Goodwill
158 deficiencies · 3 led to a wrong opinion · 60 on a significant-risk area
How audits fail in Goodwill
The recurring ways firms fell short. Click any one to read the real inspection findings.
- Estimate assumptions not evaluated47
The firm didn't sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions behind an estimate.
26 significant risk - Management review controls not fully evaluated29
The firm tested a management review control but didn't evaluate the specific procedures the reviewer performed, or the control's precision.
1 wrong opinion7 significant risk - Estimate method, model, or data not evaluated24
The firm didn't evaluate the method, model, or underlying data the issuer used to develop an estimate or fair value.
5 significant risk - Reliance on a specialist or pricing service18
The firm relied on a specialist, pricing service, or third party without sufficiently evaluating that work.
12 significant risk - Accounting or disclosure treatment not evaluated10
The firm didn't evaluate whether the accounting or disclosures conformed with GAAP, or didn't identify departures from GAAP or omitted disclosures.
5 significant risk - Little or no substantive testing10
The firm performed little or no substantive testing over the account, disclosure, or assertion.
1 wrong opinion2 significant risk - Accuracy/completeness of client data not tested6
The firm used issuer-prepared schedules, reports, or system data without testing that they were accurate and complete.
2 significant risk - Other testing deficiency6
A deficiency that doesn't fall into one of the more specific patterns above.
- Controls not identified or tested5
The firm didn't identify and/or test controls it needed to rely on for the account or assertion.
1 wrong opinion1 significant risk - IT general controls not tested3
The firm relied on automated or IT-dependent controls but didn't adequately test the underlying IT general controls (e.g. change management).