text:
Emergency evacuation

Emergency evacuation is an immediate egress or escape of people away from an area that contains an imminent threat, an ongoing threat or a hazard to lives or property.

Examples range from the small-scale evacuation of a building due to a storm or fire to the large-scale evacuation of a city because of a flood, bombardment or approaching weather system, especially a tropical cyclone. In situations involving hazardous materials or possible contamination, evacuees may be decontaminated prior to being transported out of the contaminated area. Evacuation planning is an important aspect of business management of which emergency evacuation forms a part.

Reasons

Evacuations may be carried out before, during, or after disasters such as:

 * Natural disasters
 * Eruptions of volcanoes
 * Tropical cyclones
 * Floods
 * Earthquakes
 * Tsunamis
 * Wildfires/Bushfires
 * Industrial accidents
 * Chemical spill
 * Nuclear accident
 * Transport
 * Road accidents
 * Train wreck
 * Emergency aircraft evacuation
 * Fires
 * Industrial fires
 * Military attacks
 * Bombings
 * Terrorist attacks
 * Military battles
 * Imminent nuclear war
 * Structural failure
 * Viral outbreak
 * Robbery
 * Plane crash

Planning
Emergency evacuation plans are developed to ensure the safest and most efficient evacuation time of all expected residents of a structure, city, or region. A benchmark "evacuation time" for different hazards and conditions is established. These benchmarks can be established through using best practices, regulations, or using simulations, such as modeling the flow of people in a building, to determine the benchmark. Proper planning will use multiple exits, contra-flow lanes, and special technologies to ensure full, fast and complete evacuation. Consideration for personal situations which may affect an individual's ability to evacuate is taken into account, including alarm signals that use both aural and visual alerts, and also evacuation equipment such as sleds, pads, and chairs for non-ambulatory people. Considering the persons with a disability during an emergency evacuation is important. This is because it is crucial that every user gets out of the building or to a safe place in the building, thus also the persons with disabilities or the non- ambulatory people. Regulations such as building codes can be used to minimize the negative consequences of the threat triggering the evacuation and optimize the need to self-evacuate without causing alarm. Proper planning, that covers designated actions to ensure safety of the users in emergencies, will implement an all-hazards approach so that plans can be reused for multiple hazards that could exist.

Therefore, key elements for emergency planning and preparedness are early warnings for the people inside the building by emergency helpers but also voice assistance, facilities to leave the building safe and fast, such as exit routes and good evacuation practices. The evacuation managing team must know what to do in emergency situations and which actions to take.

Sequence
The sequence of an evacuation can be divided into the following phases: The time for the first four phases is usually called pre-movement time.
 * 1) detection
 * 2) decision
 * 3) alarm
 * 4) reaction
 * 5) movement to an area of refuge or an assembly station
 * 6) transportation

The particular phases are different for different objects, e.g., for ships a distinction between assembly and embarkation (to boats or rafts) is made. These are separate from each other. The decision whether to enter the boats or rafts is thus usually made after assembly is completed.

Small-scale
The strategy of individuals in evacuating buildings was investigated by John Abrahams in 1994. The independent variables were the complexity of the building and the movement ability of the individuals. With increasing complexity and decreasing motion ability, the strategy changes from "fast egress", through "slow egress" and "move to safe place inside building" (such as a staircase), to "stay in place and wait for help". The third strategy is the notion of using a designated "safe haven" on the floor. This is a section of the building that is reinforced to protect against specific hazards, such as fire, smoke or structural collapse. Some hazards may have safe havens on each floor, while a hazard such as a tornado, may have a single safe haven or safe room. Typically persons with limited mobility are requested to report to a safe haven for rescue by first responders. In most buildings, the safe haven will be in the stairwell.

By investing the strategy of individuals in evacuating buildings, the variable human reactions is a complex factor to take into account during an evacuation. This is a critical factor for escaping fast out of the building or to a "safe haven". During an emergency evacuation, people do not immediately react after hearing the alarm signal. This is because an evacuation drill is more common. Therefore, they will start evacuating when there is more information given about the degree of danger. During an evacuation, people often use the most known escape route, this is often the route through which they entered the building. Thereby, people mostly adapt the role follower in emergencies. These human reactions will determinate the strategy of individuals in evacuating buildings.

The most common equipment in buildings to facilitate emergency evacuations are fire alarms, exit signs, and emergency lights. Some structures need special emergency exits or fire escapes to ensure the availability of alternative escape paths. Commercial passenger vehicles such as buses, boats, and aircraft also often have evacuation lighting and signage, and in some cases windows or extra doors that function as emergency exits. Commercial emergency aircraft evacuation is also facilitated by evacuation slides and pre-flight safety briefings. Military aircraft are often equipped with ejection seats or parachutes. Water vessels and commercial aircraft that fly over water are equipped with personal flotation devices and life rafts.

Since the emergence of The Internet of Things technologies, new techniques are appearing, which involves new equipment. Most of them are wireless devices such as IDs scanner, beacons or backscatter system. The new techniques are for example based on a communication protocol such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, UWB or RFID and the use of indoor positioning system. The use of The Internet of Things technologies in small scale evacuations can result in a faster evacuation time: Mostly by localizing the fire sources, analysing the fire spreading inside the building or finding people that are trapped inside the building. Some buildings can have a monitoring interface that provides all these kind of information to evacuate in the best way possible.

