Explorer

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 selected for testing a control over certain assets that consisted of the issuer's review of the assets including their presentation and disclosure in the financial statements. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the presentation and disclosure of these assets. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not test the valuation of a certain asset including whether the write off of that asset at year end was appropriate. (AS 2502.15)

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 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 test the accuracy and completeness of certain information the issuer used to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.10)

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 test the accuracy and completeness of information the specialist used to determine the fair value of certain assets. (AS 1105.A8a)

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)

Deficiency testing the year-end valuation of certain assets beyond their inception amounts.

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of an asset because its procedures were limited to inspecting supporting documentation dated approximately five months prior to the issuer's year end. (AS 2503.21)

For other certain assets the firm did not evaluate if the assets were appropriately accounted for in conformity with GAAP and did not identify and appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

In addition the firm did not evaluate the effects of a related party relationship on whether these assets were appropriately accounted for in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30)

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 evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for this asset was in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .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 selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of these investments and/or assets. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the methods inputs and assumptions used to determine the fair values. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 issuer used a service organization for the recordkeeping of these assets and this service organization used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm did not obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at these sub-service organizations. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

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)

For certain other of these assets the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the relevance and reliability of information produced by the service organization discussed above and used by the company's specialist to estimate the fair value of these assets. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer reported certain assets and performed an evaluation of whether the assets were impaired. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to establish whether the issuer had control of the assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported certain assets and performed an evaluation of whether the assets were impaired. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the reliability of external information it used to test these assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported certain assets and performed an evaluation of whether the assets were impaired. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's impairment analysis beyond testing its clerical accuracy. (AS 2501.07)

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)

The issuer reported certain other assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the presentation of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported certain other assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain disclosures related to these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control over a certain asset that consisted of the automated calculation of the recorded value for two portions of this asset and relied on its testing of the control from prior years' audits. The firm did not support its reliance on testing performed in the prior years' audits because (1) of the deficiencies in access and change management controls described above and (2) it did not verify that the control had not changed since it was last tested. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B29)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the reserve over certain portions of this asset. The firm did not evaluate the procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the reserve over certain portions of this asset. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reserve for other portions of this asset. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not test the recorded value for one portion of the asset. Further the firm did not test or (as discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the calculation of the recorded value for both portions of the asset. (AS 2301.08)

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 held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of certain assets. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the existence of a portion of these assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of the existence of another portion of these assets. The firm did not sufficiently test this control because it did not evaluate whether the control as designed addressed the entire portion of these assets. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the automated calculation of the recorded value for a portion of these assets and tested the control by reviewing a screenshot of the system configuration subsequent to year end. The firm did not test (1) whether the control had changed since year end and (2) the automated calculation beyond obtaining a screenshot of the system configuration. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the automated calculation of the recorded value for another portion of these assets but did not perform procedures to test this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the recorded values for certain portions of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer made certain payments to a third-party shortly before year-end to acquire an asset that was reported on its balance sheet. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence and presentation and disclosure of the asset because it did not evaluate whether ownership of the asset had transferred to the issuer prior to year-end and whether the asset was properly presented and disclosed in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2301.08)

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 evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain data from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialist used to develop significant assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a)

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)