← Back to Explorer
PricewaterhouseCoopers S.A.S
Colombia · PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited · Triennially Inspected
- Inspection year
- 2019
- Report date
- 06-Jul-2021
- PCAOB release
- 104-2021-142
- Audits reviewed
- 3
- Audits w/ Part I.A deficiencies
- 1
- Part I.A deficiency rate
- 33%
- Part I.A deficiencies
- 10
- Part I.B deficiencies
- 1
- Report
- View PDF ↗
Deficiencies (10)
Grouped by issuer and in the same order as the PCAOB report, so each item ties back directly to the source.
Issuer A10 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Significant Estimates | 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) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 2 | Significant Estimates | 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) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 3 | Significant Estimates | 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) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2501.9; AS 2501.10; AS 2501.11 | |
| 4 | Significant Estimates | 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) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11 | |
| 5 | Investment Securities | The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a comparison and analysis of differences between the fair values of certain investments recorded in the issuer's system and external price sources and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to determine whether items identified for follow-up were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 6 | Investment Securities | The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a comparison and analysis of differences between the fair values of certain investments recorded in the issuer's system and external price sources and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 7 | Investment Securities | The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of a review of the issuer's determination of the fair value hierarchy classification of investments. The firm did not test an aspect of this control over the observability of the pricing inputs used to determine the fair value hierarchy classification of the investments. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 8 | Investment Securities | The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of certain other investments. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 9 | Investment Securities | The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the presentation and disclosure of investments was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently test the disclosure of investments within the fair value hierarchy because it did not evaluate whether the significant inputs used to establish the fair value of those investments were observable or unobservable. (AS 2502.43) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2502.43 | |
| 10 | Investment Securities | The issuer held a portfolio of investments which were carried at fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the fair value of certain other investments. (AS 2502.15) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2502.15 |