Investment Securities
138 deficiencies · 2 led to a wrong opinion · 6 on a significant-risk area
How audits fail in Investment Securities
The recurring ways firms fell short. Click any one to read the real inspection findings.
- Estimate method, model, or data not evaluated28
The firm didn't evaluate the method, model, or underlying data the issuer used to develop an estimate or fair value.
3 significant risk - Little or no substantive testing22
The firm performed little or no substantive testing over the account, disclosure, or assertion.
1 significant risk - Controls not identified or tested20
The firm didn't identify and/or test controls it needed to rely on for the account or assertion.
- Management review controls not fully evaluated13
The firm tested a management review control but didn't evaluate the specific procedures the reviewer performed, or the control's precision.
1 wrong opinion1 significant risk - Accuracy/completeness of client data not tested13
The firm used issuer-prepared schedules, reports, or system data without testing that they were accurate and complete.
- Reliance on a specialist or pricing service10
The firm relied on a specialist, pricing service, or third party without sufficiently evaluating that work.
1 wrong opinion1 significant risk - Accounting or disclosure treatment not evaluated9
The firm didn't evaluate whether the accounting or disclosures conformed with GAAP, or didn't identify departures from GAAP or omitted disclosures.
- Sample too small or unsupported9
The sample the firm tested was too small, or the basis for the sample size didn't support the conclusion.
- Confirmations / alternative procedures6
The firm didn't obtain confirmations, or didn't perform sufficient alternative procedures when confirmations weren't returned.
- Estimate assumptions not evaluated5
The firm didn't sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions behind an estimate.
- Other testing deficiency3
A deficiency that doesn't fall into one of the more specific patterns above.