Explorer

The issuer determined the fair value of a significant account using certain assumptions and data. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these assumptions because it did not evaluate information that was inconsistent with the assumptions. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of certain significant accounts including consideration of contradictory information that was included in the work papers. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer that the company's specialist used. Specifically beyond comparing assumptions for the current year to actual results the firm did not evaluate (1) whether the assumptions were consistent with historical and recent experience taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer and (2) the issuer's intent and ability to carry out the assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

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 this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the issuer and by the company's specialist including evaluating a significant difference between one of the assumptions and a significant assumption used by the issuer in another estimate tested. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the issuer's valuation of a significant account. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported a significant account at fair value. The firm's approach to substantively testing the fair value of this account was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged an external specialist to evaluate certain of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the fair value. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the issuer used to develop the fair value of this account and perform additional procedures or request the auditor-engaged specialist to perform additional procedures to address the issue. (AS 1210.09 and .12; AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported a significant account at fair value. The firm's approach to substantively testing the fair value of this account was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged an external specialist to evaluate certain of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the fair value. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information from external sources the issuer used to develop the fair value of this account. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported a significant account at fair value. The firm's approach to substantively testing the fair value of this account was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged an external specialist to evaluate certain of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the fair value. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond a comparison to prior year amounts to evaluate the reasonableness of certain components of a significant assumption the issuer used to develop the fair value of this account. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged external specialists to assist in determining the fair value of a significant account at inception and at year-end. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a certain significant assumption developed and used by the company's specialist to estimate the year-end fair value of the significant account. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer reported an estimate related to this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer beyond testing one input of one of these assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the above estimate related to this significant account was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions because it did not evaluate whether the Issuer had a reasonable basis for the assumptions. Further in evaluating the reasonableness of these significant assumptions the firm did not take into account the issuer's ability to carry out its intended courses of action beyond observing that the assumptions were directionally consistent with the issuer's historical information and other information. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

With respect to another significant account the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption related to this account that was developed by the issuer beyond certain limited procedures. (AS 2501.16)

With respect to another significant account the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain other estimates related to this account. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer used various assumptions to estimate the value of a significant account. The firm's approach for substantively testing the value of this account was to test the issuer's process and develop expectations of certain significant assumptions which it compared to the respective assumptions used by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used various assumptions to estimate the value of a significant account. The firm's approach for substantively testing the value of this account was to test the issuer's process and develop expectations of certain significant assumptions which it compared to the respective assumptions used by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions because it did not evaluate significant differences between its expectations and the assumptions. Further for one significant assumption the firm did not demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for its expectation of the assumption. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used various assumptions to estimate the value of a significant account. The firm's approach for substantively testing the value of this account was to test the issuer's process and develop expectations of certain significant assumptions which it compared to the respective assumptions used by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out the assumption. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the issuer developed and used to estimate the value of the significant accounts. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption the issuer used to estimate one of the significant accounts beyond comparing it to external data without evaluating the significant difference between the external data and the assumption used by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for an expectation it developed to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption used by the issuer to estimate the significant accounts. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used to determine an estimate related to a significant account. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the issuer used to develop its valuation of certain significant accounts. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged specialists to estimate certain portions of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions the company's specialist developed and used in developing one of the estimates. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the significant account was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption the issuer developed to estimate a significant account beyond comparing the amount to a contract executed in the prior year. (AS 2501.16)