Explorer

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of deposit liabilities. For the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned or were returned with exceptions the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of deposit liabilities. For the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned or were returned with exceptions the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the deposit transaction data that were input into the issuer's deposits system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer placed items in deposit suspense accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of items in certain of these accounts and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test deposit liabilities were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of deposit liabilities. The firm did not perform sufficient sampling procedures because it did not verify that all deposit liabilities had the opportunity to be selected for testing. (AS 2315.24)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of reports that the issuer used in the performance of various controls that the firm tested over deposit liabilities. (AS 2201.39)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test deposit liabilities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm relied on certain ITGCs including those over the issuer's online banking application and manual controls in its approach to testing certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the origination of new deposit liability accounts. The firm did not include any new accounts originated in the online banking system in its testing. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The firm relied on certain ITGCs including those over the issuer's online banking application and manual controls in its approach to testing certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test controls over the process for customers who elected to receive electronic statements. (AS 2301.16)

The firm sent confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for two samples of deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · As a result of the deficiencies identified the firm did not sufficiently test the completeness of the deposit liabilities population that was used to select the samples to be confirmed. (AS 1105.10)

The firm sent confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for two samples of deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test these deposit liabilities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm relied on certain ITGCs including those over the issuer's online banking application and manual controls in its approach to testing certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test ITGCs over the issuer's online banking application. (AS 2301.16)

The firm relied on certain ITGCs including those over the issuer's online banking application and manual controls in its approach to testing certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the monitoring of the transfer of data from the teller system to the general ledger. The firm did not evaluate whether the control was designed to address the risk related to the completeness of the data transferred. (AS 2301.19)

The firm relied on certain ITGCs including those over the issuer's online banking application and manual controls in its approach to testing certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over user access to the general ledger. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether to initially grant access and whether previously granted access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The firm relied on certain ITGCs including those over the issuer's online banking application and manual controls in its approach to testing certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over change management. The firm did not test or in the alternative test controls over the completeness of the population of changes that the firm used in its testing of these controls. (AS 1105.10)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of deposit liabilities. For the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The issuer's deposit liability transactions included certain deposits processed through information systems that were outside of the issuer's core deposit liability system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over deposit transactions initiated outside of the issuer's core deposit system. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control over deposit liability reconciliations. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether reconciling items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and 44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over deposit liabilities that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation and review of deposit payment requests. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to ensure that deposits were not refunded incorrectly or fraudulently in the approval of withdrawal requests and to ensure the accuracy of the interest-bearing deposits account reconciliations. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test the existence and completeness of deposit liabilities included sending positive confirmation requests to a sample of customers to confirm the deposits that they made through an interim date. The firm communicated to the principal auditor that it had also examined support for customer account statements and proof of deposits in the accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test withdrawal activity during the year. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test the existence and completeness of deposit liabilities included sending positive confirmation requests to a sample of customers to confirm the deposits that they made through an interim date. The firm communicated to the principal auditor that it had also examined support for customer account statements and proof of deposits in the accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to extend its conclusions regarding the existence and completeness of deposit liabilities from the interim date in which the audit procedures were performed to year-end. (AS 2301.45)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test the existence and completeness of deposit liabilities included sending positive confirmation requests to a sample of customers to confirm the deposits that they made through an interim date. The firm communicated to the principal auditor that it had also examined support for customer account statements and proof of deposits in the accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the report from which it selected its samples for testing beyond reviewing the parameters used to generate the report. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test the existence and completeness of deposit liabilities included sending positive confirmation requests to a sample of customers to confirm the deposits that they made through an interim date. The firm communicated to the principal auditor that it had also examined support for customer account statements and proof of deposits in the accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not examine the support for customer statements and proof of deposits in the accounting system as it had communicated to the principal auditor. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test the existence and completeness of deposit liabilities included sending positive confirmation requests to a sample of customers to confirm the deposits that they made through an interim date. The firm communicated to the principal auditor that it had also examined support for customer account statements and proof of deposits in the accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: · The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test deposit liabilities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm's procedures to test the acquired deposit liabilities included sending positive confirmation requests for deposit accounts over an established threshold. For the positive confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the acquired deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test certain deposit liabilities the firm sent either positive or negative confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for samples of deposit liabilities as of an interim date and year end. For positive confirmations that were not returned and for negative confirmations that were undeliverable the firm did not perform procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.21 and .31)

