Explorer

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 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 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 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 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 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'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'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 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)

For certain assets that were evaluated for impairment the issuer determined adjustment factors that were important inputs used in developing this estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the reasonableness of this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop this estimate. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to test a significant estimate beyond inquiry including consideration of certain contrary evidence. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The firm's approach for substantively testing a significant estimate was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of data it used to develop its independent estimate. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.12)

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 used by the issuer to determine the estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm performed substantive procedures to test certain factors used by the issuer to determine the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate differences it identified in its substantive testing of certain data used by the issuer to determine the estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)