Large-scale
The evacuation of districts is part of disaster management. Many of the largest evacuations have been in the face of wartime military attacks. Modern large scale evacuations are usually the result of natural disasters. The largest peacetime evacuations in the United States to date occurred during Hurricane Gustav and the category-5 Hurricane Rita (2005) in a scare one month after the flood-deaths of Hurricane Katrina.

Hurricanes

Despite mandatory evacuation orders, many people did not leave New Orleans, United States, as Hurricane Katrina approached. Even after the city was flooded and uninhabitable, some people still refused to leave their homes.

The longer a person has lived in a coastal area, the less likely they are to evacuate. A hurricane's path is difficult to predict. Forecasters know about hurricanes days in advance, but their forecasts of where the storm will hit are only educated guesses. Hurricanes give a lot of warning time compared to most disasters humans experience. This allows forecasters and officials to "cry wolf," making people take evacuation orders less seriously. Hurricanes can be predicted to hit a coastal town many times without the town ever actually experiencing the brunt of a storm. If evacuation orders are given too early, the hurricane can change course and leave the evacuated area unscathed. People may think they have weathered hurricanes before, when in reality the hurricane didn't hit them directly, giving them false confidence. Those who have lived on the coast for ten or more years are the most resistant to evacuating.

Public transportation
Since Hurricane Katrina, there has been an increase in evacuation planning. Current best practices include the need to use multi-modal transportation networks. Hurricane Gustav used military airlift resources to facilitate evacuating people out of the affected area. More complex evacuation planning is now being considered, such as using elementary schools as rally points for evacuation. In the United States, elementary schools are usually more numerous in a community than other public structures. Their locations and inherent design to accommodate bus transportation makes it an ideal evacuation point.

Enforcement
In the United States, a person usually cannot be forced to evacuate. To facilitate voluntary compliance with mandatory evacuation orders first responders and disaster management officials have used creative techniques such as asking people for the names and contact of their next-of-kin, writing their Social Security Numbers on their limbs and torso to enable identification of remains, and refusing to provide government services in the affected area, including emergency services.

Kits
In preparation for emergency evacuation situations, experts often advise having an individual emergency evacuation kit prepared and on hand prior to the emergency. An emergency evacuation kit is a container of food, clothing, water, and other supplies that can be used to sustain an individual during lag time. Lag time is the period between the actual occurrence of an emergency and when organized help becomes available, generally 72 hours, though this can vary from a few hours to several days. It may take this long for authorities to get evacuation shelters fully up and functional. During this time, evacuees may suffer fairly primitive conditions; no clean water, heat, lights, toilet facilities, or shelter. An emergency evacuation kit, or 72-hour kit, can help evacuees to endure the evacuation experience with dignity and a degree of comfort.

Cyber-physical systems
The development of digital infrastructure resources opened a new research area in the design of cyber-physical systems to provide the individual with safer options during an emergency evacuation.

title: Emergency evacuation


text:
Talk:Queen's Gambit

3.e3
The trap 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3 "only" wins a piece, not a rook. Black can play 6...Nc6 7.Qxc6+ Bd7. Still Dbenbenn should be credited for his wikifying of the page. 129.177.61.123 12:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My bad. I'm not a chess expert.  If you haven't done so already, feel free to clarify this point within the article.  dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are not a chess expert what are you doing editing a chess article in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.118 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What if black defends the pawn with his bishop : 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. e3 be2 ? The pawn is hard to win back and the bishop also prevents white trying qc3.
 * First, if White wants his pawn back instantly after 3....Be6 he can play 4.Qa4+. On the other hand if White just develops normally and stays a pawn down he should have enough compensation. The bishop on e6 is misplaced, blocking the e-pawn and if White gets a knight to g5 or f4 it will probably have to move and let go of the pawn. When I checked this database and entered the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6, I found 96 games, in fact Black has won a fair number of them. Sadly this database is prone to downtime, if you get 0 games it is probably down for maintenance. Sjakkalle 08:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC).

