The document discusses flaws in the typical approach to auditing financial models and proposes improvements. It notes that standard audits often (1) rely too heavily on consistency checks and cell-by-cell reviews that can miss errors, (2) occur too late in the process, and (3) produce lengthy reports that lack focus on significant issues. The document proposes (1) using an independent "shadow model" approach to catch more errors, (2) conducting early reviews to improve reliability, and (3) better defining the auditor's scope and responsibilities.
This document summarizes the solubility of different types of salts in water. It states that hydroxides are generally insoluble except for potassium and sodium hydroxide. Oxides are also largely insoluble except for potassium and sodium oxide. Carbonates are more soluble, with sodium, potassium, and ammonium carbonates all soluble. Sulphates and chlorides are also largely soluble, except for a few exceptions like barium and lead salts. Nitrates and salts of sodium and potassium are all soluble in water. It also provides tests to identify different cations and anions in salts.
The companies-act-1994-bangla
The companies-act-1994-bangla
The companies-act-1994-bangla
The companies act 1994 bangla
The companies act 1994 bangla
The companies act 1994 bangla
Article, published on IJOnline, highlighting the importance of choosing the right model auditor, the risks of de-scoping the model audit, and how Navigant Consulting\'s is different and less risky.
Model risk management aims to identify and address risks from model failures. It evaluates models across their lifecycle from development to usage. A three lines of defense approach is used with model owners, a validation team, and internal audit each providing oversight. Regular model validation is important to assess performance, assumptions, and risk. Agile validation processes that provide ongoing feedback can help address increasing model volumes and changing regulatory needs.
This document summarizes the solubility of different types of salts in water. It states that hydroxides are generally insoluble except for potassium and sodium hydroxide. Oxides are also largely insoluble except for potassium and sodium oxide. Carbonates are more soluble, with sodium, potassium, and ammonium carbonates all soluble. Sulphates and chlorides are also largely soluble, except for a few exceptions like barium and lead salts. Nitrates and salts of sodium and potassium are all soluble in water. It also provides tests to identify different cations and anions in salts.
The companies-act-1994-bangla
The companies-act-1994-bangla
The companies-act-1994-bangla
The companies act 1994 bangla
The companies act 1994 bangla
The companies act 1994 bangla
Article, published on IJOnline, highlighting the importance of choosing the right model auditor, the risks of de-scoping the model audit, and how Navigant Consulting\'s is different and less risky.
Model risk management aims to identify and address risks from model failures. It evaluates models across their lifecycle from development to usage. A three lines of defense approach is used with model owners, a validation team, and internal audit each providing oversight. Regular model validation is important to assess performance, assumptions, and risk. Agile validation processes that provide ongoing feedback can help address increasing model volumes and changing regulatory needs.
The document provides guidance for conducting internal audits of a company's quality system manual (QSM) to evaluate compliance. It outlines the planning, performing, documenting, and change implementation phases of an audit. Sample forms are also included to aid in formalizing an internal audit process. The purpose is to assess conformance with the QSM and identify any needed improvements to make a better product.
1) Effective model validation aims to provide confidence in a model's robustness and results for management decision making. A validation process assesses a model's capabilities and limitations and promotes continuous improvement.
2) For validation to generate value, it must consider building trust in the model, using the model in decision making ("embedding"), and enabling continuous model improvement. Building trust requires demonstrating validation's business value through transparent communication.
3) Embedding a model requires senior management engagement and understanding. Validation helps build necessary trust for management to use model outputs in decisions. This embedding takes time as a significant change process.
The document discusses reasons why projects often fail, citing statistics from various studies. It notes that according to one survey, 82% of employees believe ongoing projects will fail and 78% are working on projects deemed "doomed." Another study found that 50-70% of CRM projects from 2001-2009 failed to meet expectations. A study of ERP implementations found that over half went over budget and most under-delivered business value. The key reasons for project failure discussed in more depth include scope, time and cost overruns, risks, and quality issues.
