4. Going concern
The Directors have prepared the financial statements on the
going concern basis as they do not intend to liquidate the Group
or the Company or to cease their operations, and as they have
concluded that the Group and the Company’s financial position
means that this is realistic. They have also concluded that there
are no material uncertainties that could have cast significant
doubt over their ability to continue as a going concern for at least
a year from the date of approval of the financial statements (“the
going concern period”).
We used our knowledge of the Group and the Company, its
industry, and the general economic environment to identify the
inherent risks to its business model and analysed how those risks
might affect the Group’s and Company’s financial resources or
ability to continue operations over the going concern period. The
risks that we considered most likely to adversely affect the
Group’s and Company’s available financial resources and its
ability operate over this period were;
— The impact of a significant reduction in the valuation of
investments and the implications for the Group and
Company’s debt covenants;
— The liquidity of the investment portfolio and its ability to
meet the liabilities of the Group and Company as and when
they fall due; and
— The operational resilience of key service organisations.
We considered whether these risks could plausibly affect the
liquidity in the going concern period by assessing the degree of
downside assumption that, individually and collectively, could
result in a liquidity issue, taking into account the Group and
Company’s liquid investment position (and the results of their
reverse stress testing).
We considered whether the going concern disclosure in notes 1
and 28 to the financial statements give a full and accurate
description of the Directors’ assessment of going concern,
including the identified risks and related sensitivities
Our conclusions based on this work:
— we consider that the Directors’ use of the going concern basis
of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is
appropriate;
— we have not identified, and concur with the directors’
assessment that there is not, a material uncertainty related to
events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may
cast significant doubt on the Group’s or Company's ability to
continue as a going concern for the going concern period; and
— we have nothing material to add or draw attention to in
relation to the Directors’ statement in notes 1 and 28 to the
financial statements on the use of the going concern basis of
accounting with no material uncertainties that may cast
significant doubt over the Group and Company’s use of that
basis for the going concern period, and we found the going
concern disclosure in notes 1 and 28 to be acceptable.
However, as we cannot predict all future events or conditions
and as subsequent events may result in outcomes that are
inconsistent with judgements that were reasonable at the time
they were made, the above conclusions are not a guarantee that
the Group or the Company will continue in operation.
5. Fraud and breaches of laws and regulations – ability to detect
Identifying and responding to risks of material misstatement due
to fraud
To identify risks of material misstatement due to fraud (“fraud
risks”) we assessed events or conditions that could indicate an
incentive or pressure to commit fraud or provide an opportunity
to commit fraud. Our risk assessment procedures included:
— Enquiring of Directors as to the Group and Company’s high-
level policies and procedures to prevent and detect fraud, as
well as whether they have knowledge of any actual,
suspected or alleged fraud;
— Assessing the segregation of duties in place between the
Directors, the Administrator and the Group and Company’s
Investment Manager; and
— Reading Board and Audit and Risk Committee minutes.
We communicated identified fraud risks throughout the audit
team and remained alert to any indications of fraud throughout
the audit.
As required by auditing standards, we perform procedures to
address the risk of management override of controls, in
particular the risk that management may be in a position to make
inappropriate accounting entries and the risk of bias in
accounting estimates and judgments such as the valuation of
unlisted investments. We evaluated the design and
implementation of the controls over journal entries and other
adjustments and made inquiries of the Administrator about
inappropriate or unusual activity relating to the processing of
journal entries and other adjustments. We substantively tested
all material post closing entries and, based on the results of our
risk assessment procedures and understanding of the process,
including the segregation of duties between the Directors and
the Administrator, no further high-risk journal entries or other
adjustments were identified.
On this audit we have rebutted the fraud risk related to revenue
recognition because the revenue is non judgemental and
straightforward, with limited opportunity for manipulation. We
did not identify any significant unusual transaction or additional
fraud risks.
Identifying and responding to risks of material misstatement due
to non-compliance with laws and regulations
We identified areas of laws and regulations that could reasonably
be expected to have a material effect on the financial statements
from our general commercial and sector experience, and through
discussion with the Directors, the Investment Manager and the
Administrator (as required by auditing standards), and discussed
with the directors the policies and procedures regarding
compliance with laws and regulations. As the Company is
regulated, our assessment of risks involved gaining an
understanding of the control environment including the entity’s
procedures for complying with regulatory requirements.
We communicated identified laws and regulations throughout
our team and remained alert to any indications of non-
compliance throughout the audit.
The potential effect of these laws and regulations on the financial
statements varies considerably
Firstly, the Company is subject to laws and regulations that
directly affect the financial statements including financial
reporting legislation (including related companies legislation) and
listing regulations, and we assessed the extent of compliance
with these laws and regulations as part of our procedures on the
related financial statement items.