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 (3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 is the main line) Be6?! (3...e5! with the idea 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Be6= is usual) 4.Qa4+(?), I believe Black can keep the pawn with 4...c6! and if 5 Bxc4?? b5! Sjakkalle is right about the possibility of White playing normally instead, treating the line as a true gambit where Black's bishop is misplaced. If White wants the pawn back ASAP, I think 4.Na3 does the trick. Krakatoa 05:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Be6!? 4. Ne2 gives good compensation for white. Eventually, white will get his pawn back and that eventually is actually quite soon, especially after Qa4+ and/or Na3, both pressuring the c pawn. If black still tries to keep the pawn, either he/she will lose material or lose time (be behind in development). After 2... dxc4 3. e3, black should play 3...e5!, taking control of the center. Now, if white plays the central variation, the pawn on e4 would block the h1 to a8 diagonal so 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3. Anyways, white gets good compensation no matter what. It is also known that it is very risky for black to accept the queen's gambit. His best choice would be to decline it with 2... c6, the Slav defense (though 2...e6, the orthodox variation works just fine. 2...Nc6 is an interesting try as well). And by the way, the database that was posted a few posts before is not there anymore, so people, don't click the link or it will say "page not found". Person who made this post is anonymous and doesn't have a wikipedia account. 04:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Contested move request
''The following request to move a page has been added to Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.'' —Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Queen's Gambit -> Queen's gambit Rationale: Naming conventions — game moves are not proper nouns (except inasmuch as they contain one, e.g. "Johnson's bluff", versus "johnson's bluff" or more to the point "Johnson's Bluff"). —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All other articles in Category:Chess openings are capitalised, suggesting that they are all treated as proper nouns. --Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because a mistake has been made in more than one article doesn't make it a non-mistake. —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator is incorrect: "Queen's Gambit" is a proper noun and is correctly captitalized. The page should not be moved. Quale 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Game names themselves are not proper nouns (e.g. "chess, billiards and hockey", not "Chess, Billiards and Hockey"), so elements in the games are not proper nouns either. To suggest that they are is akin to suggesting that though "the human body" is not a proper noun, its parts, ailments, etc. are ("Knees, Blood and Arthritis").  Let's not be silly. —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. Look up Queen's Gambit in any reference.  It is always capitalized.  It's not a question of silliness, it's a question of correctness.  I should note that in the past (through the early 20th century) it was common for writers to capitalize the piece names themselves, "Queen" instead of "queen".  This is no longer common.  The names of opening variations remain capitalized always, and there's no evidence that this will change.  Quale 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You actually point out, unintentionally, why this argument is fallacious. It formerly was very common in English to "Germanize" nouns by capitalizing them just for the heck of it (any review of turn-of-last-century advertising materials will clearly demonstrate this). The somewhat common continued capitalization of things like "Queen's Gambit" in the context of chess is simply a lingering holdover of this otherwise mostly abandoned phenomenon (even abandoned by other sports and games; no one writes "Massé Shot" or "Hole-in-One" any longer), and the fact that chess fans like to continue to do it doesn't make it grammatical at all, any more than it is grammatical to spell "you" as "U" just because millions of Internet gamers like to do that. Chess's horse is not so high that articles about it on Wikipedia can ignore English grammar standards in favor of fannish quirks. —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I pointed it out quite intentionally.  You need to get off your high horse.  Articles in WikiPedia are titled with the names which are most commonly used in English.  Chess opening names are not just occasionally capitalized or often capitalized, they are always capitalized.  This is absolutely universal.  Provide some contrary evidence or go away—you are tedious. Quale 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Found all of the following in about 90 seconds; not exactly "universal", eh? Granted none of these are reference works, but if I turn up this many breakings with 1800s-style tradition, I'd been utterly shocked if at least one reliable book on the topic didn't also use proper modern grammar. That said, I have better things to do that spend hours in a library to prove a point that will probably get shouted down anyway because no one is going to read this other than chess fans who tend to be traditionalists; grammar sticklers are unlikely to notice this discussion and back up my side of the debate.  I've said my piece and made my point, and am moving on.
 * "Queen's gambit"; interestingly, it does this with all openings other than those that are proper names, such as the Ruy Lopez (see below)
 * "Used against the queen's gambit..."
 * "An irregular acceptance of the queen's gambit leads to..."
 * "Queen's gambit..."
 * "Used against the queen's gambit..."
 * —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked one of the links, namely http://www.johnpratt.com/items/chess/menu.html and found on that page "Two Knights Defense", "Four Knights opening", "Center Game", and "Giuoco Piano", all capitalized as is customary except for the Four Knights opening, which should be Four Knights Game or Four Knights Opening. It's likely that "queen's gambit" on that page is a typo, as is not surprising given that there's no evidence that the page had any professional editing done on it.  I suspect the same is true for the other pages you list.  Google guesstimates about 440,000 hits for "queen's gambit".  Although google hit estimates aren't very accurate, there are a lot of uses of Queen's Gambit on the internet so it isn't surprising to find some typos and some people who aren't familiar with the customary orthography used in English for chess opening names.  In addition to all chess references (see chess opening for some examples), even non-chess references use Queen's Gambit.  See the 1984 Collier's Encyclopedia for one example. Quale 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I emphatically agree with Quale. What's next -- the Ruy lopez? Krakatoa 05:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That really is silly. Lopez, like any other surname, is a proper noun, by definition. —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Quale and Krakatoa. Virtually all chess related literature treats the name of chess openings as proper nouns, and they should therefore be capitalized. OK, if Ruy Lopez was a bad example, then compare it to "New York City", as opposed to "New York city". Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Quayle, Karkatoa, and Sjakkalle. I checked 8 or 10 authoratative paper books, and they all used caps for Gambit, Opening, Defense, and Game in the names of openings. Bubba73 (talk), 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with myself, you all need to get out more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.110.98 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnability (if that's a word)
Doesn't d4 win more than e4? That's pretty significant, seeing as e4 is commonly perceived as the most popular opening. My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are essentially correct on both counts. 1.e4 is played more than 1.d4, but 1.d4 scores almost 2% better. See ChessGames.com Opening Explorer. In ChessGames' database, 1.d4 actually wins 0.5% less than 1.e4, but 1.d4 loses almost 3.7% less than 1.e4. 1.c4 is the best-scoring major opening move. (Some unusual opening moves - 1.g4, 1.h3, and the dreaded Sodium Attack (1.Na3) - score much better in the database, but in far fewer games.) Krakatoa (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that percentage sounds right. I read that d4 is more successful than e4, but only because of the power of the Sicilian Defence for black. I prefer d4 openings in general.My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The slight difference doesn't mean you have to change your full strategy. First of all, the Sicilian Defense is equally powerful and sharp for white as well as black (look at the pawn storms white sends down the kingside. White doesn't just do that in the Dragon Variation. 1. e4 openings are for the people who like to attack from the beginning up or for white, try a lot harder to exploit his/her first-move advantage (like the Ruy Lopez). This is especially because the light-squared bishop and knight are both good at targeting the weak f7 square (that it why Bc4 is often played). On the Ruy Lopez, however, white "attacks" black's undefended knight. This too leads to active positions. The sicilian defense only makes the attack-counterattack strategy more unbalanced, so black may have more wins, but not really by much. 1. d4 openings are where white seeks a more safer and positional advantage (it is not true that 1. d4 lacks attacking and unbalancing openings, while 1. e4 has all attacking and unbalancing openings), especially with the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Indian Defenses (now the King's Indian and Grunfeld Defense are unique in their own way, but once again, they tend to be positional - maybe not the Grunfeld). The dutch defense has a character pf its own, but is nevertheless rather positional too, but still unbalanced (especially with black's pawn on f5. The "unbalancedment" caused the Staunton Gambit once to be feared, but now it can be neutralized easily, but the Dutch Defense overall is good). The Benoni is once again positional, with black trying to use his own position to advantage, as white has a space advantage. The Benko Gambit is also positional. But nevertheless, never be biased about 1. d4 and 1. e4 openings (even 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 are good and so is 1. f4).