This affects the quality of software and increases the production cost of ... effectiveness of every method, it is useful to select the particular elicitation
http://www.imran.xyz
Chapter16For all types of project and in their different sizes, .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter16
For all types of project and in their different sizes, prioritizing its requirements is a very critical phase in the requirements development process. Prioritizing is also called requirements triage, which helps reveal competing goals, resolve conflicts, plan for staged or incremental deliveries, control scope creep, and make the necessary trade-offs decisions. It is also a way to deal with competing demands for limited resources.
In requirements prioritization, various stakeholders need to participate in the process, from customers, project managers, and developers. A successful prioritization techniques requires an understanding of six issues, which are the needs of the customers, the relative importance of requirements to the customers, the timing at which capabilities need to be delivered, requirements that serve as predecessors for other requirements, which requirements must be implemented as a group, and the cost to satisfy each requirements.
On a small project, the stakeholders should be able to agree on requirements priorities informally. In contrast to larger projects stakeholders demand a more structured approach that removes some of the emotions, politics, and guesswork from the process. There are five techniques for requirements prioritization. The first one is in or out approach, which is the simplest of all prioritization methods is to have a group of stakeholders work down a list of requirements and make a binary decision: is it in, or is it out? The second technique is pairwise comparison and rank ordering. People try to assign to assign a unique priority sequence number to each requirement. Rank ordering a list of requirements involves making pairwise comparison between all of them so you can judge which number of each pair has higher priority. The third technique is three-level scale, which is a common approach that groups the requirements into three levels, high, medium, and low. One way to assess priority is to consider the two dimensions of importance and urgency. The fourth techniques is the MoSCoW, it changes the three-level scale of high, medium, and low to a four-level scale must, should, could, and won’t. The last approach is the $100 technique, where the prioritization team has 100 imaginary dollars to work with. Team members allocate these dollars to “buy” items that they would like to have implemented from the complete set of requirements. They weight the higher priority requirements more heavily by allocating more dollars to them.
A definitive, rigorous way to relate customer value to proposed product features is with a technique called Quality Function Deployment or QFD. This technique was ranked in the top tier of effectiveness in a comparative evaluation of 17 requirements prioritization methods. This scheme borrows from the QFD concept of basing customer value on both the benefit provided to the customer if a specific product feature is present and the penalty paid if that feature is absent. A ...
Advanced Execution Concepts in Branch and Teller CaptureVivastream
The document identifies 11 areas of improvement for financial institutions implementing branch and teller check image capture that can reduce costs, increase efficiency and productivity, improve customer and employee experience, and potentially generate new revenue streams, such as through data mining, without requiring major system overhauls. It provides examples of low-cost solutions in areas like reporting, scanner management, fraud prevention, and paper reduction. Financial institutions are encouraged to pursue these opportunities to maximize their existing investments in branch and teller image capture systems.
Static techniques can improve both quality and productivity by impressive factors. Static testing is not magic and it should not be considered a replacement for dynamic testing, but all software organizations should consider using reviews in all major aspects of their work including requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Static analysis tools implement automated checks, e.g. on code
This document discusses requirements validation and techniques for validating requirements. It defines requirements validation as checking that requirements define the system the customer wants. Validation is important because fixing requirements errors later is very costly. The document describes various checks that can be performed on requirements like validity, consistency, completeness, and verifiability. It also outlines techniques for validation like requirements reviews, prototyping, and test-case generation. Finally, it notes that validating requirements is difficult and some problems may still be found after validation.
1. Model validation is one of the key requirements for internal model approval under Solvency II and involves validating several components of an insurer's model, including inputs, assumptions, governance processes, and model results.
2. Effective validation requires dividing the model into smaller parts and focusing validation efforts based on materiality. It also involves validating not just the calculation engine but also external models, data quality, governance and model use within the business.
3. Insurers should start validation in parallel with model development to have enough time for approval and establish an ongoing validation process, avoiding pitfalls like inconsistent treatment of risks and lack of documentation.
AUDITING TECHNIQUES AND INTERNAL AUDIT notes.pptxGoptiEmmanuel1
Examination in Depth means examination of a few selected transactions from the-beginning to the end through the entire flow of the transaction. It involves studying the recording of transactions the various stages through which they have passed .
