Explorer

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)

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)

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 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)