5. Fraud and breaches of laws and regulations – ability to detect
(continued)
Secondly, the Company is subject to many other laws and
regulations where the consequences of non-compliance could
have a material effect on amounts or disclosures in the financial
statements, for instance through the imposition of fines or
litigation. We identified the following areas as those most likely
to have such an effect: : money laundering, data protection,
bribery and corruption legislation, and certain aspects of
company legislation recognising the financial and regulated
nature of the Group’s activities and its legal form.
Auditing standards limit the required audit procedures to identify
non-compliance with these laws and regulations to enquiry of
the Directors and the Administrator and inspection of regulatory
and legal correspondence, if any. Therefore if a breach of
operational regulations is not disclosed to us or evident from
relevant correspondence, an audit will not detect that breach.
Context of the ability of the audit to detect fraud or breaches of
law or regulation
Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an
unavoidable risk that we may not have detected some material
misstatements in the financial statements, even though we have
properly planned and performed our audit in accordance with
auditing standards. For example, the further removed non-
compliance with laws and regulations is from the events and
transactions reflected in the financial statements, the less likely
the inherently limited procedures required by auditing standards
would identify it.
In addition, as with any audit, there remained a higher risk of
non-detection of fraud, as these may involve collusion, forgery,
intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of
internal controls. Our audit procedures are designed to detect
material misstatement. We are not responsible for preventing
non-compliance or fraud and cannot be expected to detect non-
compliance with all laws and regulations.
6. We have nothing to report on the other information in the
Annual Report
The directors are responsible for the other information
presented in the Annual Report together with the financial
statements. Our opinion on the financial statements does not
cover the other information and, accordingly, we do not express
an audit opinion or, except as explicitly stated below, any form of
assurance conclusion thereon.
Our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing
so, consider whether, based on our financial statements audit
work, the information therein is materially misstated or
inconsistent with the financial statements or our audit
knowledge. Based solely on that work we have not identified
material misstatements in the other information.
Directors’ remuneration report
In addition to our audit of the financial statements, the directors
have engaged us to audit the information in the Directors’
Remuneration Report that is described as having been audited,
which the directors have decided to prepare as if the Company
were required to comply with the requirements of Schedule 8 to
The Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts
and Reports) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008 No. 410) made under the
UK Companies Act 2006.
In our opinion the part of the Directors’ Remuneration Report to
be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with the
Companies Act 2006, as if those requirements applied to the
Company.
Disclosures of emerging and principal risks and longer-term
viability
We are required to perform procedures to identify whether
there is a material inconsistency between the directors’
disclosures in respect of emerging and principal risks and the
viability statement, and the financial statements and our audit
knowledge.
Based on those procedures, we have nothing material to add or
draw attention to in relation to:
— the Directors’ confirmation within Principal Risks and Risk
Mitigation on pages 34 to 36 that they have carried out a
robust assessment of the emerging and principal risks facing
the Group, including those that would threaten its business
model, future performance, solvency and liquidity;
— the Principal Risks and Risk Mitigation disclosures describing
these risks and how emerging risks are identified, and
explaining how they are being managed and mitigated; and
— the Directors’ explanation in the viability statement of how
they have assessed the prospects of the Group, over what
period they have done so and why they considered that
period to be appropriate, and their statement as to whether
they have a reasonable expectation that the Group will be
able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they
fall due over the period of their assessment, including any
related disclosures drawing attention to any necessary
qualifications or assumptions.
Our work is limited to assessing these matters in the context of
only the knowledge acquired during our financial statements
audit. As we cannot predict all future events or conditions and as
subsequent events may result in outcomes that are inconsistent
with judgements that were reasonable at the time they were
made, the absence of anything to report on these statements is
not a guarantee as to the Group’s and Company’s longer-term
viability.
Corporate governance disclosures
We are required to perform procedures to identify whether
there is a material inconsistency between the directors’
corporate governance disclosures and the financial statements
and our audit knowledge.
Based on those procedures, we have concluded that each of the
following is materially consistent with the financial statements
and our audit knowledge:
— the Directors’ statement that they consider that the annual
report and financial statements taken as a whole is fair,
balanced and understandable and provides the information
necessary for shareholders to assess the Group’s position and
performance, business model and strategy;
— the section of the annual report describing the work of the
Audit Committee does not appropriately address matters
communicated by us to the Audit Committee, and how these
issues were addressed; and
— the section of the annual report that describes the review of
the effectiveness of the Group’s risk management and
internal control systems.
In addition to our audit of the financial statements, the Directors
have engaged us to review their Corporate Governance
Statement as if the Company were required to comply with the
Listing Rules and the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency
Rules of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation to those
matters. Under the terms of our engagement we are required to
review the part of the Corporate Governance Statement relating
to the Company’s compliance with the provisions of the UK
Corporate Governance Code specified for our review.
We have nothing to report in this respect.
69