Explorer

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test one type of revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used external data in developing its expectation but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of that data. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included performing a substantive analytical procedure. The firm used external data in developing its expectation but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of that data. (AS 2305.16)

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: · The firm's analytical procedures consisted of calculating the issuer's gross margin. These procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not (1) develop an expectation and (2) establish a threshold for investigation of differences from the expectation. (AS 2305.17 and .20)

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 the analytical procedures the firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and.14)

With respect to certain revenue at the remaining business units (“other revenue”) the firm did not evaluate whether the risks of material misstatement that the firm associated with certain revenue at the first business unit that was subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to this other revenue. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

The firm subjected this type of revenue from certain other business units to less extensive audit procedures. In determining the extent to which audit procedures should be performed the firm did not evaluate (1) the materiality of these business units (2) the specific risks associated with these business units and (3) whether the risks of material misstatement that the firm identified for the business unit subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to these business units. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

For another business unit the issuer contracted with an external party to manufacture and sell products on behalf of the issuer and recognized the associated revenue based on information it obtained from this external party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's procedures to test the completeness of this revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The issuer disclosed in its financial statements that it recognized revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's recognition of revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's financial statements included sufficient disclosures of the risks and uncertainties related to its revenue and related activities in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 275 Risks and Uncertainties and other relevant standards. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to determine whether any of the revenue and related activities were with related parties. (AS 2410.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue on the percentage-of-completion basis. To test this revenue the firm selected a sample of open projects. For the selected open projects the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining issuer-produced documentation to test the transaction price at contract inception. (CAS 330.6)

The issuer disclosed the amounts of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test this disclosure. The firm did not determine whether the expectation it used in this analytical procedure was based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The firm's substantive procedures to test an assumption used to recognize revenue included substantive analytical procedures. In performing these procedures the firm did not develop expectations at a level of precision that provided the desired level of assurance that differences that could be potential material misstatements individually or in the aggregate would be identified for investigation. (AS 2305.17)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain other revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm did not accurately calculate its expected revenue and the recorded revenue amounts used in these analytical procedures. Further the threshold that the firm established to investigate differences was too high to identify misstatements that could be material either individually or in the aggregate. (AS 2305.16 and .20)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm did not determine whether the expectations used in these substantive analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships. Further the expectations the firm used were not sufficiently precise to identify differences that could be potential material misstatements individually or in the aggregate because the data used to develop the expectations did not address important factors that the issuer disclosed as having an effect on sales. (AS 2305.13 .14 and .17)

With respect to a third type of revenue the firm's substantive procedures included performing substantive analytical procedures. The threshold that the firm established to investigate differences was too high to identify misstatements that could be material either individually or in the aggregate. (AS 2305.20)

With respect to a third type of revenue the firm's substantive procedures included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm identified certain differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not obtain any evidential matter to corroborate the differences. (AS 2305.21)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these locations the firm's substantive procedures to test these sales deductions consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm identified differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not evaluate these differences beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2305.21)

The firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test certain revenue deductions. The firm did not determine whether the expectation used in this substantive analytical procedure was based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The firm's substantive analytical procedures over revenue were insufficient because: · The firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships (AS 2305.13 and .14)

With respect to the issuer's disclosures related to revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 related to the issuer's remaining performance obligations. The firm did not appropriately evaluate whether this uncorrected misstatement was material because the firm understated its projected misstatement. (AS 2810.17)

The issuer had an agreement to market products sold by another party and recognized revenue when the other party sold those products. The firm did not evaluate whether revenue was recognized in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 including whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations under the terms of the agreement. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer leased equipment that it then subleased to its customers. The issuer issued common stock to the lessor as payment on the lease with an opportunity for the lessor to earn additional shares of the issuer's stock if revenue milestones were met. The issuer recognized revenue from the sublease agreements net of payments to its lessor. The firm did not evaluate the agreements between the issuer and the lessor and the issuer and its customers to determine whether the issuer had an obligation to (1) its customer if the lessor canceled the lease agreement or (2) the lessor if the revenue milestones were met in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not evaluate whether the revenue transactions selected for testing were recognized in in accordance with the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm limited its procedures to evaluating the transactions under FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · With respect to the substantive analytical procedure for the first type of revenue the firm did not develop expectations that were sufficiently precise to identify potential material misstatements because it did not consider factors that significantly affected the amounts being audited. (AS 2305.17)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · With respect to the substantive analytical procedure for the second type of revenue the firm identified differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not evaluate these differences beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2305.21)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business units. In determining the extent to which audit procedures over revenue should be performed at certain business units the firm did not evaluate whether (1) specific risks of material misstatement existed at these business units and (2) the risks of material misstatement the firm identified for the business units subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to these business units such that in combination they presented a reasonable possibility of material misstatement. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

