Explorer

The firm did not perform procedures to test one significant account beyond tracing amounts to the general ledger. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for a second significant account was in conformity with applicable GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected samples to test certain other significant accounts. The sample sizes the firm used to perform these substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample sizes including tolerable misstatement for the populations the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the populations. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain changes in a balance sheet account. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately determined the valuation of this account including consideration of contradictory evidence. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not evaluate whether certain adjustments were in conformity with applicable GAAP. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer acquired certain assets and engaged a specialist to assist in determining the fair value of these assets. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the fair value of these assets beyond obtaining and reading the company's specialist's report and testing the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used to determine the fair value of the assets. Further the firm did not perform procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence beyond assessing the knowledge skill and ability of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A4 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The issuer engaged a specialist to assist in determining the fair value of mortgage servicing rights. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of data from external sources that the company's specialist used. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to assist in determining the fair value of mortgage servicing rights. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether services had been rendered prior to the issuer's recognition of certain service revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used a service organization to host maintain and manage the information technology (IT) system that the issuer used to initiate process and record transactions related to the ALL. The firm did not identify and test any complementary user entity controls to place reliance on or identify and test any other controls over the accuracy and completeness of data from the service organization that was used in the operation of controls. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The issuer used a service organization to host maintain and manage the information technology (IT) system that the issuer used to initiate process and record transactions related to the ALL. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of access to this information system. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether to initially grant access to users and whether the granted role access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information the control owner obtained from other information systems and used in the operation of certain controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain loans for potential impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to review these loans for potential impairment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ALL that included a qualitative base adjustment based on basis points established for certain qualitative factors and a qualitative overlay adjustment based on assumptions provided by the company's specialist. The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the ALL including an assessment of the qualitative reserve component. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the qualitative reserve component of the ALL. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the basis points used for the qualitative base adjustment and for its selection of basis points from a range of potential basis points. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the company's specialist that were used in the qualitative overlay adjustment. (AS 1105.A8b)

The engagement team did not perform any substantive procedures to test or as discussed above sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of reports from the issuer's systems that the firm used as audit evidence in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ALL using qualitative factors. The firm's approach for substantively testing this reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the basis points for each qualitative factor that were applied to determine the qualitative component beyond comparing these basis points to the basis points that were applied in prior years and assessing whether certain changes or lack thereof to the basis points from the prior year were directionally consistent with internal or external data. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11) [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 used a service organization to process and record transactions related to loans and deposits. This service organization used a sub-service organization to provide information technology general controls for the issuer and the systems used by the issuer. The controls for the sub-service organization were not addressed in the service auditor's report. The firm did not determine whether it was necessary to obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at the sub-service organization. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

To test the existence of loans and completeness of deposits the firm circulated positive confirmations. For confirmations that were not returned the firm performed alternative procedures using certain data and reports from the service organization. As a result of the deficiencies discussed above the firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy of the data and reports used. (AS 2301.08)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test those journal entries because it limited its procedures to certain journal entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

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 used a service organization to process and record transactions related to loans and for information it used to determine the ALL. In addition the issuer used data and reports from this service organization in the operation of certain controls the firm selected for testing. The firm did not evaluate whether the service auditor's report provided sufficient evidence because the firm did not assess the scope of the examination and applications covered the controls tested the way in which the tested controls related to the issuer's controls and the results for those tests of controls. (AS 2201.B21)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of the adequacy of the ALL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used to determine the ALL. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of the adequacy of the ALL. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the appropriateness of the loan grades that were an important factor in estimating the ALL. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions because the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for these assumptions. Further the firm used certain external data to develop an expectation for the range of these significant assumptions but did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance of this data. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of certain data produced by the service organization and used by the issuer in estimating the ALL. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over journal entries to address the risk of management override of controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions because the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for these assumptions. Further the firm used certain external data to develop an expectation for the range of these significant assumptions but did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance of this data. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The issuer used certain data produced by its service organization to develop the ALL. The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of this data. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

With respect to Certain Significant Accounts the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the significant accounts for one of the issuer's business units. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Certain Significant Accounts the firm did not evaluate whether cash flows associated with these significant accounts were presented in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30)

With respect to Certain Significant Accounts the firm did not identify and appropriately address a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to this business unit. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

With respect to Deferred Revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue and deferred revenue. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the collectability of accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Equity-Related Transactions during the year the issuer recorded various equity-related transactions that included stock-based compensation. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these equity-related transactions. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Equity-Related Transactions during the year the issuer recorded various equity-related transactions that included stock-based compensation. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's stock-based compensation disclosures were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 718 Compensation — Stock Compensation. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two revenue categories and deferred revenue related to one of these categories included analytical procedures in which the firm compared the revenue and deferred revenue balances to the amounts in the prior year. The firm did not perform procedures to obtain evidence that the prior-year balances would be predictive of current-year balances. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The firm identified a fraud risk related to one of these categories of revenue. The firm did not perform tests of details beyond the procedures discussed below over this revenue category in response to the fraud risk. (AS 2301.13)

The firm performed procedures to test deferred revenue by selecting a sample of monthly activity from a summary schedule. These procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence of the completeness of deferred revenue because the firm only selected activity from recorded deferred revenue. Further the firm did not test the transactions underlying the activity in the months selected for testing. (AS 2315.17 and .25)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. To test site rental revenue the firm selected a sample from a system-generated arrival report for a dual-purpose test of controls and substantive procedures. The firm's procedures did not address whether revenue was recognized only when customers occupied spaces as the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the check in and check out dates from the system-generated arrival report used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. To test site rental revenue the firm selected a sample from a system-generated arrival report for a dual-purpose test of controls and substantive procedures. The sample size used in its substantive procedures was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm used a sample size for control testing which did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 .23A and .44)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. For revenue recognized from retail sales and one type of service the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm designed a substantive procedure for testing four types of revenue as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedure using the sample size it determined for its control testing. This sample size was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the substantive procedure because the firm did not use the larger of the sample sizes that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.44)

The firm identified fraud criteria for purposes of identifying and selecting journal entries for testing. The firm did not perform procedures to determine whether any journal entries met one of its fraud criteria. In addition the firm obtained a listing of journal entries that met certain of the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the journal entries in this listing because it limited its procedures to certain entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm designed a substantive procedure for testing four types of revenue as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedure using the sample size it determined for its control testing. For the selected revenue transactions the firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue beyond obtaining certain issuer-produced reports and testing the timing of cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .11)