Explorer

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to investment securities required by FASB ASC Topic 825 Financial Instruments. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure related to investment securities required by FASB ASC Topic 825. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures for short-term investments under FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement related to (1) the categorization of these investments within the fair value hierarchy and (2) a description of the valuation techniques and the inputs used in the fair value measurements. (AS 2502.43)

The issuer considered one short-term equity investment to be illiquid and expected that it would continue to be illiquid for an indefinite period. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for the investment as a trading security was in accordance with GAAP including its classification as a current asset. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's substantive procedures to test the valuation of investment securities consisted of agreeing investments to brokerage statements. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the values included in the brokerage statements. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the realized gains from the sale of investments. (AS 2301.36)

The issuer reported the valuation of certain investments based on investee financial results including unaudited financial statements. The firm did not apply or request that the investor arrange with the investee to have another auditor apply appropriate auditing procedures to the unaudited financial statements for these investees. (AS 1105.63)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test investment securities beyond comparing the balance to the brokerage statement obtained from the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities because it limited its selections to the population selected by the issuer's management and did not perform any procedures to test the valuation of the remaining population of investment securities. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's disclosures of investment securities was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 962 Plan Accounting because it did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's aggregation of certain securities within the disclosures. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged an external pricing service to provide security pricing for its investment securities. The firm used the pricing information from this pricing provider as audit evidence. The firm did not evaluate whether the pricing information provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of the pricing information obtained from this pricing provider. (AS 2501.20 .A2 .A4 and .A5)

The firm sent a positive confirmation request to the issuer's investment custodian which was returned by the issuer's recordkeeper. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of the confirmation response and whether alternative procedures were necessary because the confirmation was not obtained from the intended recipient. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2310.31)

During the year the issuer transferred certain securities from its available-for-sale portfolio to its held-to-maturity portfolio. The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate whether the issuer had the intent and ability to hold these securities to maturity. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer transferred certain securities from its available-for-sale portfolio to its held-to-maturity portfolio. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the fair value of these securities and the related unrealized loss as of the date of this transfer. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of investment securities was to test the issuer's process. The firm used a pricing tool it developed to recalculate the fair value of certain investment securities. The firm did not test the functionality of this pricing tool. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recorded available-for-sale securities at fair value. The firm selected for testing a control that included comparing recorded prices from an external service provider to prices determined by the control owner. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to (1) determine the comparative prices and (2) to identify items for follow-up. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recorded certain investment securities at fair value based on cash-flow models. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the fair value of these investment securities as of the issuer's year end. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded certain investment securities at fair value based on cash-flow models. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain required disclosures the issuer made under FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

The issuer used a service organization for recordkeeping and processing of transactions related to certain other investment securities. The firm obtained a service auditor's report but did not assess how the controls that the service auditor tested related to the issuer's controls. Further the firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to ascertain whether there were any changes in the service organization's controls from the date of this service auditor's report which was eight months before the issuer's year end. (AS 2201.B21 .B24 and .B25)

The issuer used a service organization to perform recordkeeping and pricing for its available-for-sale securities. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's comparison of prices this service organization used to prices that the issuer obtained from an external pricing service. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether items identified for follow up were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used a service organization to perform recordkeeping and pricing for its available-for-sale securities. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's comparison of prices this service organization used to prices that the issuer obtained from an external pricing service. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a system-generated report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recorded certain investment securities at fair value based on cash-flow models. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over these cash-flow models including the data and assumptions the issuer used in these cash-flow models. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer managed a portion of its investment securities portfolio and used external parties to manage the remaining portion. The issuer used one service organization to perform recordkeeping and processing of all investment transactions and a second service organization to maintain custody of the overall portfolio. With respect to the custodial service organization the firm obtained a service auditor's report and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's report described as necessary. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had implemented these controls. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The issuer managed a portion of its investment securities portfolio and used external parties to manage the remaining portion. The issuer used one service organization to perform recordkeeping and processing of all investment transactions and a second service organization to maintain custody of the overall portfolio. With respect to information received from the recordkeeping service provider the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the relevance and reliability of the pricing information the issuer received from this service organization and used to record the fair values of the investment securities the issuer managed. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer managed a portion of its investment securities portfolio and used external parties to manage the remaining portion. The issuer used one service organization to perform recordkeeping and processing of all investment transactions and a second service organization to maintain custody of the overall portfolio. With respect to information received from the recordkeeping service provider the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the relevance and reliability of the pricing information the issuer received from this service organization related to the portion of the portfolio managed by external parties. This control included the issuer's comparison of certain pricing information it received from the service organization to information it received from the external parties. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the relevance and reliability of the pricing information received from the external parties. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the valuation of investment securities 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. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recorded its investment securities and related disclosures based on data it obtained from a service organization. The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's comparisons of its recorded investment securities to these data. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of these securities within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2301.08)

For investment securities tested at an interim date the firm did not perform any procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year end. (AS 2301.45)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of its investment securities within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820. (AS 2301.08)

