Explorer

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate (1) whether the issuer's custom products had an alternative use to the issuer and (2) whether the issuer had an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date when evaluating whether the issuer recognized revenue for custom products in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For two types of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its billing rates for authorized approval. The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls that addressed the completeness of the report that it used to make its selections when testing this control. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as a reduction of revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives earned but not yet settled. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the (1) identification and evaluation of sales incentives that may affect revenue recognition and (2) presentation and disclosure of sales incentives in the financial statements. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as a reduction of revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives earned but not yet settled. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to identify and evaluate the issuer's sales incentive programs because the firm's procedures consisted of (1) inquiring of certain issuer personnel about the population of sales incentives; (2) performing analytical procedures which as designed did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence; and (3) selecting a sample of the issuer's sales incentive programs and tracing them to the issuer's sales incentive accrual without performing any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of the population of sales incentive programs from which the sample was selected. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as a reduction of revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives earned but not yet settled. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's (1) presentation of accrued sales incentives as a liability and (2) disclosures related to sales incentives in order to evaluate whether the issuer's presentation and disclosures conformed with GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For two types of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue consisted of recalculating the invoices it selected for testing using the billing rates in one of the revenue systems that was subject to the ITGC deficiencies discussed above. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test or (as a result of the control testing and ITGC deficiencies discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of these billing rates. (AS 1105.10)

The firm identified a significant deficiency in certain ITGCs over source code change management for the system that the issuer used to process revenue. The issuer implemented a control intended to mitigate the significant deficiency. This control consisted of the issuer's review of a report of source code changes to the system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this report. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing various automated controls over the recording of revenue related to loans receivable. The firm designed its procedures including its sample sizes to test the operating effectiveness of these automated controls based on effective ITGCs. As a result of the ITGC deficiency discussed above these sample sizes were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2201.44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of distributor and dealer arrangements to determine that relevant terms and conditions were identified and evaluated for appropriate revenue recognition. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's identification of performance obligations in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 because it did not identify and evaluate certain relevant terms and conditions in the distributor and dealer arrangements that could affect revenue recognition. (AS 2810.30)

With respect to the firm's substantive testing of one type of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated reports used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

For two types of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these types of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.39)

For two types of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · For this same type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

For a third type of revenue consisting of three categories the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the identification and evaluation of contract terms that would affect revenue recognition. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

For a third type of revenue consisting of three categories the following deficiencies were identified: · For two categories of this revenue the firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the (1) approval of standard billing rates and (2) review of standard billing rates after they are input into the system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the report the issuer used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain sales incentive reserves. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used to determine these reserves. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the sales returns reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of this reserve because the firm did not test beyond inquiry of management the adjustments that the issuer made to this reserve. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data that it used in its substantive testing of the sales returns and sales incentive reserves. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on customer contracts that included financing arrangements with the customer. The firm selected for testing a control over this revenue that consisted of the issuer's review of these customer contracts including the review of the credit application supporting the customer's ability and intent to pay. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate whether these customer contracts met the collectability criteria required to recognize revenue. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether these customer contracts met the collectability criteria required to recognize revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue upon shipment of its products to distributors and estimated an accrual for rebates it had not yet paid based on a rolling average of actual rebates paid in previous months. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the reasonableness of the assumptions the issuer used to estimate this accrual. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized certain revenue upon shipment of its products to distributors and estimated an accrual for rebates it had not yet paid based on a rolling average of actual rebates paid in previous months. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the rebate accrual was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the rebate accrual because the firm did not test beyond inquiry of management whether the time period that the issuer used to calculate the rolling average was reasonable. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm used reports generated or maintained by the IT system discussed above in performing certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or (as a result of the compensating control testing deficiency) sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded a sales returns reserve based in part on customer data that the issuer obtained from a service organization. Certain relevant controls at this service organization were not operating effectively. The firm identified and tested a control that consisted of the issuer's review of customer data for certain customers that the firm believed would compensate for these ineffective controls. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's review was sufficient to address the risk of material misstatement given not all customers were covered by this control. (AS 2201.68)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the calculation of the sales returns reserve. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the adjustments that the issuer made to this reserve. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the calculation of the sales returns reserve. As the compensating control did not address certain customers the firm did not sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain customer data that were used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based in part on contractual rates input into the systems the issuer used to process revenue. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of changes to these contractual rates in these systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the report the issuer used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the estimated transaction prices for certain types of contracts included in this disclosure were determined in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of misstatements in this disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether one type of revenue was appropriately recognized because the firm did not review certain customer contracts which was necessary in order to identify performance obligations and evaluate whether this revenue was appropriately recognized. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of this disclosure. The firm did not test the aspects of these controls that addressed the issuer's assessment of whether certain contractual terms and estimated transaction prices for contracts that were included in this disclosure were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain contractual terms and estimated transaction prices for contracts that were included in this disclosure were disclosed in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer's contracts with customers included standard and nonstandard terms. The firm's substantive procedures included an evaluation of the terms for a sample of the issuer's contracts with customers. The firm did not evaluate the nonstandard contract terms included in these contracts and whether these terms could have had an effect on revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08 and. 13)

The issuer recognized revenue based on inputs that included billing rates and labor hours incurred. The firm used certain labor hour information in its substantive testing of revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue based on inputs that included billing rates and labor hours incurred. The firm used certain labor hour information in its substantive testing of revenue. For certain revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to test the billing rates that the issuer used to record revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized certain of its revenue from contracts based on its estimated progress toward complete satisfaction of its performance obligations. The firm selected for testing a sample of these contracts but it did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's estimated progress. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain of the issuer's revenue disclosures. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of a disclosure that was required under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For two business units the firm selected for testing two controls that included the issuer's review of the accuracy of pricing information used to record revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain pricing information that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

For a third business unit the firm identified a control deficiency related to the issuer's review of the accuracy of pricing information used to record revenue. For a fourth business unit the firm identified a significant deficiency related to change management over an information-technology (IT) system that the issuer used to manage customer pricing and process revenue transactions. The firm identified and tested a compensating control that it believed mitigated these deficiencies but did not identify that this control was not designed to address the risks of material misstatement related to inaccurate pricing information and inappropriate changes made to the issuer's IT system. (AS 2201.68)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue for three of the business units discussed above were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

With respect to revenue for certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · In determining the extent to which audit procedures should be performed the firm did not evaluate (1) the materiality of these business units and (2) whether the risks of material misstatement including a fraud risk related to certain revenue that the firm identified for the business units subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to these business units. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

With respect to revenue for certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue for these business units (AS 2301.08)

With respect to revenue for certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's revenue for certain of these business units. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to revenue for certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · For the remainder of these business units the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of revenue recorded to cash receipts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate exceptions identified during the operation of the control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to revenue for certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · For the remainder of these business units the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of revenue recorded to cash receipts. The firm did not identify that this control was not designed to address revenue for which payment had not been collected by the issuer. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer recognized certain of its revenue from customer contracts based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. The issuer used certain significant assumptions to estimate the costs to complete these contracts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain controls that included reviews of the total estimated costs to complete these contracts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used to estimate the total costs to complete the contracts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized certain of its revenue from customer contracts based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. The issuer used certain significant assumptions to estimate the costs to complete these contracts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)