Nitpicking
"The Queen's Gambit is divided into two major categories based on Black's response: The Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA) and the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD)"

This is not true, since (as discussed below) the QGD is specifically the ...e6 category, so the Queen's Gambit is divided into ten categories (those listed, plus "other" for all other legal 2nd moves). It's debatable precisely which ones are "major". I don't have any statistics to hand, but surely the Slav is at least as important as the QGA? 2.25.120.18 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * You're definitely right about the importance of the Slav. In terms of practical play both the Slav and the Orthodox line (commonly called just the QGD) are more important than the QGA.  (Considered theoretically rather than practically this probably isn't true, as if Black was assured to get good chances by accepting there might not be as great a need to find good ways to decline.)  The definition of the QGD has been discussed on Talk:Queen's Gambit Declined.  My view there is that it is reasonable to use the expansive definition of QGD for simple classification purposes, but I understand that often (maybe most often) the narrower definition is used.  The expansive definition reported in the article is used by reliable sources, so unless with think those uses are insignificant (undue weight, and that might be the case here) it should stay in the article.  If we make a change it wouldn't make sense to say that the QG is divided into 10 or 11 major categories, so the statement would need to be reworded significantly or be removed.  It may be that the wording here could be improved without complete replacement, the QGD article says "In its broadest sense, the Queen's Gambit Declined is any variation of the Queen's Gambit in which Black declines to capture White's pawn on c4. Variations other than the Orthodox Line have their own names and are usually treated separately."   When I was growing up the ...e6 lines were called the Orthodox Defense, but today it's probably a lot more common to simply call them the QGD.  Quale (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 2...g6 really Alekhine's Defense? I think its dubious to call it that.
The text lists the rare 2...g6 as Alekhine's Defense. I can find no reference to this on the web. In my database of 4,300,954 games using ChessDB, there's one game by Alekhine with this. (Stahlberg vs Alekhine, 1037) which ended in a draw. In fact, there are only 60 games in total, which is 0.00139504% of the database. In other words, it is very rare, and not noteworthy at all.

Has someone just looked in a database, seen Alekhine was the highest rated player to play it, then decided to call it his Defense? That does not seem a logical thing to do, and there are no references given.

Unless someone can come up with some better evidence, I will remove the name 86.129.194.86 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it in Benjamin's book Unorthodox Openings. He labelled it "Queen's Gambit Declined: Alekhine Idea". Will add the ref. --IHTS (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Queen's Gambit


text:
Auditor's report

An auditor's report is a formal opinion, or disclaimer thereof, issued by either an internal auditor or an independent external auditor as a result of an internal or external audit, as an assurance service in order for the user to make decisions based on the results of the audit.

Auditor's reports are considered essential tools when reporting financial information to users, particularly in business. Many third-party users prefer, or even require financial information to be certified by an independent external auditor. Creditors and investors use audit reports from Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI) to make decisions on financial investments. Audit reports derive value from increasing the credibility of financial statements, which subsequently increases investors' reliance on them. In the government, legislative and anti-corruption entities use audit reports to keep track of the actions of public administrators on behalf of citizens. Therefore auditing reports are a check mechanism on behalf of the citizen, to ensure that public finances, resources and trust are managed in entities created to foster good governance, such as local authorities, government departments, ministries and related government bodies.

Auditor's report on financial statements
It is important to note that auditor reports on financial statements are neither evaluations nor any other similar determination used to evaluate entities in order to make a decision. The report is only an opinion on whether the information presented is correct and free from material misstatements, whereas all other determinations are left for the user to decide.

There are four common types of auditor's reports, each one presenting a different situation encountered during the auditor's work. The four reports are as follows:

Unqualified Opinion
An opinion is said to be unqualified when he or she does not have any significant reservation in respect of matters contained in the Financial Statements. The most frequent type of report is referred to as the "Unqualified Opinion", and is regarded by many as the equivalent of a "clean bill of health" to a patient, which has led many to call it the "Clean Opinion", but in reality it is not a clean bill of health, because the Auditor can only provide reasonable assurance regarding the Financial Statements, not the health of the company itself, or the integrity of company records not part of the foundation of the Financial Statements. This type of report is issued by an auditor when the financial statements are free of material misstatements and are presented fairly in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which in other words means that the company's financial condition, position, and operations are fairly presented in the financial statements. It is the best type of report an auditee may receive from an external auditor.