This document discusses barriers to multi-customer acceptance testing and an organization's efforts to introduce more exploratory testing approaches. It describes negotiating with stakeholders to scale back documentation requirements and allow more flexibility. Lessons learned include focusing testing on more valuable areas, identifying issues earlier through interface testing, and testing with production-like data. Barriers to overcome include coordinating across testing groups, contractual obligations, and managing schedules. The organization aims to gain more permission for exploratory testing approaches.
This document discusses the transition from traditional waterfall software development models to more agile approaches like Scrum and Kanban. It outlines some key limitations of the waterfall model, including unrealistic assumptions about requirements stability and integration challenges. Many software projects adopting waterfall experienced late delivery, changing requirements issues, and customer dissatisfaction. More iterative agile methods like Scrum and Kanban address these issues by emphasizing working software over documentation, incremental delivery, and flexibility. Studies show higher success rates for agile projects compared to waterfall. Large organizations are increasingly adopting agile practices across many teams and projects.
These slides contain general advice for considering an ALM tooling solution. This includes management of requirements, tests and defects. It is a draft release.
This document discusses software cost estimation. It begins by distinguishing between effort, which is the number of hours of work required, and time, which is the duration from start to finish. It then describes factors that influence cost estimation, such as project type and size, and development team size. Finally, it outlines several techniques used for cost estimation, including algorithmic models, expert judgment, top-down estimation, and bottom-up estimation.
The document discusses the system life cycle and project life cycle. It describes the typical phases of a system's development cycle, including conception, definition, execution, and operation. The conception phase involves identifying needs and potential solutions. The definition phase further specifies requirements and designs a solution. The execution phase encompasses building, testing, and implementing the system. Finally, the operation phase involves maintaining and improving the system once in use. Agile project management is also covered, which takes a more flexible approach through iterative development compared to traditional project management.
The document discusses various methods for project selection and portfolio management. It describes common problems that arise with managing multiple projects, such as delays, inefficient resource use, and bottlenecks. Various project selection models are presented, including non-numeric methods like sacred cows and competitive necessities, as well as numeric methods like net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, and scoring models. The advantages and disadvantages of different models are outlined. The document concludes with an overview of the project portfolio process for linking projects to organizational goals and strategies.
The document discusses various methods for project selection and portfolio management. It describes common problems that arise with managing multiple projects, such as delays, inefficient resource use, and bottlenecks. Various project selection models are presented, including non-numeric methods like sacred cows and competitive necessities, as well as numeric methods like net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, and scoring models. The advantages and disadvantages of different models are outlined. Finally, the document discusses the project portfolio process for linking projects to organizational goals and strategies.
The document discusses various methods for project selection and portfolio management. It describes common problems that arise with managing multiple projects, such as delays, inefficient resource use, and bottlenecks. It then covers different approaches to project selection, including numeric models like net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and scoring models. It also discusses non-numeric selection criteria and types of models like sacred cow, operating necessity, and competitive necessity. Finally, it introduces the project portfolio process (PPP) as a means to link projects to organizational goals and strategies and help prioritize and monitor projects.
Static test techniques provide a powerful way to improve the quality and productivity of software development. This chapter describes static test techniques, including reviews, and provides an overview of how they are conducted. The fundamental objective of static testing is to improve the quality of software work products by assisting engineers to recognize and fix their own defects early in the software development process. While static testing techniques will not solve all the problems, they are enormously effective. Static techniques can improve both quality and productivity by impressive factors. Static testing is not magic and it should not be considered a replacement for dynamic testing, but all software organizations should consider using reviews in all major aspects of their work including requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Static analysis tools implement automated checks, e.g. on code.
The document provides guidance for conducting internal audits of a company's quality system manual (QSM) to evaluate compliance. It outlines the planning, performing, documenting, and change implementation phases of an audit. Sample forms are also included to aid in formalizing an internal audit process. The purpose is to assess conformance with the QSM and identify any needed improvements to make a better product.
