Explorer

The issuer also held an investment in an entity for which it had a majority ownership but the entity was not consolidated due to certain qualitative considerations. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions used by the external specialist to estimate the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged specialists to estimate the fair value of these investments. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialists used. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to one investment the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the company's specialist used to estimate the fair value. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of certain equity investments was to develop an independent expectation of the estimates using the work of an auditor-employed specialist. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the fair value of these equity investments as follows: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain other assumptions it developed. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged specialists to estimate the fair value of these investments. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialists used. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to a second investment the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist because it did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of these assumptions. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1210.09 and .12)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged specialists to estimate the fair value of these investments. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialists used. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to a second investment the auditor-engaged specialist did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption because it did not (1) evaluate the relevance of certain external information used in its testing; (2) evaluate whether this assumption was consistent with the issuer's objectives strategies and related business risks; and (3) take into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out its plans. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .A8b; AS 1210.09 and .12; AS 2501.17)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged specialists to estimate the fair value of these investments. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialists used. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to two other investments the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists because it did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data the company's specialists used to develop these assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a; AS 1210.09 and .12)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged specialists to estimate the fair value of these investments. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialists used. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to two other investments the firm did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not (1) sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain of these assumptions because it did not evaluate the significant differences between the assumptions and the industry information it obtained or (2) perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the remainder of these assumptions. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1210.09 and .12)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of these investments. The company's specialist used the investees' financial results in estimating the fair value. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. The firm did not sufficiently test the fair value of these investments as follows: · For certain of these significant assumptions the firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) evaluate the reasonableness of these assumptions and (2) sufficiently evaluate the relevance of certain data from external sources the company's specialist used to develop these assumptions because the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate the differences between these data and the issuer's investments. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer reported certain equity investments and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of these investments. The company's specialist used the investees' financial results in estimating the fair value. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these investments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. The firm did not sufficiently test the fair value of these investments as follows: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the investees' financial results it used as audit evidence because it did not (1) perform procedures to address the difference in year ends for certain of the investees and (2) apply or request that another auditor apply appropriate auditing procedures to the unaudited financial statements for certain other investees. (AS 1105.B1 - .B3)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of certain equity investments was to develop an independent expectation of the estimates using the work of an auditor-employed specialist. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the fair value of these equity investments as follows: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance of non-industry specific data from external sources it used to develop certain assumptions because the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate the differences between using non-industry specific data and industry-specific data. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions the issuer used to determine the fair value of certain investments because it limited its procedures to comparing the assumptions used at year end to those used in the third quarter and quantifying the effect of the differences. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an equity investment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the investment was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The following deficiency was identified. • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of a certain significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. For certain investments the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these investments the firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair values. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. For certain investments the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For another investment the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded an investment at fair value that was determined in part based on assumptions that were developed by the company's specialists. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the investment was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate using certain significant assumptions that were developed by the company's specialists. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain of these significant assumptions developed by one of the company's specialists beyond reading the company's specialist's valuation reports inspecting certain contracts and inquiring of management. Further the firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management with respect to its use of this company's specialist's work as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded an investment at fair value that was determined in part based on assumptions that were developed by the company's specialists. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the investment was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate using certain significant assumptions that were developed by the company's specialists. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by two of the company's specialists beyond reading and comparing the two company's specialists' valuation reports inspecting certain contracts and inquiring of management. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialists beyond inquiries of the company's specialists and certain comparisons to issuer documentation. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.16)