that the legal deadline for presenting the accounts, including the audit report, ends on April 30. In short, the company delivered unaudited accounts with a pledge to publish the audit report on March 8. [Source: CNMV]
Is it common for a company to publish unaudited financial statements
Occasionally this occurs, but it is not routine, particularly for a company under intense scrutiny from investors and analysts who are betting on a decline in value. A notable historic example is Bankia, which in spring 2012 released its annual accounts on the deadline day, April 30, without the auditor’s signature. A week later, Bankia’s chairman, Rodrigo Rato, stepped down. These episodes highlight how unaudited results can spark added questions about governance and the potential impact on minority shareholders. [Source: Market records, 2012]
Did Grifols rush the unaudited release
What happened next is complex. Grifols faces a continuing investigation by the CNMV, which had initially given the firm ten days to provide information clarifying allegations of potential earnings manipulation connected to a related party dispute. The regulator later signaled that it would take more time, framing the process as routine. The CNMV’s inquiries have focused not solely on whether there was manipulation, but on the so-called tunnel transactions allegedly channeling resources to related parties linked to family members and former executives, though the evidence points to a stake likely under 30 percent. Analysts have been critical of the company for payments of 266 million to the related party, describing the move as possibly damaging to minority shareholders and labeling the explanation as confusing and insufficient. [Sources: CNMV communications, Bankinter analysis]
What lies ahead
Regardless of the CNMV’s public release of its findings, the immediate milestones are clear. The first is March 8, when the audit report from KPMG should be available. The second is whether that report will be clean and without reservations, as the executive leadership has asserted. If the report is not unequivocally favorable, observers say this would become a focal point for public discussion and investor meetings. Grifols notes that if the report shows issues, they will address them openly when the time comes. [Source: Grifols leadership statements]