Audit versus track record: two documents, two levels of trust

Track records and audit reports both describe the past, but their trust levels differ. Combining them properly is a pillar of an informed decision.

The difference at a glance

How to use them in a decision

Read the track record to see the path; read the audit to trust the path. Neither replaces trading behaviour (SANJESH) or the account’s terms (fees, loss caps).

Published audits and the comparing reports guide.

Frequently asked questions

Does an unaudited manager mean untrustworthy? No; it means this level of documentation has not been done yet. How much weight each document gets is your call.

Does an audit predict the future better? No; an audit documents the past. No document predicts the future — said plainly, because that is the honest answer.

Can any period be audited? The report period follows the audit process and the available data; arbitrary promotional slices are not in scope.

Does an audited record mean more profit? No; it means that account’s past data has been reviewed and reconciled against its source. The direction of the outcome — profit or loss — belongs to the market and the management; the audit only guarantees the narrative’s authenticity. Confusing the two is the most common misuse of audits.

Summary

The track record is for seeing the path; the audit is for trusting the path. See both public documents at PAMM Iran audits.

Two documents, two uses

• Track record: seeing the path over time
• Audit: trusting that the path is real
• Neither guarantees the future
• Read behaviour (SANJESH) and terms too
• The decision comes from the intersection of all four

PAMM Iran official audits: See it.