An Unqualified Opinion indicates the following –

(1) The Financial Statements have been prepared using the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which have been consistently applied;

(2) The Financial Statements comply with relevant statutory requirements and regulations;

(3) There is adequate disclosure of all material matters relevant to the proper presentation of the financial information subject to statutory requirements, where applicable;

(4) Any changes in the accounting principles or in the method of their application and the effects there of have been properly determined and disclosed in the Financial Statements.

The report consists of a title and header, a main body, the auditor's signature and address, and the report's issuance date. US auditing standards require that the title includes "independent" to convey to the user that the report was unbiased in all respects. Traditionally, the main body of the unqualified report consists of three main paragraphs, each with distinct standard wording and individual purpose. Nonetheless, certain auditors (including PricewaterhouseCoopers) have since modified the arrangement of the main body (but not the wording) in order to differentiate themselves from other audit firms, even though such modification is contrary to the clarified US AICPA standards on auditing.

The first paragraph (commonly referred to as the introductory paragraph) states the audit work performed and identifies the responsibilities of the auditor and the auditee in relation to the financial statements. The second paragraph (commonly referred to as the scope paragraph) details the scope of audit work, provides a general description of the nature of the work, examples of procedures performed, and any limitations the audit faced based on the nature of the work. This paragraph also states that the audit was performed in accordance with the country's prevailing generally accepted auditing standards and regulations. The third paragraph (commonly referred to as the opinion paragraph) simply states the auditor's opinion on the financial statements and whether they are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The following is an example of a standard unqualified auditor's report on financial statements as it is used in most countries, using the name ABC Company as an auditee's name. Note that this report is acceptable only for periods ending before December 15, 2012:

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

Board of Directors, Stockholders, Owners, and/or Management of

ABC Company, Inc.

123 Main St.

Anytown, Any Country

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of ABC Company, Inc. (the "Company") as of December 31, 20XX and the related statements of income, retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in (the country where the report is issued). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 20XX, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in (the country where the report is issued).

AUDITOR'S SIGNATURE

Auditor's name and address

Date = Last day of any significant field work This date should not be dated earlier than when the auditor has sufficient audit evidence to support the opinion.

Recently modifications have been made by the PCAOB to the opinion in the independent auditors report. These changes can be attributed to the introduction of SAS No. 122 and SAS No. 123. For periods ending after December 15, 2012, the following is an example of a standard unqualified auditor's report on financial statements as it is used in most countries, using the name ABC Company, which was incorporated in California, as an auditee's name:

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

Board of Directors, Stockholders, Owners, and/or Management of

ABC Company, Inc.

123 Main St.

Anytown, Any Country

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of ABC Company, Inc. (a California corporation), which comprise the balance sheet as of December 31, 20XX, and the related statements of income, retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements.

Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of consolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor's Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Opinion

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of ABC Company, Inc. as of December 31, 20XX, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

AUDITOR'S SIGNATURE

Auditor's name and address

Date = Last day of any significant field work This date should not be dated earlier than when the auditor has sufficient audit evidence to support the opinion.

Qualified Opinion report
Qualified report is given by the auditor in either of these two cases:
 * 1) When the financial statements are materially misstated due to misstatement in one particular account balance, class of transaction or disclosure that does not have pervasive effect on the financial statements.
 * 2) When the auditor is unable to obtain audit evidence regarding particular account balance, class of transaction or disclosure that does not have pervasive effect on the financial statements.

The report is mostly like a Clear Opinion Report and only includes a paragraph viz. Basis for Qualification after Scope paragraph and before Opinion paragraph. Opinion paragraph in addition to its standard wording includes "except for the matter described in Basis for Qualification paragraph the financial statements give true and fair view."

Detailed below:

A Qualified Opinion report is issued when the auditor encountered one of the two types of situations which do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles, however the rest of the financial statements are fairly presented. This type of opinion is very similar to an unqualified or "clean opinion", but the report states that the financial statements are fairly presented with a certain exception which is otherwise misstated. The two types of situations which would cause an auditor to issue this opinion over the Unqualified opinion are:

 * Single deviation from GAAP – this type of qualification occurs when one or more areas of the financial statements do not conform with GAAP (e.g. are misstated), but do not affect the rest of the financial statements from being fairly presented when taken as a whole. Examples of this include a company dedicated to a retail business that did not correctly calculate the depreciation expense of its building. Even if this expense is considered material, since the rest of the financial statements do conform with GAAP, then the auditor qualifies the opinion by describing the depreciation misstatement in the report and continues to issue a clean opinion on the rest of the financial statements.
 * Limitation of scope – this type of qualification occurs when the auditor could not audit one or more areas of the financial statements, and although they could not be verified, the rest of the financial statements were audited and they conform to GAAP. Examples of this include an auditor not being able to observe and test a company's inventory of goods. If the auditor audited the rest of the financial statements and is reasonably sure that they conform with GAAP, then the auditor simply states that the financial statements are fairly presented, with the exception of the inventory which could not be audited.

The wording of the qualified report is very similar to the Unqualified opinion, but an explanatory paragraph is added to explain the reasons for the qualification after the scope paragraph but before the opinion paragraph. The introductory paragraph is left exactly the same as in the unqualified opinion, while the scope and the opinion paragraphs receive a slight modification in line with the qualification in the explanatory paragraph.

