Explorer

The issuer reported certain investment securities at fair value and classified them as Level 1 and Level 2 securities in the fair value hierarchy in accordance with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The firm's approach for substantively testing the classification of these securities was to use an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's methodology for determining the fair value hierarchy levels and develop an independent expectation of the securities that were classified as Level 1. The firm did not sufficiently test the classification of these securities because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not compare its independent expectation to the securities that the issuer classified as Level 1 and evaluate the differences. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.26; AS 2810.13)

The issuer reported certain investment securities at fair value and classified them as Level 1 and Level 2 securities in the fair value hierarchy in accordance with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The firm's approach for substantively testing the classification of these securities was to use an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's methodology for determining the fair value hierarchy levels and develop an independent expectation of the securities that were classified as Level 1. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether any of the securities classified as Level 2 should have been classified as Level 3. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the fair value of certain investment securities. The securities had a publicly available quoted price on the last business day prior to year end. The firm did not evaluate the difference between the estimated fair value of the securities determined by the external specialist and the publicly quoted price. (CAS3 500.11; CAS 540.15 and 18)

The issuer used two service organizations for custody record keeping and the processing of investment transactions and those service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The service auditors' reports did not address the controls over the sub-service organizations. The firm did not obtain an understanding of and test any controls at the sub-service organizations that were relevant to the issuer. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

The firm selected for testing a complementary user control that consisted of monthly cash and investment reconciliations but did not test the aspect of this control related to investments. (AS 2201.B22)

The firm selected for testing a complementary user control that consisted of monthly balance sheet reconciliations. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the investment statements from the sub-service organizations that the control owners used in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the valuation of investments. (AS 2502.15)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities held within various investment funds beyond comparing their net asset value to the trustee statements. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded the fair values of its available-for-sale securities based on prices it obtained from an external pricing service. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's (1) comparison of these prices to prices obtained from other external pricing services and investigation of price variances that exceeded certain thresholds and (2) review of the categorization of the securities within the fair value hierarchy as set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate (1) whether the fair values of the securities identified for investigation were reasonable and (2) the pricing inputs used to determine the categorization of the securities within the fair value hierarchy. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recorded the fair values of its available-for-sale securities based on prices it obtained from an external pricing service. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's (1) comparison of these prices to prices obtained from other external pricing services and investigation of price variances that exceeded certain thresholds and (2) review of the categorization of the securities within the fair value hierarchy as set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. The firm did not test the aspect of one of these controls that addressed whether all of the issuer's securities were subject to this comparison. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the allowance for credit impairment for these investment securities. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's allowance for credit impairment for certain investment securities. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the fair value of certain other investments. (AS 2502.15)

The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a comparison and analysis of differences between the fair values of certain investments recorded in the issuer's system and external price sources and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to determine whether items identified for follow-up were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a comparison and analysis of differences between the fair values of certain investments recorded in the issuer's system and external price sources and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of a review of the issuer's determination of the fair value hierarchy classification of investments. The firm did not test an aspect of this control over the observability of the pricing inputs used to determine the fair value hierarchy classification of the investments. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of certain other investments. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the presentation and disclosure of investments was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently test the disclosure of investments within the fair value hierarchy because it did not evaluate whether the significant inputs used to establish the fair value of those investments were observable or unobservable. (AS 2502.43)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain external data it used to test the fair value of certain investments. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recorded the fair values of available-for-sale securities based on the prices it obtained from an external pricing service. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the comparison of these prices to prices obtained from another external pricing service. In evaluating the design of this control the firm did not identify that the prices obtained from the other pricing service were derived from the same pricing source as the one the issuer used to record the fair value of the securities. (AS 2201.42)

The firm selected an investment security for testing the fair value of certain investment securities. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of the remaining population of these investment securities. (AS 1105.27; AS 2501.07)

The issuer utilized a service organization to process its securities transactions. The issuer used an impairment analysis prepared by the service organization to determine whether certain investment securities had credit related impairments. The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of credit ratings used by the service organization in developing the issuer's impairment analysis for these investment securities. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held a portfolio of investment securities which were carried at fair value. The issuer recorded the fair value of certain investment securities based on prices it obtained from external pricing agencies. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the prices obtained from external pricing agencies used by the issuer to determine the valuation of certain investment securities. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held a portfolio of investment securities which were carried at fair value. The issuer recorded the fair value of certain investment securities based on prices it obtained from external pricing agencies. The following deficiencies were identified: - The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities 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 held a portfolio of investment securities which were carried at fair value. The issuer recorded the fair value of certain investment securities based on prices it obtained from external pricing agencies. The following deficiencies were identified: - The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities 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's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the net asset value of certain investment securities beyond comparing the securities' net asset value to pricing information obtained from an affiliate of both the manager of the funds and the record keeper. (AS 2501.07)

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)

The issuer reported certain investment securities at fair value. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the fair value of these investments beyond comparing the recorded fair value to the record keepers' reports and inquiring of the record keepers. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities held within various investment funds beyond comparing their net asset value to pricing information obtained from the respective investment fund's website. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test the valuation of a certain type of investment securities the firm selected a sample of investments for testing. The sample size the firm used in its substantive test of details was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the characteristics of the population in determining its sample size. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain other types of investment securities held within various investment funds beyond (1) for certain securities comparing their net asset value to pricing information obtained from the respective investment fund's website and (2) for other securities comparing their fair value or net asset value to the trustee or custodian statements. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities held within various investment funds beyond comparing their fair value or net asset value to the trustee statements. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities held within various investment funds beyond comparing their net asset value to pricing information obtained from the respective investment fund's website. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the issuer's investment securities at year end because its procedures to test these securities were limited to (1) inspecting certain bank statements at interim dates for transfer activity from the issuer's cash account to its investment account and (2) reading the investment contract. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy of certain data used to determine the valuation of certain investment securities beyond testing the accuracy of the data in the prior year. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of other-than-temporary impairment of investment securities. The firm did not identify that this control only operated over certain investment securities and as designed would not prevent or detect a material misstatement related to the other investment securities. (AS 2301.19)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the valuation of investment securities 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. Further the sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the valuation of investment securities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the valuation of certain investment securities including some accounted for at fair value. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)