1) Effective model validation aims to provide confidence in a model's robustness and results for management decision making. A validation process assesses a model's capabilities and limitations and promotes continuous improvement.
2) For validation to generate value, it must consider building trust in the model, using the model in decision making ("embedding"), and enabling continuous model improvement. Building trust requires demonstrating validation's business value through transparent communication.
3) Embedding a model requires senior management engagement and understanding. Validation helps build necessary trust for management to use model outputs in decisions. This embedding takes time as a significant change process.
The document discusses reasons why projects often fail, citing statistics from various studies. It notes that according to one survey, 82% of employees believe ongoing projects will fail and 78% are working on projects deemed "doomed." Another study found that 50-70% of CRM projects from 2001-2009 failed to meet expectations. A study of ERP implementations found that over half went over budget and most under-delivered business value. The key reasons for project failure discussed in more depth include scope, time and cost overruns, risks, and quality issues.
This affects the quality of software and increases the production cost of ... effectiveness of every method, it is useful to select the particular elicitation
http://www.imran.xyz
Chapter16For all types of project and in their different sizes, .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter16
For all types of project and in their different sizes, prioritizing its requirements is a very critical phase in the requirements development process. Prioritizing is also called requirements triage, which helps reveal competing goals, resolve conflicts, plan for staged or incremental deliveries, control scope creep, and make the necessary trade-offs decisions. It is also a way to deal with competing demands for limited resources.
In requirements prioritization, various stakeholders need to participate in the process, from customers, project managers, and developers. A successful prioritization techniques requires an understanding of six issues, which are the needs of the customers, the relative importance of requirements to the customers, the timing at which capabilities need to be delivered, requirements that serve as predecessors for other requirements, which requirements must be implemented as a group, and the cost to satisfy each requirements.
On a small project, the stakeholders should be able to agree on requirements priorities informally. In contrast to larger projects stakeholders demand a more structured approach that removes some of the emotions, politics, and guesswork from the process. There are five techniques for requirements prioritization. The first one is in or out approach, which is the simplest of all prioritization methods is to have a group of stakeholders work down a list of requirements and make a binary decision: is it in, or is it out? The second technique is pairwise comparison and rank ordering. People try to assign to assign a unique priority sequence number to each requirement. Rank ordering a list of requirements involves making pairwise comparison between all of them so you can judge which number of each pair has higher priority. The third technique is three-level scale, which is a common approach that groups the requirements into three levels, high, medium, and low. One way to assess priority is to consider the two dimensions of importance and urgency. The fourth techniques is the MoSCoW, it changes the three-level scale of high, medium, and low to a four-level scale must, should, could, and won’t. The last approach is the $100 technique, where the prioritization team has 100 imaginary dollars to work with. Team members allocate these dollars to “buy” items that they would like to have implemented from the complete set of requirements. They weight the higher priority requirements more heavily by allocating more dollars to them.
A definitive, rigorous way to relate customer value to proposed product features is with a technique called Quality Function Deployment or QFD. This technique was ranked in the top tier of effectiveness in a comparative evaluation of 17 requirements prioritization methods. This scheme borrows from the QFD concept of basing customer value on both the benefit provided to the customer if a specific product feature is present and the penalty paid if that feature is absent. A ...
Advanced Execution Concepts in Branch and Teller CaptureVivastream
The document identifies 11 areas of improvement for financial institutions implementing branch and teller check image capture that can reduce costs, increase efficiency and productivity, improve customer and employee experience, and potentially generate new revenue streams, such as through data mining, without requiring major system overhauls. It provides examples of low-cost solutions in areas like reporting, scanner management, fraud prevention, and paper reduction. Financial institutions are encouraged to pursue these opportunities to maximize their existing investments in branch and teller image capture systems.
