- Inspection year
- 2023
- Report date
- 23-May-2024
- PCAOB release
- 104-2024-091
- Audits reviewed
- 3
- Audits w/ Part I.A deficiencies
- 3
- Part I.A deficiency rate
- 100%
- Part I.A deficiencies
- 9
- Part I.B deficiencies
- 2
- Report
- View PDF ↗
Deficiencies (9)
Grouped by issuer and in the same order as the PCAOB report, so each item ties back directly to the source.
Issuer A5 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Significant Estimates | The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain data. 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). Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | Significant risk |
| 2 | Significant Estimates | The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain data that was not subject to this control. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | Significant risk |
| 3 | Significant Accounts | The firm did not identify and test any relevant controls that addressed the risks of material misstatement related to a significant account. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 4 | Significant Accounts | The firm performed substantive analytical procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm used certain system-generated data to develop its expectations but did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 2305.16) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2305.16 | |
| 5 | Significant Accounts | The firm performed substantive analytical procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm performed these analytical procedures using established thresholds for investigating differences based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. As a result the thresholds that the firm used did not provide the desired level of assurance that misstatements that could have been material would be identified. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2305.20) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.16; AS 2301.18; AS 2301.37; AS 2305.20 |
Issuer B3 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the determination of certain revenue. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 2 | Revenue | The firm also used this data to substantively test this revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or (as discussed above) identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 1105.10 | |
| 3 | Revenue | The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy of certain revenue disclosures in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2301.08) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8 |
Issuer C1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Certain Liabilities | The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain liabilities using an assumption developed by the specialist. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b) Financial statement audit only | AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16B |