Explorer

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions used by the external specialist to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the collectability of the outstanding receivable recorded at year end for the sale of the assets to the counterparty. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data it used to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used in the valuation of the assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.11)

The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to test the fair value of certain of these assets which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-employed specialist's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that it did not (1) evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist (2) evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework and (3) test the accuracy and/or completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the company's specialist. The firm did not perform additional procedures or request the auditor-employed specialist to perform additional procedures to address these issues. (AS 1105.A8a .A8b and .A8c; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for an underlying assumption it developed because the firm obtained evidence that did not support the amount of the assumption. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a second underlying assumption it developed. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a third underlying assumption it developed because the firm limited its procedures to obtaining evidence that indicated its assumption may not have been accurate. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance of historical results of another company that it used to conclude that its overall assumptions for revenue were reasonable. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm developed certain other assumptions that it used in its independent expectation. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for those assumptions because it used the historical results of another company to substantiate its assumptions without evaluating whether the historical results of the other company were relevant. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.22)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of certain assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

With respect to a certain asset to evaluate the possible impairment of this asset the issuer estimated the fair value of this asset using forecasted cash flows and other assumptions. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether events and circumstances continued to support the established useful life for this asset. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets using assumptions developed by the issuer and the specialist. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer because the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets using assumptions developed by the issuer and the specialist. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets using assumptions developed by the issuer and the specialist. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer calculated a provision for certain assets by applying established percentages to each category of these assets. The firm's approach for testing the provision was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the reasonableness of the percentages used by the issuer to determine the provision. (AS 2501.11)

During the year the issuer recorded an asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of this asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

During the year the issuer recorded an asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of this asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer recorded an asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of this asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer because the firm did not evaluate the reliability of certain external information it used. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

During the year the issuer recorded an asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of this asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · In evaluating the reasonableness of these significant assumptions the firm did not take into account the issuer's ability to carry out the actions necessary to meet the assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

During the year the issuer also recorded certain other assets at fair value. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's assumption used to determine the fair value. Further the firm did not evaluate the consistency of this assumption with market information it obtained. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's conclusion not to record a reserve for certain assets. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer held certain investments and assets and engaged specialists to assist it in determining the fair values of these investments and assets using various significant assumptions developed by the issuer or the company's specialists. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified misstatements in its substantive testing of certain investments. The firm did not evaluate whether the misstatements it identified should have had an effect on the firm's conclusion about the effectiveness of the issuer's controls. (AS 2201.B8)

For certain of these assets the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the fair values of these assets. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

For certain of these assets the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the fair values of these assets. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by certain of the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

For certain other of these assets the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by one of the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer reported certain other assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the recoverability of these assets. (AS 2501.07)

To estimate the reserve for one portion of this asset the issuer developed certain projections. The firm's approach for substantively testing this reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the reserve because the firm did not (1) obtain an understanding of the issuer's process for determining the projections and (2) perform procedures to test certain factors and assumptions used by the issuer to determine the reserve. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

To estimate the reserve for one portion of this asset the issuer developed certain projections. The firm's approach for substantively testing this reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reserve for another portion of the asset. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The company's specialist used discounted cash flow models in its valuation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to the time periods that were developed by the company's specialist and used in the discounted cash flow models beyond comparing them to certain issuer documentation that indicated shorter time periods and concluding that the shorter time periods were more conservative. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The company's specialist used discounted cash flow models in its valuation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The company's specialist used discounted cash flow models in its valuation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test an estimate related to these assets including consideration of certain contrary evidence that was included in the firm's work papers. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

In addition the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain assets for possible impairment using forecasted cash flows that assumed significant revenue growth and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the issuer's impairment assessment. The auditor-employed specialist's approach consisted of (1) developing expectations of the value-in-use of these assets and (2) evaluating events occurring after the measurement date. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these expectations the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's work did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a significant assumption it used to develop the expectation. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for assumptions it derived and used to develop an independent expectation of an estimate related to certain assets. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop an estimate of certain of these assets was in conformity with certain applicable GAAP requirements. (AS 2501.10)