Static techniques can improve both quality and productivity by impressive factors. Static testing is not magic and it should not be considered a replacement for dynamic testing, but all software organizations should consider using reviews in all major aspects of their work including requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Static analysis tools implement automated checks, e.g. on code
This document discusses requirements validation and techniques for validating requirements. It defines requirements validation as checking that requirements define the system the customer wants. Validation is important because fixing requirements errors later is very costly. The document describes various checks that can be performed on requirements like validity, consistency, completeness, and verifiability. It also outlines techniques for validation like requirements reviews, prototyping, and test-case generation. Finally, it notes that validating requirements is difficult and some problems may still be found after validation.
1. Model validation is one of the key requirements for internal model approval under Solvency II and involves validating several components of an insurer's model, including inputs, assumptions, governance processes, and model results.
2. Effective validation requires dividing the model into smaller parts and focusing validation efforts based on materiality. It also involves validating not just the calculation engine but also external models, data quality, governance and model use within the business.
3. Insurers should start validation in parallel with model development to have enough time for approval and establish an ongoing validation process, avoiding pitfalls like inconsistent treatment of risks and lack of documentation.
AUDITING TECHNIQUES AND INTERNAL AUDIT notes.pptxGoptiEmmanuel1
Examination in Depth means examination of a few selected transactions from the-beginning to the end through the entire flow of the transaction. It involves studying the recording of transactions the various stages through which they have passed .
This document discusses barriers to multi-customer acceptance testing and an organization's efforts to introduce more exploratory testing approaches. It describes negotiating with stakeholders to scale back documentation requirements and allow more flexibility. Lessons learned include focusing testing on more valuable areas, identifying issues earlier through interface testing, and testing with production-like data. Barriers to overcome include coordinating across testing groups, contractual obligations, and managing schedules. The organization aims to gain more permission for exploratory testing approaches.
This document discusses the transition from traditional waterfall software development models to more agile approaches like Scrum and Kanban. It outlines some key limitations of the waterfall model, including unrealistic assumptions about requirements stability and integration challenges. Many software projects adopting waterfall experienced late delivery, changing requirements issues, and customer dissatisfaction. More iterative agile methods like Scrum and Kanban address these issues by emphasizing working software over documentation, incremental delivery, and flexibility. Studies show higher success rates for agile projects compared to waterfall. Large organizations are increasingly adopting agile practices across many teams and projects.
These slides contain general advice for considering an ALM tooling solution. This includes management of requirements, tests and defects. It is a draft release.
This document discusses software cost estimation. It begins by distinguishing between effort, which is the number of hours of work required, and time, which is the duration from start to finish. It then describes factors that influence cost estimation, such as project type and size, and development team size. Finally, it outlines several techniques used for cost estimation, including algorithmic models, expert judgment, top-down estimation, and bottom-up estimation.
The document discusses the system life cycle and project life cycle. It describes the typical phases of a system's development cycle, including conception, definition, execution, and operation. The conception phase involves identifying needs and potential solutions. The definition phase further specifies requirements and designs a solution. The execution phase encompasses building, testing, and implementing the system. Finally, the operation phase involves maintaining and improving the system once in use. Agile project management is also covered, which takes a more flexible approach through iterative development compared to traditional project management.
The document discusses various methods for project selection and portfolio management. It describes common problems that arise with managing multiple projects, such as delays, inefficient resource use, and bottlenecks. Various project selection models are presented, including non-numeric methods like sacred cows and competitive necessities, as well as numeric methods like net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, and scoring models. The advantages and disadvantages of different models are outlined. The document concludes with an overview of the project portfolio process for linking projects to organizational goals and strategies.
The document discusses various methods for project selection and portfolio management. It describes common problems that arise with managing multiple projects, such as delays, inefficient resource use, and bottlenecks. Various project selection models are presented, including non-numeric methods like sacred cows and competitive necessities, as well as numeric methods like net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, and scoring models. The advantages and disadvantages of different models are outlined. Finally, the document discusses the project portfolio process for linking projects to organizational goals and strategies.
The document discusses various methods for project selection and portfolio management. It describes common problems that arise with managing multiple projects, such as delays, inefficient resource use, and bottlenecks. It then covers different approaches to project selection, including numeric models like net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and scoring models. It also discusses non-numeric selection criteria and types of models like sacred cow, operating necessity, and competitive necessity. Finally, it introduces the project portfolio process (PPP) as a means to link projects to organizational goals and strategies and help prioritize and monitor projects.
