Explorer

The issuer generated revenue through two types of transactions: Method A and Method B. The issuer calculated Method B revenue by multiplying the number of products delivered by the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue which was provided to the issuer by an unrelated party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance of the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue used to calculate Method B revenue as the Method A price was inconsistent with the stated Method B product pricing terms defined by an agreement between the issuer and the unrelated party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing a sample of transactions. For certain of the transactions it selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's contracts with its customers included any terms that could have had an effect on revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recorded revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked and provided by external parties. The firm used these data in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of these data. (AS 1105.04 and 06)

For certain revenue the issuer used third-party platforms to provide services to its customers. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain revenue recognition criteria to satisfy the performance obligation for these services before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used information it obtained from an external party to record revenue for services provided to its customers. The firm obtained this information from the issuer and used it in its substantive procedures to test this revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the information beyond validating that the issuer had not made any changes to the information after obtaining it from the external party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For both types of revenue at one of the issuer's business units the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized for certain transactions that the firm selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain customer contracts the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

The firm's approach for testing one type of revenue included performing tests of details for a sample of transactions from one day during the year. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the population of transactions in the remaining days of the year. (AS 2315.24)

The firm's approach for testing one type of revenue included performing tests of details for a sample of transactions from one day during the year. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the transaction price for the sample of transactions because it limited its procedures to testing that the issuer received certain cash. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's approach for testing a second type of revenue included performing tests of details for a sample of transactions. The firm identified differences in its testing for certain transactions. The firm did not (1) consider the nature and cause of the differences; (2) project the differences to the remaining revenue population; and (3) evaluate the results and take appropriate action. (AS 2315.26 .27 and .28)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test a third type of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into agreements with counterparties some of whom were related parties to provide services to the issuer's customers. The issuer charged the counterparties a nonrefundable fee which the issuer recorded as revenue at the time of the agreement for facilitating the arrangement between the counterparty and the customer. The firm did not evaluate whether all of the criteria for revenue recognition under FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition had been met including whether (1) services had been performed and (2) collectability was reasonably assured. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test revenue recognition beyond documenting invoices were checked for certain revenue transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test revenue beyond documenting invoices were checked for total revenue. (AS 2301.08)

In addition the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue because it limited its procedures to tracing a sample of revenue transactions to issuer-prepared invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's restated revenue disclosures discussed. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue because it limited its procedures to tracing a sample of revenue transactions to issuer-prepared invoices. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether certain revenue recognition criteria had been met including whether delivery had occurred and collectability was reasonably assured. (AS 2301.08)

The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the occurrence of certain revenue because the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been met prior to the recognition of the revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the sufficiency of the issuer's disclosures regarding certain of its revenue recognition policies. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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