Explorer

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 test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information the issuer used to develop the fair value of this account. (AS 1105.10)

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 firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond certain recalculations to test the valuation of certain other significant accounts. (AS 2501.07)

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 procedures to test the inception date fair value of the significant account beyond obtaining and reading the company's specialist's report. Further the firm did not perform procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

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 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 sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the methodology used by the company's specialist to develop the year-end fair value of the significant account was appropriate under the circumstances because the firm did not evaluate whether the data and significant assumptions were appropriately applied under the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm used positive confirmation requests to test a significant account. The firm did not maintain control of the confirmation requests and responses through direct communication with the intended recipients of the confirmation requests. (AS 2310.28)

The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a significant account during certain months of the year. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer data and reports it used to test these transactions. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a significant account during certain months of the year. The following deficiencies were identified: - The sample size the firm used in this procedure was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a significant account during certain months of the year. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the issuer appropriately recognized the transactions related to this significant account for the remaining months during the year. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the valuation of certain significant accounts. (AS 2501.07) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not perform procedures to test the reliability of information used by the firm in its testing of the valuation of a significant account. (AS 1105.04 and .06) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's accounting for and presentation and disclosure of these accounts. (AS 2301.08 and .11) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not perform procedures to test the existence completeness and rights and obligations for these accounts beyond confirming certain information with external parties. (AS 2301.08 and .11) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's accounting for an aspect of this significant account. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported an estimate related to this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of information from external sources that the issuer used to develop significant assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported an estimate related to this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced information that the issuer used to develop significant assumptions. (AS 1105.10)

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 did not evaluate whether certain aspects of the issuer's disclosures related to this significant account were accurate including consideration of contradictory evidence included in the workpapers. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on estimates. The firm identified and tested controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the review of certain aspects of this significant account. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to (i) evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions (ii) evaluate whether data was appropriately used in determining the estimate and (iii) test the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on estimates. The firm identified and tested controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain other controls over this significant account. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness of these controls because it did not obtain evidence that these controls were designed effectively and operating effectively during the entire period of reliance. (AS 2301.16)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on estimates. The firm identified and tested controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test this significant account beyond performing a retrospective analytical review testing certain data used to determine the estimate and comparing activity reports for this significant account to the general ledger. (AS 2501.07)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer in developing an estimate related to this significant account. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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)

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)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of an aspect of the accounting treatment for this significant account. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate whether the accounting treatment was in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that this aspect of the accounting treatment was in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's presentation of certain significant accounts in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated the presentation of these significant accounts and determined that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or a Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the presentation of these significant accounts.

With respect to another significant account the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of this account. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to another significant account the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test an adjustment to this account beyond tracing amounts to an issuer-prepared schedule. (AS 2301.08)

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)

With respect to another significant account the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer accounted for certain aspects of this account in conformity with GAAP including evaluating certain contradictory evidence. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

With respect to another significant account the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information that it used to test this account. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the method used by the issuer to estimate the value of the significant account which was not in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 2501.10; AS 2810.30 and .31)

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 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 any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain external data and information used in its substantive testing of the significant assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiry to test the reasonableness of an estimate for a significant account. (AS 2501.07) [This citation refers to AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates which was in effect for this audit. This standard was replaced by AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair Value Measurements which became effective for audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15 2020.]

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer accounted for certain aspects of these accounts in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the method used to develop an estimate related to one of the significant accounts was in conformity with GAAP and appropriate for the nature of the account taking into account the firm's understanding of the issuer and its environment. (AS 2501.10)

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 issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test the reliability of certain information it used to develop its expectation of the significant assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the relevance of certain information used by the issuer to develop an estimate related to the significant accounts because it did not consider certain factors related to the information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported certain significant accounts. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to one of the significant accounts. (AS 2810.30 and .31)