Explorer

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance because the firm did not perform procedures to test the assumptions the issuer used to determine the allowance. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance because it limited its procedures to (1) inquiry of management and (2) obtaining documents from the issuer related to promises from its customers to pay the amounts owed without evaluating the authenticity and reliability of those documents. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance because the firm did not perform procedures to test the reasonableness of the reserve percentages used by the issuer to estimate the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

With respect to the issuer's allowance for doubtful accounts the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts at this business unit was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop this allowance. (AS 2501.16)

The following additional deficiency was identified: • The firm's approach to substantively test the allowance for doubtful accounts was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop this allowance. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer did not record an allowance for doubtful accounts based on an assumption. The firm's approach for evaluating the reasonableness of this assumption was to develop an independent expectation of the issuer's assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for an assumption it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and allocated consideration to the deliverables using vendor-specific objective evidence ('VSOE') of fair value or its BESP. The following deficiencies were identified: · In addition the issuer used certain sales order data that it obtained from the revenue system and manually entered into the analyses. The firm did not test or (as discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the completeness of the manually entered sales order data used in the analyses. (AS 2501.11)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer recorded an allowance for expected credit losses related to accounts receivable which was based in part on significant assumptions regarding default rates. The issuer assigned credit rating categories to each receivable based on whether or not the customer had made payments and assigned a default rate to each customer's receivable based on that assigned category which was based on information from an external source. The firm's approach to test the allowance for expected credit losses was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumption used by the issuer related to default rates beyond comparing the rates to data from the external source that the issuer used to develop the rates. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance was to review and test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the allowance. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the firm had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to the expected credit loss rate the issuer used to estimate its allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it developed and used in determining its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not compare its independent expectation to the issuer's recorded allowance for doubtful accounts and evaluate the difference. (AS 2501.26; AS 2810.13)

The issuer's accounts receivable from related and unrelated parties consisted of nonrefundable fees from agreements discussed above which had payment terms beyond one year. The firm did not evaluate the assumptions the issuer used in estimating the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts beyond reading issuer prepared accounts receivable aging schedules. (AS 2501.07)