The scope paragraph is edited to include the following phrase in the first sentence, so that the user may be immediately aware of the qualification. This placement also informs the user that, except for the qualification, the rest of the audit was performed without qualifications:

 * "Except as discussed in the following paragraph, we conducted our audit..."

The opinion paragraph is also edited to include an additional phrase in the first sentence, so that the user is reminded that the auditor's opinion explicitly excludes the qualification expressed. Depending on the type of qualification, the phrase is edited to either state the qualification and the adjustments needed to correct it, or state the scope limitation and that adjustments could have but not necessarily been required in order to correct it.

For a qualification arising from a deviation from GAAP, the following phrase is added to the opinion paragraph, using the depreciation example mentioned above:
 * "In our opinion, except for the effects of the Company's incorrect determination of depreciation expense, the financial statement referred to in the first paragraph presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of..."

For a qualification arising from a scope of limitation, the following phrase is added to the opinion paragraph, using the inventory example mentioned above:

 * "In our opinion, except for the effects of such adjustments, if any, as might have been determined to be necessary had we been able to perform proper tests and procedures on the Company's inventory, the financial statement referred to in the first paragraph presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of...

Adverse Opinion report
An Adverse Opinion Report is issued on the financial statements of a company when the financial statements are materially misstated and such misstatements have pervasive effect on the financial statements.

An Adverse Opinion is issued when the auditor determines that the financial statements of an auditee are materially misstated and, when considered as a whole,   do not conform with GAAP. It is considered the opposite of an unqualified or clean opinion, essentially stating that the information contained is materially incorrect, unreliable, and inaccurate in order to assess the auditee's financial position and results of operations. Investors, lending institutions, and governments very rarely accept an auditee's financial statements if the auditor issued an adverse opinion, and usually request the auditee to correct the financial statements and obtain another audit report.

Generally, an adverse opinion is only given if the financial statements pervasively differ from GAAP. An example of such a situation would be failure of a company to consolidate a material subsidiary.

The wording of the adverse report is similar to the qualified report. The scope paragraph is modified accordingly and an explanatory paragraph is added to explain the reason for the adverse opinion after the scope paragraph but before the opinion paragraph. However, the most significant change in the adverse report from the qualified report is in the opinion paragraph, where the auditor clearly states that the financial statements are not in accordance with GAAP, which means that they, as a whole, are unreliable, inaccurate, and do not present a fair view of the auditee's position and operations.

 * "In our opinion, because of the situations mentioned above (in the explanatory paragraph), the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph do not present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of..."

Disclaimer of Opinion report
A Disclaimer of Opinion is issued in either of the following cases:

 * When the auditor is not independent or when there is conflict of interest.
 * When the limitation on scope is imposed by client, as a result the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
 * When there are significant uncertainties in the business of client.

The audit report changes significantly when there is Disclaimer of opinion. An additional paragraph "Basis for Disclaimer" is added in audit report which is placed after Scope paragraph and before Opinion paragraph. In Scope paragraph the wording changes to "We were engaged to audit the financial statements of XYZ Co. Ltd." from "We have audited the financial statements of XYZ Co. Ltd." In Opinion paragraph wording changes to "We do not express an opinion on the financial statements of XYZ Co. Ltd. due to situations explained in Basis for Disclaimer paragraph"

A Disclaimer of Opinion, commonly referred to simply as a Disclaimer, is issued when the auditor could not form and consequently refuses to present an opinion on the financial statements. This type of report is issued when the auditor tried to audit an entity but could not complete the work due to various reasons and does not issue an opinion. The disclaimer of opinion report can be traced back to 1949, when the Statement on Auditing Procedure No. 23: Recommendation Made To Clarify Accountant's Representations When Opinion Is Not Expressed was published in order to provide guidance to auditors in presenting a disclaimer.

Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) provide certain situations where a disclaimer of opinion may be appropriate:

 * A lack of independence, or material conflict(s) of interest, exist between the auditor and the auditee (SAS No. 26)
 * There are significant scope limitations, whether intentional or not, which hinder the auditor's work in obtaining evidence and performing procedures (SAS No. 58);
 * There is a substantial doubt about the auditee's ability to continue as a going concern or, in other words, continue operating (SAS No. 59)
 * There are significant uncertainties within the auditee (SAS No. 79).

Although this type of opinion is rarely used, the most common examples where disclaimers are issued include audits where the auditee willfully hides or refuses to provide evidence and information to the auditor in significant areas of the financial statements, where the auditee is facing significant legal and litigation issues in which the outcome is uncertain (usually government investigations), and where the auditee has going concern issues (the auditee may not continue operating in the near future). Investors, lending institutions, and governments typically reject an auditee's financial statements if the auditor disclaimed an opinion, and will request the auditee to correct the situations the auditor mentioned and obtain another audit report.

A disclaimer of opinion differs substantially from the rest of the auditor's reports because it provides very little information regarding the audit itself, and includes an explanatory paragraph stating the reasons for the disclaimer. Although the report still contains the letterhead, the auditee's name and address, the auditor's signature and address, and the report's issuance date, every other paragraph is modified extensively, and the scope paragraph is entirely omitted since the auditor is basically stating that an audit could not be realized.