For certain other deposit liabilities selected for testing as of an interim date and year end the firm did not perform substantive procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate. (AS 2301.08)

For deposit liabilities tested at an interim date the firm's procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year end included comparing the deposit liabilities balances as of the interim date to the corresponding year-end balances. The firm identified differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not investigate these differences. (AS 2301.45)

The transaction data for certain retail deposit accounts were transmitted from various source systems to the issuer's retail deposit system to record transactions in the general ledger. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data maintained in one of these source systems. (AS 2201.39)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of these retail deposit liabilities. For certain of the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test these deposit liabilities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer placed items in deposit suspense accounts when the items needed further evaluation or processing. The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of the issuer's deposit suspense account reconciliations. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the assessment of whether items that had been cleared from the suspense accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer placed items in deposit clearing or suspense accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm selected for testing controls that included reviews of daily reconciliations of the issuer's deposit clearing and suspense accounts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to understand the nature of reconciling items and assess whether items that had been cleared from those accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

To substantively test deposit liabilities the firm tested certain deposit clearing and suspense account reconciliations. The firm did not test the reconciling items and whether items that had been cleared from those accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer placed items in deposit suspense or certain cash accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm selected for testing controls that included reviews of the reconciling items in these accounts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether items that had been cleared from these accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

To substantively test deposit liabilities the firm tested certain deposit suspense and cash account reconciliations. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether items that the issuer had cleared from these accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer placed items in deposit suspense accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of these deposit suspense accounts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated reports used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used these system-generated reports in its substantive testing of deposit liabilities but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer disclosed (1) the lowest available credit rating by security type for its held-to-maturity securities and (2) the size and maturity date of certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-prepared schedules used to develop these disclosures. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer disclosed (1) the lowest available credit rating by security type for its held-to-maturity securities and (2) the size and maturity date of certain deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used these issuer-prepared schedules in its testing of these disclosures but did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these schedules. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer completed a business combination where the issuer's operations from before the transaction remained on the issuer's existing information systems (“legacy systems”) and continued to be recorded in these systems separately from the other company's operations. The issuer disclosed the size categories and maturity date of certain of its deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used this information in its substantive testing of these disclosures but did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer completed a business combination where the issuer's operations from before the transaction remained on the issuer's existing information systems (“legacy systems”) and continued to be recorded in these systems separately from the other company's operations. The issuer disclosed the size categories and maturity date of certain of its deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of these disclosures but did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information from the issuer's legacy systems that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach to testing deposit liabilities included reliance on controls. The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to deposit liabilities. The firm obtained the service auditor's report which specified complimentary user controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of information the issuer used in the operation of certain controls. The firm used this information in its testing of controls over deposit liabilities and in its substantive testing of deposit liabilities. The firm did not test beyond inquiring of management the complimentary user controls associated with deposit liabilities that were identified in the service auditor's report. (AS 2601.14)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test deposit liabilities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and 37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to deposit liabilities. The firm's approach to testing deposit liabilities included reliance on controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The service auditor's report for the service organization contained a qualified opinion because controls were not operating effectively to achieve a control objective related to logical access to programs data and computer resources. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the service auditor's report provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the firm's reliance on the service organization's controls because it concluded that the identified control deficiencies did not have an effect on its reliance on controls without performing procedures to support its conclusion. Further given the length of period under audit not covered by the service auditor's report the firm inappropriately limited its procedures to reading the bridge letter that only addressed a portion of that period of time. (AS 2601.16)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to deposit liabilities. The firm's approach to testing deposit liabilities included reliance on controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test beyond inquiring of management certain complementary user controls over deposit liabilities identified in the service auditor's report. (AS 2601.14)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test deposit liabilities were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of deposit liabilities. For the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the deposit liabilities were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The issuer placed items in deposit clearing or suspense accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of reviews of monthly reconciliations of the issuer's deposit clearing and suspense accounts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures performed including the assessment of whether items that had been cleared from these accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)