Explorer

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not evaluate the significant difference between it and a significant assumption used by the issuer in another estimate tested. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for another significant assumption it developed. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) evaluate the relevance of certain internal and external information it used to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumption and (2) evaluate significant differences between the assumption and both external information it obtained and information provided by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform procedures to use the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .A1-.A10; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to perform its quantitative assessment was in conformity with International Accounting Standard (IAS) 36 Impairment of Assets because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate the effect on the quantitative assessment resulting from departures from IAS 36 it identified in the issuer's method. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.10)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of certain long-lived assets and engaged an external specialist to provide information it used to develop an assumption. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methodology used by the issuer and a significant assumption the issuer developed. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain external information it used to test the quantitative assessment. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer evaluated the recovery of certain long-lived assets using an undiscounted cash flow model. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the external specialist to value the acquired property. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the issuer to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed Long-Lived Assets but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer engaged external specialists to review and compile technical reports on its mineral reserves and resources (“reserve estimates”) and develop a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each mining site which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions prepared by the issuer and/or obtained from external sources to develop the reserve estimates and LOM plans. The firm's approach for substantively testing long-lived assets associated with the issuer's reserve estimates and LOM plans as developed by the company's specialists was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the LOM plans which were considered significant assumptions by the firm developed by the company's specialists and used to compute depreciation expense. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed Long-Lived Assets but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer engaged external specialists to review and compile technical reports on its mineral reserves and resources (“reserve estimates”) and develop a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each mining site which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions prepared by the issuer and/or obtained from external sources to develop the reserve estimates and LOM plans. The firm's approach for substantively testing long-lived assets associated with the issuer's reserve estimates and LOM plans as developed by the company's specialists was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of another significant non-financial assumption developed by the issuer and used by the company's specialists to develop the reserve estimates beyond evaluating its consistency with the issuer's budget. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed Long-Lived Assets but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer engaged external specialists to review and compile technical reports on its mineral reserves and resources (“reserve estimates”) and develop a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each mining site which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions prepared by the issuer and/or obtained from external sources to develop the reserve estimates and LOM plans. The firm's approach for substantively testing long-lived assets associated with the issuer's reserve estimates and LOM plans as developed by the company's specialists was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialists to develop the reserve estimates and LOM plans were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed Long-Lived Assets but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer engaged external specialists to review and compile technical reports on its mineral reserves and resources (“reserve estimates”) and develop a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each mining site which were then used in the (1) calculation of depreciation and (2) impairment analysis of long-lived assets. The company's specialists used financial and non-financial data and assumptions prepared by the issuer and/or obtained from external sources to develop the reserve estimates and LOM plans. The firm's approach for substantively testing long-lived assets associated with the issuer's reserve estimates and LOM plans as developed by the company's specialists was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of the dates in which long-lived assets were placed in service and the locations of those assets which were inputs used to compute depreciation expense. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer evaluated certain long-lived assets for possible impairment using significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate one of these assumptions. The firm did not identify that the work of the auditor-employed specialist did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not evaluate a significant difference between this assumption and the issuer's recent experience. Further when evaluating the issuer's ability to carry out its planned course of action the firm performed a sensitivity analysis for this assumption but did not evaluate the significant differences between the alternative assumptions it used in this analysis and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

For certain inputs used in the issuer's value in use ('VIU') calculations for one of the issuer's segments the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance of a departure from applicable accounting standards related to the use of certain assumptions by the issuer to develop the inputs. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment analyses for certain long-lived assets was to develop independent expectations. The firm did not sufficiently take into account the requirements of certain elements of the applicable financial framework because it did not take into account certain factors relevant to the estimates in developing its expectations. (AS 2501.21)

The firm's substantive procedures to test depreciation expense for certain long-lived assets consisted of performing analytical procedures. The firm did not assess the reliability of certain data used by the firm to develop the expectations used in these procedures and did not establish an appropriate amount for investigation of certain differences because the amount exceeded materiality. (AS 2305.16 and .20)

The issuer determined that it had a single cash-generating unit ('CGU') based on certain assumptions and grouped certain long-lived assets together at this CGU level for purposes of evaluating these assets for possible impairment. In testing certain long-lived assets for impairment the firm identified evidence that appeared to contradict certain of the issuer's assumptions and to indicate that identifiable cash flows may have been available at a lower level. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate this contradictory evidence because its procedures to test the issuer's assumptions supporting the single CGU determination were limited to inquiring of management inspecting certain information provided by the issuer and reading board minutes. (AS 2501.11; AS 2810.03)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the Long-Lived Assets area but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below related to this area. The issuer utilized internal specialists (company's employed specialists) including reserve engineers to estimate its proved and expected oil and gas reserves (“reserve estimates”). Proved reserves were used in the calculation of depreciation depletion and amortization of production plants and oil and gas assets and expected reserve estimates were used in the impairment analyses of production plants and oil and gas assets including assets under development. The issuer also engaged an external specialist (company's engaged specialist) to evaluate its proved reserve estimates. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reserve estimates because the firm did not: · Evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's employed specialists that were used by the company's employed specialists to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16) and

Deficiency evaluating the reasonableness of assumptions in the issuer's discounted cash flow impairment analysis.

