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 issuer identified impairment indicators related to this investment and engaged an external specialist to estimate its fair value. The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to determine the fair value. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer recorded the fair value of available-for-sale ('AFS') securities based on the prices it obtained from an external pricing service. The firm selected for testing a quarterly control that consisted of the issuer's comparing for one-fourth of its AFS securities these prices to prices it obtained from another external pricing service. The firm did not evaluate whether the control was appropriately designed to consider whether there were changes to the risk of material misstatement inherent in the population of securities from the issuer's interim testing dates to the issuer's year end. (AS 2201.42)

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with evaluating the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of investments within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820. The firm identified a difference between the categorization determined by the issuer and determined by the auditor-engaged specialist but did not perform any procedures to evaluate this difference. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with evaluating the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of investments within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. The firm identified certain differences between the categorizations determined by the issuer and those determined by the auditor-engaged specialist but did not perform any procedures to evaluate these differences. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of certain of the issuer's held-to-maturity securities was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methods and significant assumptions used by the issuer. The firm did not sufficiently test the fair value of these investments because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions it used. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach to substantively test the fair value of certain investments was to develop independent expectations of the fair values using the work of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The auditor-employed specialist used data from external sources to develop certain significant assumptions for its independent expectations. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance of these data. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm's approach to substantively test the fair value of certain investments was to develop independent expectations of the fair values using the work of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain other significant assumptions used for its independent expectations. (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 third investment the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test estimates that the company's specialist used to determine the investment's fair value because it did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not perform any procedures with respect to the work the company's specialist performed. (AS 1210.09 and .12; AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded the fair values of securities based on the prices it received from an external pricing service. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of for a judgmental sample of securities the comparison of these prices to prices obtained from another external pricing service. The firm did not evaluate whether the control was designed to address the risks of material misstatement presented by the securities not subject to the control given the selection method applied by the issuer. (AS 2201.42)

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 whether this was an investment in a variable interest entity that should have been consolidated by the issuer in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 810 Consolidation. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

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 whether a certain related asset was properly classified as a current asset in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

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 perform procedures to test the issuer's conclusion that no allowance was necessary for the related asset. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded the fair values of available-for-sale (“AFS”) 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; the securities and prices obtained from each external pricing service were manually entered by the issuer into a spreadsheet for this comparison. The firm did not identify and test any controls over whether the prices that were manually entered into this spreadsheet were accurate and complete. (AS 2201.39)