Static test techniques provide a powerful way to improve the quality and productivity of software development. This chapter describes static test techniques, including reviews, and provides an overview of how they are conducted. The fundamental objective of static testing is to improve the quality of software work products by assisting engineers to recognize and fix their own defects early in the software development process. While static testing techniques will not solve all the problems, they are enormously effective. Static techniques can improve both quality and productivity by impressive factors. Static testing is not magic and it should not be considered a replacement for dynamic testing, but all software organizations should consider using reviews in all major aspects of their work including requirements, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance. Static analysis tools implement automated checks, e.g. on code.
What price will pi network be listed on exchangesDOT TECH
The rate at which pi will be listed is practically unknown. But due to speculations surrounding it the predicted rate is tends to be from 30$ — 50$.
So if you are interested in selling your pi network coins at a high rate tho. Or you can't wait till the mainnet launch in 2026. You can easily trade your pi coins with a merchant.
A merchant is someone who buys pi coins from miners and resell them to Investors looking forward to hold massive quantities till mainnet launch.
I will leave the what's app number of my personal pi vendor to trade with.
+12349014282
Abhay Bhutada Leads Poonawalla Fincorp To Record Low NPA And Unprecedented Gr...Vighnesh Shashtri
Under the leadership of Abhay Bhutada, Poonawalla Fincorp has achieved record-low Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and witnessed unprecedented growth. Bhutada's strategic vision and effective management have significantly enhanced the company's financial health, showcasing a robust performance in the financial sector. This achievement underscores the company's resilience and ability to thrive in a competitive market, setting a new benchmark for operational excellence in the industry.
^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Duba...mayaclinic18
Whatsapp (+971581248768) Buy Abortion Pills In Dubai/ Qatar/Kuwait/Doha/Abu Dhabi/Alain/RAK City/Satwa/Al Ain/Abortion Pills For Sale In Qatar, Doha. Abu az Zuluf. Abu Thaylah. Ad Dawhah al Jadidah. Al Arish, Al Bida ash Sharqiyah, Al Ghanim, Al Ghuwariyah, Qatari, Abu Dhabi, Dubai.. WHATSAPP +971)581248768 Abortion Pills / Cytotec Tablets Available in Dubai, Sharjah, Abudhabi, Ajman, Alain, Fujeira, Ras Al Khaima, Umm Al Quwain., UAE, buy cytotec in Dubai– Where I can buy abortion pills in Dubai,+971582071918where I can buy abortion pills in Abudhabi +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Sharjah,+97158207191 8where I can buy abortion pills in Ajman, +971)581248768 where I can buy abortion pills in Umm al Quwain +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Fujairah +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Ras al Khaimah +971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in Alain+971)581248768 , where I can buy abortion pills in UAE +971)581248768 we are providing cytotec 200mg abortion pill in dubai, uae.Medication abortion offers an alternative to Surgical Abortion for women in the early weeks of pregnancy. Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman Fujairah Ras Al Khaimah%^^%$Zone1:+971)581248768’][* Legit & Safe #Abortion #Pills #For #Sale In #Dubai Abu Dhabi Sharjah Deira Ajman
Yes of course, you can easily start mining pi network coin today and sell to legit pi vendors in the United States.
Here the what'sapp contact of my personal vendor.
+12349014282
#pi network #pi coins #legit #passive income
#US
how to sell pi coins effectively (from 50 - 100k pi)DOT TECH
Anywhere in the world, including Africa, America, and Europe, you can sell Pi Network Coins online and receive cash through online payment options.
Pi has not yet been launched on any exchange because we are currently using the confined Mainnet. The planned launch date for Pi is June 28, 2026.
Reselling to investors who want to hold until the mainnet launch in 2026 is currently the sole way to sell.
Consequently, right now. All you need to do is select the right pi network provider.
Who is a pi merchant?
