
Independent Auditor’s Report to the Members of RTW Venture Fund Limited
continued
Our application of materiality and
an overview of the scope of our audit
Materiality for the consolidated financial statements as
awhole was set at $6.9m, determined with reference to
abenchmark of group net assets of $347.9m, of which it
represents approximately 2% (2021: 2%).
In line with our audit methodology, our procedures on
individual account balances and disclosures were performed
to a lower threshold, performance materiality, so as to reduce
to an acceptable level the risk that individually immaterial
misstatements in individual account balances add up to a
material amount across the consolidated financial statements
as a whole. Performance materiality for the Group was set at
75% (2021: 75%) of materiality for the consolidated financial
statements as a whole, which equates to $5.2m. We applied
this percentage in our determination of performance
materiality because we did not identify any factors indicating
an elevated level of risk.
We reported to the Audit Committee any corrected or
uncorrected identified misstatements exceeding $0.35m, in
addition to other identified misstatements that warranted
reporting on qualitative grounds.
Our audit of the Group was undertaken to the materiality
level specified above, which has informed our identification of
significant risks of material misstatement and the associated
audit procedures performed in those areas as detailed above.
The group team performed the audit of the Group as if it was
a single aggregated set of financial information. The audit was
performed using the materiality level set out above and
covered 100% of total group revenue, total group profit
before tax, and total group assets and liabilities.
Going concern
The directors have prepared the consolidated 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 consolidated financial statements
(the “going concern period”).
In our evaluation of the directors’ conclusions, we considered
the inherent risks to the Group and the Company’s business
model and analysed how those risks might affect the Group
and the Company’s financial resources or ability to continue
operations over the going concern period. The risks that we
considered most likely to affect the Group and the Company’s
financial resources or ability to continue operations over this
period was the availability of capital to meet operating costs
and other financial commitments.
We considered whether this risk could plausibly affect the
liquidity in the going concern period by comparing severe, but
plausible downside scenarios that could arise from this risk
against the level of available financial resources indicated by
the Group and the Company’s financial forecasts.
We performed procedures including:
• identifying journal entries and other adjustments to test
based on risk criteria and comparing any identified entries
to supporting documentation;
• incorporating an element of unpredictability in our audit
procedures; and
• assessing significant accounting estimates for bias
Further detail in respect of valuation of private unquoted life
science investments is set out in the key audit matter section
of this report.
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
consolidated financial statements from our sector experience
and through discussion with management (as required by
auditing standards), and from inspection of the Group’s
regulatory and legal correspondence, if any, and discussed
with management the policies and procedures regarding
compliance with laws and regulations. As the Group is
regulated, our assessment of risks involved gaining an
understanding of the control environment including the
entity’s procedures for complying with regulatory
requirements.
The Group is subject to laws and regulations that directly
affect the consolidated financial statements including
financial reporting legislation and taxation legislation and
we assessed the extent of compliance with these laws and
regulations as part of our procedures on the related financial
statement items.
The Group is subject to other laws and regulations where the
consequences of non-compliance could have a material effect
on amounts or disclosures in the consolidated financial
statements, for instance through the imposition of fines or
litigation or impacts on the Group and the Company’s ability
to operate. We identified financial services regulation as being
the area most likely to have such an effect, recognising the
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 management 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 consolidated 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 consolidated financial statements, the less likely the
inherently limited procedures required by auditing standards
would identify it.
We considered whether the going concern disclosure in note 1 to
the consolidated financial statements gives a full and accurate
description of the directors’ assessment of going concern.
Our conclusions based on this work:
• we consider that the directors’ use of the going concern
basis of accounting in the preparation of the consolidated
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 and
the 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 the notes to the
consolidated 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 the
Company’s use of that basis for the going concern period,
and that statement is materially consistent with the
consolidated financial statements and our audit knowledge.
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 and the Company will continue
in operation.
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 management as to the Group’s policies
and procedures to prevent and detect fraud as well as
enquiring whether management have knowledge of any
actual, suspected or alleged fraud;
• reading minutes of meetings of those charged with
governance; and
• using analytical procedures to identify any unusual
or unexpected relationships.
As required by auditing standards, and taking into account
possible incentives or pressures to misstate performance and
our overall knowledge of the control environment, 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 such as valuation of
private unquoted life science investments. On this audit we do
not believe there is a fraud risk related to revenue recognition
because the Group’s revenue streams are simple in nature
with respect to accounting policy choice, and are easily
verifiable to external data sources or agreements with little
or no requirement for estimation from management. We did
not identify any additional fraud risks.
In addition, as with any audit, there remains a higher risk of
non-detection of fraud, as this 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.
Other information
The directors are responsible for the other information. The
other information comprises the information included in the
annual report but does not include the consolidated financial
statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinion on
the consolidated financial statements does not cover the
other information and we do not express an audit opinion
or any form of assurance conclusion thereon.
In connection with our audit of the consolidated financial
statements, our responsibility is to read the other
information and, in doing so, consider whether the other
information is materially inconsistent with the consolidated
financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit,
or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on
the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a
material misstatement of this other information, we are
required to report that fact. We have nothing to report
in this regard.
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 consolidated financial statements
and our audit knowledge. We have nothing material to add or
draw attention to in relation to:
• the directors’ confirmation within the Longer Term
Viability Statement (page 37) 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 or liquidity;
• the emerging and principal risks disclosures describing
these risks and explaining how they are being managed
or mitigated;
• the directors’ explanation in the Longer Term Viability
Statement (page 37) as to how they have assessed the
prospects of the Group, over what period they have done
so and why they consider 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.
We are also required to review the Longer Term Viability
Statement, set out on page 37 under the Listing Rules. Based
on the above procedures, we have concluded that the above
disclosures are materially consistent with the consolidated
financial statements and our audit knowledge.
6564
Strategic Report Governance Report Financial Statements Additional Information