With respect to Revenue which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The performed other substantive analytical procedures as part of its testing of certain revenue. The firm used data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue to develop its expectations but did not evaluate whether this data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 2305.16)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions and performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · In performing the substantive analytical procedures the firm did not evaluate whether the relationship between cash receipts and revenue was sufficiently predictable. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm did not (1) evaluate whether prior period revenue was sufficiently predictive of revenue for the year and (2) develop certain other expectations it used in these analytical procedures based on industry revenue growth data at a level of precision to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2305.13 .14 and .17)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The expectations the firm used were not sufficiently precise to identify differences that could be potential material misstatements individually or in the aggregate because the firm did not disaggregate the data used to develop the expectations to address important factors that have an effect on the recognition of the revenue. (AS 2305.17)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The expectations the firm used were not sufficiently precise because although disaggregated the firm's procedures consisted of comparisons of amounts and certain ratios to prior years without determining whether the prior-year amounts and ratios were sufficiently predictive of current-year amounts and ratios. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not establish an amount of difference from the expectation that could be accepted without further investigation. (AS 2305.20)

For investment income the firm's substantive procedures consisted of performing analytical procedures using certain issuer data or data from a third-party service provider. For the analytical procedures the firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships and whether its expectations of interest rates based on the trend over several previous years were sufficiently precise. (AS 2305.13 .14 and .17).

For investment income the firm's substantive procedures consisted of performing analytical procedures using certain issuer data or data from a third-party service provider. The firm did not evaluate whether the data used in the analytical procedures was sufficiently reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included substantive analytical procedures. The firm used external data and data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue to develop its expectation. The firm did not evaluate whether the external data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objective beyond obtaining an understanding of the source of the data. (AS 2305.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met its performance obligations before certain revenue from related parties was recognized. (AS 2410.17)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's financial statement presentation of revenue on a gross versus net basis. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm used certain sales data to develop its expectations but did not test the accuracy of these data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer recognizes revenues from product sales. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations. (AS 2810.30)

The component entered into long-term contractual arrangements with customers for products and services and management represented that contracts generally contained one performance obligation. The firm did not evaluate whether contracts contained multiple performance obligations and if they did whether revenue was appropriately allocated to each distinct performance obligation and recognized only when the related performance obligations were satisfied. (AS 2810.33)

In its analytical procedures over revenue the firm did not (1) evaluate the plausibility and predictability of the relationship among the data used in developing the revenue expectations (2) establish thresholds for investigating differences from expectations and (3) perform procedures to evaluate differences identified beyond inquiries of management. (AS 2305.13 .14 .20 and .21)

With respect to service agreements with other parties the issuer prepared monthly schedules of its revenue earned from those agreements. The firm did not evaluate the inconsistency of certain data between the schedules the service agreements and the financial statement disclosures. (AS 2810.03)

In addition the firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test this revenue. The firm developed its expectations for revenue using external data. The firm did not evaluate whether this data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objective. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included two substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For both substantive analytical procedures the firm used certain information obtained from an external source to develop its expectations but did not evaluate the reliability of this information. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included two substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these substantive analytical procedures the firm developed its expectation based on certain information obtained from another external source but did not evaluate whether this information was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 2305.16)

The firm did not evaluate whether certain contracts constituted transactions with related parties requiring disclosure within the financial statements; (AS 2410.14 and .17)

The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. The firm's primary substantive procedures to test franchise royalty revenue were analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: • The expectation the firm used was not sufficiently precise in identifying material misstatements because the firm did not sufficiently disaggregate the data it used in its procedure to address important factors such as the number of franchisees and differences between franchisee sales and company-owned sales. (AS 2305.17)

The firm selected certain revenue transactions for testing. The firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in its substantive analytical procedures over revenue were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

One of the issuer's categories of revenue consisted of transactions with an entity that was indirectly owned by a member of managements immediate family and other unrelated parties. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the revenue constituted related party transactions and If so were property disclosed in the financial statements. (AS 2410.14-.17; AS 2810.30 and .31)