An individual who buys coins from miners on the pi network and resells them to investors hoping to hang onto them until the mainnet is launched is known as a pi merchant.
debuts.
I'll provide you the what'sapp number.
+12349014282
5 Tips for Creating Standard Financial ReportsEasyReports
Well-crafted financial reports serve as vital tools for decision-making and transparency within an organization. By following the undermentioned tips, you can create standardized financial reports that effectively communicate your company's financial health and performance to stakeholders.
Lecture slide titled Fraud Risk Mitigation, Webinar Lecture Delivered at the Society for West African Internal Audit Practitioners (SWAIAP) on Wednesday, November 8, 2023.
Turin Startup Ecosystem 2024 - Ricerca sulle Startup e il Sistema dell'Innov...Quotidiano Piemontese
Turin Startup Ecosystem 2024
Una ricerca de il Club degli Investitori, in collaborazione con ToTeM Torino Tech Map e con il supporto della ESCP Business School e di Growth Capital
Tax System, Behaviour, Justice, and Voluntary Compliance Culture in Nigeria -...
Mazars Model Audit Methodology
1. A fresh approach
The Model Audit
Financial models are at the heart of major
finance transactions. We believe the standard
approach to auditing these models is flawed.
Our fresh approach offers tangible benefits for
both senior funders and shareholders.
2. A flawed process
A typical financial model audit carried out by an Documentation – what you don’t know can
accountancy firm will consist of the following steps: hurt you
• a review of model logic and calculations (including tax A key role of the auditor is to check the model to project
and accounting compliance); and finance documents prior to financial close. The
• a review of the model to supporting documentation; and following are typical failings:
• a report on model issues. • key documents are produced late in the transaction,
sometimes finalised only hours or minutes before close,
These steps are performed iteratively, culminating in the a review is either then rushed or does not take place at all;
production of an opinion letter confirming model integrity
which is issued on financial close. • documents which are erroneously considered as not
material, receive scant attention;
Our experience, drawn from the practice of both auditing
and being audited, combined with discussions with • this work is often undertaken by analysts with little
shareholders and funders, reveals a level of dissatisfaction commercial experience and nuances which impact the
with each stage of this typical process. robustness of an operational project company are
missed.
Model logic review – missing the unknown
unknowns Reporting – more is less
Model auditors typically check model logic in two ways: After each iteration of review, the model auditor will
produce a list of issues for the attention of funders and the
1. They run spreadsheet mapping tools to check for model model builder. When we send off a bid model to an auditor
consistency. which has been subject to internal review, we are often
2. They check the spreadsheet ‘cell-by-cell’, ticking as they surprised by the weight of the tomes received in return!
go to confirm correctness. In nearly all cases, closer inspection reveals that no
The first of these techniques, spreadsheet mapping, is commercially significant errors have been found. Instead,
certainly necessary to checking the consistency of any comments consist of a combination of a download from
complex spreadsheet. However, there can be a tendency whichever software package has been thrown at the model
for over-reliance on this technique, and in some cases this and a list of general ‘observations’ which can be applied to
is thought to be a sufficient test in itself. It must be any model review. While superficially a large audit report
remembered that these tools only check for may suggest rigour, in reality it is more likely to reflect an
consistency and poor referencing, they do not actually indiscriminate approach, lacking sufficient focus on
analyse any logic. correcting commercially significant errors.
The second of these techniques, ‘cell-by-cell’ review, is not Model opinion – ‘Insurance’ or ‘Assurance’
particularly satisfactory. As a typical model may contain In our view, there is an important problem with the way
over 5,000 distinct and often complex formulas the task of that the role of the auditor is viewed.
checking each is a daunting one. In reality, the main
drawback to this sort of checking is that it is proven to be Funders typically view the opinion letter as providing
far too boring for the human brain! Errors will be missed. insurance, believing the auditor will pick up the tab if errors
Research has suggested that cell-by-cell reviews can be are subsequently found. Also, as an opinion letter is a
expected to capture around 70% of errors. This is actually condition precedent for the credit agreement they also
a fairly good success rate – but you may have sleepless tend to view the audit as an important piece of ‘admin’.