In the introductory paragraph, the first phrase changes from "We have audited" to "We were engaged to audit" in order to let the user know that the auditee commissioned an audit, but does not mention that the auditor necessarily completed the audit. Additionally, since the audit was not completely and/or adequately performed, the auditor refuses to accept any responsibility by omitting the last sentence of the paragraph. The scope paragraph is omitted in its entirety since, effectively, no audit was performed. Similar to the qualified and the adverse opinions, the auditor must briefly discuss the situations for the disclaimer in an explanatory paragraph. Finally, the opinion paragraph changes completely, stating that an opinion could not be formed and is not expressed because of the situations mentioned in the previous paragraphs.

The following is a draft of the three main paragraphs of a disclaimer of opinion because of inadequate accounting records of an auditee, which is considered a significant scope of limitation:

We were engaged to audit the accompanying balance sheet of ABC Company, Inc. (the "Company") as of December 31, 20XX and the related statements of income and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

''The Company does not maintain adequate accounting records to provide sufficient information for the preparation of the basic financial statements. The Company's accounting records do not constitute a double-entry system which can produce financial statements.''

Because of the significance of the matters discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the scope of our work was not sufficient to enable us to express, and we do not express, an opinion of the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph.

Auditor's report on internal controls of public companies
Following the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established in order to monitor, regulate, inspect, and discipline audit and public accounting firms of public companies. The PCAOB Auditing Standards No. 2 now requires auditors of public companies to include an additional disclosure in the opinion report regarding the auditee's internal controls, and to opine about the company's and auditor's assessment on the company's internal controls over financial reporting. These new requirements are commonly referred to as the COSO Opinion.

The auditor's report is modified to include all necessary disclosures by either presenting the report subsequent to the report on the financial statements, or combining both reports into one auditor's report. The following is an example of the former version of adding a separate report immediately after the auditor's report on financial statements.

Internal control over financial reporting

We have also audited management's assessment, included in the accompanying Management's Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20XX, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission ("COSO").The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assessment and on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management's assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assessment that ABC Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20XX, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by COSO. Furthermore, in our opinion, ABC Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20XX, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by COSO.

Going concern
Going concern is a term which means that an entity will continue to operate in the near future which is generally more than next 12 months, so long as it generates or obtains enough resources to operate. If the auditee is not a going concern, it means that the entity might not be able to sustain itself within the next twelve months. Auditors are required to consider the going concern of an auditee before issuing a report. If the auditee is a going concern, the auditor does not modify his/her report in any way. However, if the auditor considers that the auditee is not a going concern, or will not be a going concern in the near future, then the auditor is required to include an explanatory paragraph before the opinion paragraph or following the opinion paragraph, in the audit report explaining the situation, which is commonly referred to as the going concern disclosure. Such an opinion is called an "unqualified modified opinion".

Unfortunately, many auditors are increasingly reluctant to include this disclosure in their opinions, since it is considered a "self-fulfilling prophecy" by some. This is because a disclosure for a lack of going concern is viewed negatively by investors, lending institutions, and credit agencies, and therefore reduces the chance that the auditee may obtain the capital or borrowing it needs to survive once the disclosure is made. If this situation occurs, the auditee is more likely to stop being a going concern while the auditor loses potential future audit engagements, and so the auditor may be pressured to avoid including a going concern disclosure. In a study performed on 2001 bankruptcies, nearly half (48%) of selected public companies who faced bankruptcy in 2001 did not have a "going concern disclosure" in the previous auditor's reports. Additionally, 12 of the 20 largest bankruptcies in U.S. history occurred between 2001 and 2002 and none of them had a "going concern disclosure" in their previous auditor's report.

As for the actual wording of the auditor's report, when a lack of going concern is determined by the auditor, the disclosure paragraph should state the situation, state the auditor's determination, and state the auditee's plan to correct the situation. The disclosure paragraph should immediately follow the opinion paragraph.

The following is the most widely used format of the paragraph which, in this case, deals with a company that has recurring losses:

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note (X) to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses and has a net capital deficiency. These conditions raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note (X). The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of asset carrying amounts or the amount and classification of liabilities that might result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

Other explanatory information and paragraphs
Although the auditor reports mentioned above are the standard reports for financial statement audits, the auditor may add additional information to the report if it is deemed necessary without changing the overall opinion of the report. Usually, this additional information is included after the opinion paragraph, although some situations require that the additional information be included in paragraphs before the opinion paragraph. The most frequent paragraphs include:

 * Limiting distribution of the report – In some occasions, the audit report is restricted to a specified user and the auditor includes this restriction in the report, such as a report for financial statements made in cash basis which are prepared for tax purposes only, financial statements for a wholly owned subsidiary whose sole user of its financial statements is its parent company, etc.
 * Additional or supplemental information – Certain auditees include additional and/or supplemental information with their financial statements which is not directly related to the financial statements. Examples due to size, time, location, and/or technical constraints. When the main auditor has to rely on another auditor's work, the main auditor may either accept responsibility for the component's information and not modify the audit report, or may choose to disclaim the audit on the specific component, stating that the main auditor did not audit the component, that another auditor audited the component, that the component's audited information is therefore the responsibility of another auditor, and that the main auditor is simply including it in the original auditee's information. If used, this disclaimer is usually included in the introductory paragraph.

Auditor's reports on financial statements in different countries
The auditor's report usually does not vary from country to country, although some countries do require either additional or less wording. In the United States, auditors are required to include in the scope paragraphs a phrase stating that they conducted their audit "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards in the United States of America", and, in the opinion paragraph, state whether the financial statements are presented "in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America". Some countries, such as the Philippines, use similar reports to those issued in the United States, with the exception that second paragraph would state that the audit was conducted in accordance with Philippine Standards on Auditing, and that the financial statements are in accordance with Philippine Financial Reporting Standards.

