Explorer

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an estimate. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced data that the company's specialist used to develop the estimate. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm did not perform procedures to test another estimate beyond reconciling the amount to a confirmation. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's approach for substantively testing a significant estimate was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption used by the issuer to develop this estimate beyond testing the mathematical accuracy of the calculation. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged external service providers to provide investment accounting services and serve as custodian for its investment securities including providing the fair values for its securities. Both external service providers obtained security pricing from other pricing providers. The firm used the pricing information from these pricing providers as audit evidence. The firm did not evaluate whether the pricing information provided sufficient appropriate evidence because it did not evaluate the relevance of the pricing information obtained from these pricing providers. (AS 2501.20 .A2 and .A5)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop certain significant assumptions that the issuer considered in determining a significant estimate. The firm's approach for substantively testing the 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 assumptions the specialist and issuer developed that the specialist used to develop the significant assumptions the issuer considered in determining the estimate. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop certain significant assumptions that the issuer considered in determining a significant estimate. The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: ? The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of company-produced data and evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain other data from sources external to the issuer that the specialist used to develop the significant assumptions the issuer considered in determining the estimate. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of this estimate. Specifically the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data the issuer used in determining its assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.11) [The citations in this paragraph refer 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 firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of internal data the issuer used in determining assumptions. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11) [The citations in this paragraph refer 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 firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to determine this estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11) [The citations in this paragraph refer 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 firm's approach for substantively testing a significant estimate was to develop an independent expectation. The firm did not demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used various models methodologies and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the monitoring of the models to determine whether the models remained suitable for their intended purpose or if revisions to the models were necessary. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used various models methodologies and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of the review of certain methodologies and assumptions used by the issuer to determine the estimate. 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)

The issuer used various models methodologies and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing change management and user access controls over an application used by the issuer to determine the estimate. The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of the population of changes that were processed internally by the issuer's IT personnel and that the firm used in its testing of certain controls over change management. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used various models methodologies and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing change management and user access controls over an application used by the issuer to determine the estimate. In testing controls over user access the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the access controls because it limited its testing to users with certain access privileges. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used various models methodologies and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain automated controls over the calculation and classification of data within the application used by the issuer to determine the estimate. The firm's approach to testing a single instance of each of these controls was dependent on effective information technology general controls. Due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of the change management and user access controls discussed above the firm's testing of these automated controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used various models methodologies and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified deficiencies in the design of controls over certain assumptions used in the determination of the estimate. The firm identified and tested controls that it believed would mitigate these deficiencies. The firm did not identify that the compensating controls tested did not address whether changes to these assumptions were authorized. (AS 2201.68)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the review and approval of certain assumptions used to determine the estimate. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the monitoring of the models to determine whether the models remained suitable for their intended purpose or if revisions to the models were necessary. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of annual reviews and approvals of (1) the methodologies (2) new and revised models and (3) certain key inputs and assumptions used by the issuer to determine a portion of the estimate. Certain annual reviews and approvals of the methodologies and new and revised models did not operate during the current year and the firm tested instances of these controls which operated in the prior year. The firm's testing of these controls did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence of the controls' operating effectiveness as of the date of management's assessment of ICFR due to the (1) length of time that had passed between the instances of the controls the firm tested and the date of management's assessment (2) higher risk associated with the controls and (3) sensitivity and complexity of the models covered by the controls. (AS 2201.46 and .52)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of annual reviews and approvals of (1) the methodologies (2) new and revised models and (3) certain key inputs and assumptions used by the issuer to determine a portion of the estimate. Certain annual reviews and approvals of the methodologies and new and revised models did not operate during the current year and the firm tested instances of these controls which operated in the prior year. For certain of the controls over the methodologies new and revised models and certain key inputs and assumptions the firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing two other controls that consisted of the review and approval of certain assumptions or data supporting the assumptions used by the issuer to determine another portion of the estimate. For one of these controls the firm did not test an aspect of the control related to an annual update of the assumptions. Further the firm did not sufficiently test the completeness of the report from which it selected its samples to test the design and operating effectiveness of the control because the firm did not agree the report data to the source system. For the other control the firm did not test an aspect of the control related to an annual update of the data supporting the assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the estimate because the firm did not (1) obtain an understanding of the issuer's process for determining certain assumptions and (2) perform procedures to test certain factors and assumptions used by the issuer to determine the estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the estimate were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the estimate because the firm did not perform procedures to test the assumptions related to forecasts of future economic conditions used by the issuer to determine the estimate. Further the firm did not evaluate the issuer's omission of recent information from the assumptions beyond obtaining representation from management that the activity from that period was not representative of conditions at year end. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the issuer's review of a significant estimate. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data and reports that were used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing this significant estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain data the issuer used to determine a component of this significant estimate. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing this significant estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not test the accuracy of certain data it used to test a component of this significant estimate. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing this significant estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions the issuer used to determine a component of this significant estimate. (AS 2501.16)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the issuer's review of a significant estimate. 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)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the reviews and validations of certain models and assumptions used by the issuer to determine the estimate. 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)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the reviews and validations of certain models and assumptions used by the issuer to determine the estimate. For two of the controls the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the estimate because the firm did not perform procedures to test certain assumptions the issuer used to determine the estimate beyond (1) reviewing for certain assumptions the issuer's methodology for developing the assumptions (2) testing for another assumption whether the assumption was in conformity with the issuer's regulatory requirements and (3) recalculating the mathematical accuracy of the models used by the issuer to develop certain assumptions and determine the estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used by the issuer to develop certain of these assumptions. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the review and approval of certain assumptions used by the issuer to determine the estimate. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the estimate was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of certain models used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the collective components. The firm did not (1) identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the performance of the control (AS 2201.39)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of another input used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the component. The firm did not (2) evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the input. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of an element of the component including the reasonableness of the assumptions and methodology used to estimate the valuation for the element. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions and methodology used to estimate the valuation for the element. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for a component were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to certain of the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm's approach for testing the valuation for the component was to limit its substantive testing to certain balances over a specified threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to substantively test the balances below the threshold. (AS 2315.24)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the component because it did not evaluate certain exceptions identified while testing the assumptions. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's presentation and disclosure and valuation for a component was in conformity with the relevant financial reporting framework. (AS 2301.08)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of certain models used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the collective components. The firm did not (2) evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the models (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of certain models used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the collective components. The firm did not (3) perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of models from which it made its selections to test this control. (AS 1105.10)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain other models used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the collective components. (AS 2201.39)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing other controls that consisted of the issuer's (1) review and validation of the methodologies used to develop certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the collective components and (2) review and approval of the resulting assumptions. 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)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the determination of certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the valuations for certain components. (AS 2201.39)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain other assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the valuations for the components. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any control over the determination of an input used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for another component. (AS 2201.39)

The significant estimate consisted of multiple components that were valued by the issuer using various inputs assumptions models and methodologies. With respect to the components of the significant estimate the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of another input used by the issuer to estimate the valuation for the component. The firm did not (1) identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of the control (AS 2201.39)