nights considering the unknown 30%! The criteria for selecting an auditor then becomes a
straight comparison of who will offer the highest ‘cover’
Another issue with the ‘cell-by-cell’ process is that it is time for the lowest price.
consuming and therefore costly. There is no ‘short-cut’ in
such a process which will enable an early view to be given The auditor is also very aware of potential liability and
on model accuracy. This has historically meant that model funders requirements, and this may lead to them running
reviews are only carried at the last possible moment and the following business model: offer the minimum liability
that there has been no appetite to procure an independent caps required for market entry, reduce the costs of
review at an early stage in the competitive process. This delivering the actual audit, employ a good lawyer to draft
leads to the unfortunate position that commercially terms and conditions and finally, caveat his opinion as
significant errors either jeopardise a project or the strongly as possible!
consequences must be taken on the chin by shareholders.
3. A fresh approach
So far, we have looked at a number of areas where Scope of work – a stitch in time…
the current model audit process might disappoint.
There is a clear case for rethinking the scope of the
More positively, here are some suggestions for
auditor’s work.
improvement.
In the world of Competitive Dialogue, it becomes
Methodology – it is rocket science! increasingly important for reliance to be placed on the
In order to look for improvements to the standard financial model at an earlier stage of the transaction.
‘cell-by-cell’ approach it is useful to look to other Requesting some level of sign off from an independent
industries. When NASA commissions its complex source as to model logic correctness should be a
models and needs to be really sure its computations requirement of final tenders. This is not to say that a full
are correct, it does not ask one firm to model and audit is required, but as has been outlined above an early
another to audit. Instead, it will give the same job to consistency check can be carried out on which an
two sets of developers and see if they come up with independent reviewer can give a letter of comfort. This
the same answers. This rigorous approach would check need not be prohibitively expensive and, as the
historically have been viewed as too expensive in the auditor is completing work which will be needed later if
project finance market. the bid is successful, fee structures could be tailored to
minimise cost impacts during the bid stage.
However, the increasing prevalence of ‘template’
models and the standardisation of financial structures Also, a robust approach should be taken to the selection
mean that it is now possible for an initial model of a of auditor and agreement to the detailed scope of work,
relatively complex scheme to be constructed in a including:
matter of hours. This opens the way for the ‘NASA • expectations for scope of document review;
approach’ to be used in model audit. A commercially • timescales for reporting;
astute auditor independently creates a shadow model • approach to sensitivity review;
using project data inputs, the outputs of the shadow
• details of the commercial experience of the analysts
model are then compared to the model under test.
who will be undertaking the review; and
Any discrepancies can be fully interrogated, and the
‘errors’ in either shadow or test model corrected. • agreed processes for ensuring final auditor sign off of
completed document review.
This method has three very important advantages to
the standard approach. Firstly, by challenging the On this last point, by ensuring that the auditor’s opinion
analyst to create a replicated model you retain his letter is matched to the list of final documents, and
interest – this is crucial to ensuring a job well done. making this an explicit condition precedent, many
Secondly, the integrity of the review is clearly potential issues can be avoided.
demonstrated; if the analyst achieves a different Finally, all parties should place the importance of ensuring
answer, the discrepancy is clear – and it needs to be model correctness high on their priority list. While having
explained. Thirdly, an early indication of the accuracy recourse to the auditor’s potential liability has a role in
of the model under test can be given, this can be used ensuring rigour, it is in everyone’s interests that such
to inform commercial decision making. remedy is never required.
Mazars' fresh approach
Mazars’ fresh approach offers tangible benefits when compared to standard offerings.
• We are confident that our replication methodology is more robust – we offer a separate, not subordinate,
liability to shareholders to demonstrate this.
• We are prepared for the Competitive Dialogue process – we will undertake reviews prior to bid submission
and on a contingent fee basis to ensure the robustness of your bid.
• We tailor our scope of work to your requirements – you will find our fees are highly competitive when
compared to standard offerings.