To test the fair value of certain investment securities the firm selected a sample of investments for testing. The firm did not select sample items in such a way that could be expected to be representative of the population because it excluded a portion of the population when selecting sample items to test. (AS 2315.24)

The issuer used a service organization to perform recordkeeping and processing of transactions for certain investment securities. The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the custodians for these investment securities but did not evaluate the nature of exceptions between the securities amounts included in the confirmation replies and the securities amounts that the issuer recorded. (AS 2310.33)

The issuer used a service organization for recordkeeping and processing of transactions related to investment securities. The firm did not perform any procedures that addressed the accuracy of certain data from the service organization that was used to determine the classification of investment purchases and sales in the statement of cash flows. (AS 2301.08)

The firm engaged a specialist to evaluate the fair value hierarchy classifications for the issuer's investment securities. The firm did not perform procedures beyond quantifying the differences in fair value or request that the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the specialist's findings that appeared to contradict the issuer's presentation of these investment securities within the fair value hierarchy. (AS 1210.12; AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of potential other-than-temporary-impairment on available-for-sale investment securities. 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 firm did not sufficiently evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's recording of certain available-for-sale investment securities at par value rather than fair value in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 320 Investments — Debt Securities because it did not evaluate whether the uncorrected misstatement was material taking into account relevant quantitative and qualitative considerations in materiality judgments. (AS 2810.17 .30 and .31)

The firm engaged a specialist to evaluate the fair value hierarchy classifications for the issuer's available-for-sale investment securities. The firm did not perform additional procedures beyond consideration of directional risk or request that the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the specialist's findings that appeared to contradict the issuer's presentation of these investment securities within the fair value hierarchy. (AS 1210.12; AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's determination of the categorization of its available-for-sale (AFS) securities within the fair value hierarchy as set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of a sample of AFS securities. The firm did not assess whether the extent and timing of the issuer's review was sufficient to address the risks of material misstatement. Further the firm did not evaluate whether the items identified for follow up by the control owner were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test the fair values of these securities was 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 issuer used various external pricing sources to determine the fair value of certain investments. The firm did not test the fair value of these investments beyond comparing their fair value to (1) pricing data that the firm obtained from the same sources used by the issuer or (2) a pricing report prepared by the issuer. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer determined the fair value of investment securities using a price vector which was based on prices obtained from multiple pricing vendors. The firm obtained the service auditor's report for the issuer's primary pricing vendor ('service auditor's report') which contained a qualified opinion due to certain control deficiencies identified by the service auditor. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's testing of controls related to investment securities: · The firm identified and selected for testing a complementary user entity control (CUEC) over the valuation of investment securities that the service auditor's report described as necessary. The CEUC consisted of the issuer's review of the reasonableness of certain investment prices in the price vector. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the price differences identified for further investigation to conclude on the reasonableness of the price vector. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B22)

The issuer determined the fair value of investment securities using a price vector which was based on prices obtained from multiple pricing vendors. The firm obtained the service auditor's report for the issuer's primary pricing vendor ('service auditor's report') which contained a qualified opinion due to certain control deficiencies identified by the service auditor. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's testing of controls related to investment securities: · The firm selected for testing another control over the valuation of investment securities that consisted of the issuer's review of the daily variation of certain prices in the price vector. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the price variances identified for further investigation to conclude on the reasonableness of the price vector. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer determined the fair value of investment securities using a price vector which was based on prices obtained from multiple pricing vendors. The firm obtained the service auditor's report for the issuer's primary pricing vendor ('service auditor's report') which contained a qualified opinion due to certain control deficiencies identified by the service auditor. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's testing of controls related to investment securities: · The firm selected for testing another control over the valuation of investment securities that consisted of the issuer's review of the service auditor's report to evaluate the vendor's controls and their effects on the services provided to the issuer. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine the effects of the qualified opinion in the service auditor's report and the reliability of the prices provided by the vendor. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported investment securities that were held within various investment funds managed by external parties. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of these investments. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the reliability of pricing information obtained from the external parties that were used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer reported investment securities that were held within various investment funds managed by external parties. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the valuation of these investments beyond (1) comparing their reported fair values to the statements obtained from the external parties that managed the respective investment funds and (2) for a selection of investment funds testing the fair values of certain underlying investments while excluding others from testing. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer reported investment securities that were held within various investment funds managed by external parties. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's presentation of the fair value and non-fair value amounts of these investments within the same short-term and long-term line items in its balance sheet rather than presenting them as separate line items or parenthetically disclosing the amounts measured at fair value included in the aggregate amounts in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 825 Financial Instruments. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported investment securities that were held within various investment funds managed by external parties. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and evaluate another departure from GAAP related to the issuer's inclusion of certain investments within its fair value hierarchy disclosure rather than excluding them in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported investment securities that were held within various investment funds managed by external parties. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and evaluate other departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of and/or misstatements in certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 320 Investments – Debt Securities and FASB ASC Topic 820 regarding the nature of these investments and the methods used to determine their fair values. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported investment securities. The firm sent a confirmation to the trustee and the response was returned by email. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of investment securities. (AS 2501.07)