The issuer engaged an external specialist to develop estimates related to certain long-lived assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to develop estimates related to certain long-lived assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain components of other significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate a significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not take into account the issuer's ability to carry out an action related to the assumption. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain other significant assumptions that were developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures beyond obtaining a memorandum to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that there were no impairment indicators related to certain other long-lived assets. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. (AS 2501.16; AS 1105.A8b)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify the significant assumptions used by the issuer in its VIU calculations of certain CGUs. (AS 2501.15)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions included in the VIU calculations including taking into account the issuer's ability to carry out its stated intentions regarding the assumptions because its procedures were limited to comparing those assumptions to historical information. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

With respect to Long-Lived Assets which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of certain long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the method the issuer used to perform its impairment analyses was in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework including the requirements of International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets because the firm did not evaluate evidence that indicated whether the recoverable amount of the individual assets was estimable and available. (AS 2501.10; AS 2810.03)

The issuer engaged external engineering consultants (“company's specialists”) to review and evaluate the mineral reserves and resources estimates prepared by management which were then used in the development of a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each site. The company's specialists evaluated the estimated mineral reserves and resources using various methods which included the use of financial and non-financial information data and assumptions that were provided by or obtained from the issuer other specialists and/or external sources. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the evaluation of the LOM plans and reserves estimates by the company's specialists which were then used in the issuer's depreciation expense calculations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the company's specialists. (AS 2501.16; AS 1105.A8b)

For a second asset the issuer estimated the recoverable amount of the asset and determined that it exceeded the asset's carrying value. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the issuer's estimated recoverability of this asset. (AS 2501.07)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists or the issuer that were used by the specialists to develop the estimate. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for its long-lived asset groups using estimates of future undiscounted cash flows to evaluate whether the carrying value of each asset group was recoverable. These estimates were based on a weighted average of historical cash flows for each asset group. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to review and test management's process and for certain asset groups to develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether certain assumptions the issuer used in this analysis were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer developed undiscounted cash flows to evaluate certain long-lived assets for potential impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to daily revenue rates beyond comparing the rates used by the issuer to rates obtained from the external source that the issuer used to develop the assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer developed undiscounted cash flows to evaluate certain long-lived assets for potential impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to certain expense rates because it limited its procedures to comparing the rates to the actual operating expenses during the year and the issuer's budget without evaluating whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the assumptions in the budget. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed an assessment of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end using various significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer did not comply with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other and FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment because the issuer performed its impairment assessment of goodwill prior to performing its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs and external costs associated with the development of this asset. Capitalized labor costs were estimated using a significant assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of this significant assumption. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs and external costs associated with the development of this asset. Capitalized labor costs were estimated using a significant assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's capitalization of external costs was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to estimate amortization expense for capitalized external costs was in conformity with certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 350. (AS 2501.10)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The issuer performed an impairment analysis using forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The issuer performed an impairment analysis using forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption beyond reviewing the effect that certain external events would have on the assumption. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed an assessment of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end using various significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions including taking into account factors affecting the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these assumptions because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and evaluating the assumptions for consistency with recent experience. (AS 2501.16 and .17) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The issuer performed an assessment of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end using various significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions because its procedures were limited to evaluating the assumptions for consistency with certain industry information. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of this industry information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment for a second asset group was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for its selection of a significant assumption from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment for a third asset group was to develop independent expectations of the fair values of these assets. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions it developed because it did not (1) take into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these assumptions and (2) demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for its selection of these assumptions from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 2501.22)

For the first business unit the firm did not sufficiently test the issuer's assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment because the firm's procedures were limited to reading the consolidated operating results for this business unit. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the impairment for certain other long-lived assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the impairment of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain other long-lived assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the impairment calculations. Specifically it did not evaluate significant differences between the assumptions and (i) similar significant assumptions used by the issuer in another estimate (ii) industry information and/or (iii) information from an external source. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of the industry information and information from the external source. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)