Explorer

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the amounts reflected in certain of the issuer's revenue disclosures were accurate and complete beyond performing non-substantive analytical procedures. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the transaction price because it did not evaluate whether the promised consideration included variable consideration. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to certain revenue the firm did not test whether (1) a contractual arrangement was entered into with the customer (2) the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue (3) the issuer had rights and obligations to the customer payments and (4) the rate charged to the customer was in accordance with the terms of the arrangement. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of external data it used to test this revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not evaluate the accuracy of the issuer's disclosure regarding the timing of when certain revenue was recognized including consideration of contrary evidence included in the firm's audit work papers. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not evaluate whether a promised good related to this revenue was a separate performance obligation. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not determine that the population of sales commission data from which the sample was drawn was appropriate for the specific audit objective of testing recorded revenue. (AS 2315.17)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had recognized revenue in the proper period because for certain of the revenue transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue had been recognized after the specific products ordered were received by the customers. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's contracts contained multiple performance obligations. The firm selected a sample of contracts for testing. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations for the contracts selected with multiple performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's contracts contained multiple performance obligations. The firm selected a sample of contracts for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test that performance obligations were satisfied for certain of the contracts because the firm limited its procedures to obtaining reports from the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For one type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the underlying contracts represented contracts with an identifiable customer in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain external information it used to test two types of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and.06)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain external information it used to test revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's (1) determination of transaction price and (2) allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation because the firm did not evaluate the effect of a sales discount on the transaction price and did not test the SSPs used to allocate revenue to the separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain other revenue over the performance period. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations because the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the performance period. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

With respect to Revenue other than the contract for one customer the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the issuer's contracts with customers to evaluate revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer adopted FASB Topic ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers during the year under audit. The firm did not perform procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the significant judgments made by the issuer in the application of FASB ASC Topic 606 including the appropriateness of the issuer's determination that consideration did not need to be allocated to certain performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected certain revenue contracts for testing. The firm did not identify and test whether all relevant performance obligations for revenue recognition had been met for those contracts selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

For another type of revenue the firm selected transactions for testing that met certain criteria. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population that was not included in the selections. (AS 1105.27)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue beyond comparing it to prior year revenue and comparing certain revenue to the issuer's information system. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's revenue recognition policies were in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2301.08)

For the majority of certain revenue the issuer concluded that there was a single performance obligation. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether certain services offered as part of those transactions represented separate performance obligations because the firm concluded they were not separate performance obligations since the issuer had not performed the services during the year and did not evaluate whether the issuer would perform the services as part of completing the transactions. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

For the majority of certain revenue the issuer concluded that there was a single performance obligation. The firm did not sufficiently test the transaction price because it did not evaluate whether the promised consideration included a variable amount. (AS 2301.08)

For the majority of certain revenue the issuer concluded that there was a single performance obligation. The issuer identified one transaction with multiple performance obligations. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the firm did not obtain an understanding of the specific terms and provisions of the contracts to evaluate whether the issuer appropriately recognized revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue beyond comparing certain transactions to issuer-prepared documentation and cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue beyond comparing it to a schedule provided by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm performed procedures to test one revenue transaction. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the remaining revenue transactions beyond tracing them to cash receipts and for certain of these transactions to certain fee information provided by customers for which the firm traced the underlying fee rates to customer contracts. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain evidence included in the work papers that indicated the issuer may have recognized revenue on the cash basis of accounting. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm selected key item transactions for testing revenue. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test those transactions beyond comparing them to invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected key item transactions for testing revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenues beyond obtaining certain issuer-produced reports and reports from external sources. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue beyond obtaining certain external reports and issuer-produced reports. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue beyond obtaining sales reports from external parties and a contract review analysis prepared by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of transactions for certain types of revenue. The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining invoices and cash receipts to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of a report from an external source that it used to test another type of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test another type of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to perform certain procedures to test revenue including (1) analyzing the amount of inventory held by distributors at year-end (2) testing cash disbursements to distributors and (3) agreeing revenue transactions to cash receipts. The firm did not perform procedures (1) and (3) and for (2) limited its testing of cash disbursements to distributors to those made subsequent to year-end. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's selected a sample of transactions to test certain revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether certain of these transactions were appropriately recognized as revenue. Further for certain other transactions the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the related revenue because it limited its procedures to vouching to cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain issuer-prepared information used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

In the firm's tests of details of revenue for one of the issuer's segments which recorded revenue at the date of shipment the firm did not identify and evaluate for multiple transactions selected for testing the significant differences between the date of shipment and the date revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue from contracts that provided preferred pricing to certain customers including procedures to (1) identify and evaluate any contract terms that would affect revenue recognition and (2) evaluate whether the prices charged were consistent with the customer contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue from contracts that provided preferred pricing to certain customers including procedures to (1) identify and evaluate any contract terms that would affect revenue recognition and (2) evaluate whether the prices charged were consistent with the customer contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures which consisted of comparisons of monthly revenue to the prior-month revenue. These analytical procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not (1) determine whether the prior-period amounts could be expected to be predictive of the current-period amounts and (2) include the first month of the year under audit in its analytical procedures. Further the firm used a threshold for investigation of differences that was inconsistent with the desired level of assurance because it did not consider the possibility that a combination of misstatements could aggregate to an unacceptable amount. (AS 2301.08; AS 2305.13 .14 and .20)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of this revenue the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of certain data it used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · For this revenue at one business unit the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete open contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · Fir certain other revenue at this business unit the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether revenue was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the transactions selected for testing the firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual terms. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions (2) testing a sample of accounts receivable and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the transactions selected for testing which included multiple services provided to the customer the firm did not evaluate whether multiple performance obligations existed in the associated contract that would affect whether this revenue was appropriately recognized. (AS 2301.08)