Opinion shopping
Opinion shopping is a term used by external auditors and, after the Enron and Arthur Andersen accounting scandals, the media and general public refer to auditees who contract or reject auditors based on the type of opinion report they will issue on the auditee. The underlying principles of this concept are that auditees determine the compensation to auditors for their work (called "audit fees") as well as awarding future audit engagements; that such fees are the auditor's main source of income; that certain auditees may try to contract auditors that will issue audit opinions based on the auditees' needs; and that certain auditors are willing to comply with such demands so long as they are assured future audit engagements.

The most common example is an auditee that knows that the current auditor is going to issue a qualified, adverse, or disclaimer of opinion report, who then rescinds the audit engagement before the opinion is issued, and subsequently "shops" for another auditor who is willing to issue an "unqualified" opinion, regardless of any qualifying situations mentioned in the previous sections. However, opinion shopping is not limited to auditees contracting auditors based on issuing opinions. It also includes auditors who are over-pleasing to auditees by issuing unqualified reports without properly auditing, or by simply overlooking material issues affecting the audit. These auditors' objective is to appear much more attractive and easy-going than other auditors in order to secure future audit engagements and fees.

Although the great majority of auditors are not willing to jeopardize their profession and reputation for guaranteed audit fees, there are some that will issue opinions solely based on obtaining or maintaining audit engagements. This includes auditors who knowingly emit unmodified unqualified opinions for auditees who are engaged in illegal activities, auditees who have caused a material limitation of scope, auditees that have a lack of going concern, or auditees who present fraudulent financial statements (e.g. Enron and Arthur Andersen). This situation is a clear conflict of interest which should hinder an auditor's independence and the ability to audit (AICPA Code of Ethics), but some auditors willingly ignore this statute.

Recent laws and industry standards have been implemented in order to correct this situation, which include the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the AICPA's practice-monitoring program and Peer Review Program, which are in some cases voluntary, and in other cases, required.

Other engagements and reports
There are various other audits and evaluations which an external auditor performs in addition to the engagements mentioned in the previous sections, each with their respective standard report(s):

 * Certification audit reports (for example, an ISO 9000 audit report)
 * Compilations (not an audit, but requires a report)
 * Due eiligence
 * Environmental audit report
 * Financial forecasts
 * Filing of a public company's Form 10-Q and Form 10-K
 * Agreed upon procedures
 * Internal audit reports
 * Regulatory inspection reports
 * Review of financial statements (an overview with very limited auditing procedures)
 * Fraud and materiality memo
 * Second opinion
 * XBRL assurance
 * Information security audit, information technology audit or information technology security audit

Report to the audit committee or board
The auditor's report on the financial statements typically provides very limited details on the procedures and findings of the audit. In contrast, auditors provide much more detail to the board of directors or to the audit committee of the board. Beginning in 2002, many countries have tasked the audit committee with primary responsibility over the audit. For example, in the United States, section 204 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 required auditors to communicate certain information to audit committees, which were required to be entirely independent, and also made the audit committee responsible for the auditor's hiring. In August 2012, the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board finalized Auditing Standard No. 16, which requires additional communications to the audit committee.

title: Auditor's report


text: User talk:193.2.94.210

title: User talk:193.2.94.210


text:
Loddon Valley Highway

Loddon Valley Highway runs roughly north-west from Bendigo to Kerang. It constitutes part of the direct route from Melbourne to the popular Murray River holiday areas around Swan Hill.

Route
Loddon Valley Highway commences at the intersection with Murray Valley Highway just south of the fringes of Kerang and heads in a southerly direction as a dual-lane single carriageway rural highway, running parallel to the Loddon River a short distance to the west of the road for much of its length. It continues south through Durham Ox until it reaches Serpentine, where it veers more to the south-east away from the river course, passing through the hills around Eaglehawk on the outskirts of Greater Bendigo, before it eventually terminates at the intersection with Calder Highway in Ironbark, in the north-western suburbs of Bendigo.

History
Within Victoria, the passing of the Country Roads Act of 1912 through the Parliament of Victoria provided for the establishment of the Country Roads Board (later VicRoads) and their ability to declare Main Roads, taking responsibility for the management, construction and care of the state's major roads from local municipalities. Bendigo-Serpentine Road was declared a Main Road from Bendigo to Yarraberb on 20 September 1915, and Loddon Valley Road from Kerang through Durham Ox to Serpentine was declared a Main Road in the 1937/38 financial year.

The passing of the Highways and Vehicles Act of 1924 provided for the declaration of State Highways, roads two-thirds financed by the State government through the Country Roads Board. Loddon Valley Highway was declared a State Highway in 1946, from Kerang via Serpentine to Bendigo, subsuming the original declarations of Loddon Valley Road and Bendigo-Serpentine Road as Main Roads.

Loddon Valley Highway was signed as State Route 141 between Kerang and Bendigo in 1986; with Victoria's conversion to the newer alphanumeric system in the late 1990s, this was replaced by route B260.

The passing of the Road Management Act 2004 granted the responsibility of overall management and development of Victoria's major arterial roads to VicRoads: in 2004, VicRoads re-declared the road as Loddon Valley Highway (Arterial #6630), beginning at Murray Valley Highway at Kerang and ending at Calder Highway in Ironbark, Bendigo.

title: Loddon Valley Highway