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 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 test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced data used by the issuer to develop a significant assumption used in its quantitative assessment. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the presentation of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an issuer-prepared report to substantively test long-lived assets for possible impairment but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this report. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the impairment of long-lived assets because the firm did not test such assets for possible impairment at certain “in-scope” locations which held a significant portion of the issuer's long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

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 identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer (1) not allocating certain capitalized costs to the carrying amounts of the related components of the acquired property in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 410 Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations and (2) inappropriately disclosing all assets of the acquired property within one asset category instead of disclosing balances of major classes of depreciable assets by nature or function in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

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 test the data used by the external specialist to value the acquired property. (AS 1210.12)

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 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 whether the assumed liabilities recorded by the issuer represented a reasonable estimate of their fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

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 whether the presentation of the assumed liabilities as a non-current liability was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis using one asset group of its long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately determined that the one asset group represented the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups of assets in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 because it did not consider that the issuer appeared to aggregate the undiscounted cash flows from different groups of assets in the analysis. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis using one asset group of its long-lived assets. The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond reviewing the issuer's impairment analysis to test the valuation of the long-lived assets. (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'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 selected for testing certain controls over long-lived assets that consisted of the issuer's reviews of (1) fixed asset register reconciliations (2) asset status reports and (3) the LOM plans and technical reports developed/compiled by the company's specialists. 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 2201.44)

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 (1) test the accuracy and completeness of non-financial data prepared by the issuer and (2) evaluate the relevance and reliability of external non-financial data all of which were used by the company's specialist to develop the LOM plan assumptions which were used to compute depreciation expense. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 used certain long-lived assets to generate revenue. The firm used information produced by the issuer in its testing of the obsolescence reserve for these assets but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment including the underlying cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of excluding certain costs from these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment including the underlying cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data that were used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end and concluded that the carrying value of these assets was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider an indicator of possible impairment in its assessment of the recoverability of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the qualitative factors used to determine whether indicators of possible impairment existed. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and related accounts and long-lived assets. In its testing of controls over revenue and related accounts as well as long-lived assets the firm tested various IT-dependent controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm selected for testing a change management control over this IT system that consisted of the documentation review testing and approval of changes in a ticketing system prior to their migration into production. The firm did not perform procedures to test the operating effectiveness of this control beyond inquiries of management and obtaining a list of all changes that occurred during the year. (AS 2201.44)

To substantively test long-lived assets the firm selected additions to and disposals of long-lived assets that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of additions and disposals. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

As a result of the firm's ITGC testing deficiency the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test long-lived assets because it did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that it used to substantively test these account balances. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and related accounts and long-lived assets. In its testing of controls over revenue and related accounts as well as long-lived assets the firm tested various IT-dependent controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm selected for testing a change management control over this IT system that consisted of the documentation review testing and approval of changes in a ticketing system prior to their migration into production. As a result of this deficiency in the firm's testing of an IT general control (ITGC) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

For long-lived assets the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: The firm selected for testing a control related to performing an impairment analysis on land. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether this control could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For long-lived assets the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: the firm used the work of the issuer's internal audit as evidence of the operating effectiveness of certain controls selected for testing over long-lived assets. The firm or the issuer's internal audit did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether these controls could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. Further the issuer's internal audit tested these controls through an interim date but the firm did not perform any procedures to update the results of that testing from that interim date to year end. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .55)

During the year the issuer completed an analysis to evaluate long-lived assets for recoverability because it identified events and changes in circumstances that indicated that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry and reading the issuer's analysis how this qualitative analysis supported the recoverability of the assets. (AS 2301.08)

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 did not test the accuracy and completeness of estimated operating costs and certain other data that the issuer provided to issuer-engaged specialists for their use in developing certain inputs. (AS 1210.12)

For another segment's VIU calculations the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance of a departure from applicable accounting standards related to the issuer excluding an estimate of net cash flows if any to be received (or paid) for the disposal of that segment's long-lived assets at the end of their useful lives. (AS 2810.30)

The firm selected a sample of additions to long-lived assets. The firm did not test certain transactions selected for testing. In addition with respect to assets under construction the firm did not test the existence of these assets and the status of the projects including whether the construction had been delayed or suspended which could indicate potential impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test disposals because it limited its procedures to testing the authorization of each disposal selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 .16 .18 and .37)

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 relevance and reliability of data the company's specialist obtained from external sources and used to develop the fair values. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 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 whether the methods used by the company's specialist to develop the fair values were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of GAAP. (AS 1105.A8c)

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 additional procedures or request the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the disclaimers and limitations included in the auditor-engaged specialist's reports that affected the firm's use of the reports. (AS 1210.09 and .12)

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 selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of its assessment of these assets for possible impairment. 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)