Explorer

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For one category of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether all of the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met for the sales transactions it selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

For certain of the issuer's subsidiaries the firm did not evaluate whether the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met for the sales transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and appropriately address the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue From Contracts with Customers related to qualitative and quantitative information about (1) the issuer's existing contracts with customers; (2) the significant judgments and changes in the judgments made by the issuer in applying the guidance to those contracts; and 3) any assets recognized by the issuer from the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures to test certain sales. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions of the issuer's arrangements with its customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm also did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information it used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether all of the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining the sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

To test certain revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm drew its sample from a source that was not necessarily representative of the revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of certain data it used to test an adjustment to revenue beyond agreeing the data to the issuer's internal systems. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because it did not evaluate whether (i) the agreement was a modification to an existing contract or whether it was appropriate to account for it as a separate contract and (ii) certain payments received from an external party represented consideration payable to a customer. Further the firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the timing of revenue recognition was appropriate because it did not evaluate certain information that indicated the issuer (i) may not be entitled to any consideration and (ii) had not satisfied the performance obligation. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because the firm did not evaluate (i) whether the sales contracts included multiple performance obligations and (ii) whether revenue was recognized after the point in time at which control was transferred to the customer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's sales contracts met the criteria for application of the practical expedient relating to the remaining performance obligations disclosure. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test certain other revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the transfer of control for these transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate the business purpose (or lack thereof) of certain revenue and revenue-related transactions including whether they may have been entered into to engage in fraudulent financial reporting or conceal misappropriation of assets given certain facts regarding the transactions. (AS 2401.67)

To test revenue and accounts receivable the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions and confirmed a sample of customer receivables using certain issuer-prepared reports. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain revenue transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether (1) a sales contract existed with the customer and (2) the issuer had satisfied its performance obligation prior to recognizing revenue beyond agreeing the transactions or related purchase order information to the invoice detailed report referred to above. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the determination of certain revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also used this data to substantively test this revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or (as discussed above) identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

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

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 firm did not evaluate (1) the relevance of quarterly average prices for Method A revenue to the actual prices for Method B revenue and (2) the reliability of the quarterly average prices provided by the unrelated party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 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 perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of Method B revenue was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not evaluate whether Method B revenue which was substantially derived from nonmonetary exchanges had commercial substance. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information obtained from the issuer and used in the firm's testing of certain aspects of revenue recognition. (AS 1105.10)

In determining its sample size used to test revenue the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population. As a result the sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether all performance obligations were appropriately identified because it did not (1) perform procedures to identify and review all customer agreements/contracts that may contain promises to provide distinct goods or services and (2) evaluate whether any such promises identified should be accounted for as separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data it used to substantively test revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test certain of the issuer's revenue because its procedures were limited to comparing this revenue to system-generated reports and confirmations obtained from related parties. (AS 2301.08)

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 issuer recorded certain revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked and provided by a service organization. The firm used certain information produced by this service organization in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers related to significant payment terms. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated this disclosure and concluded that a misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements.

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the estimated costs to complete the contracts that the firm selected for testing. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used data produced by the issuer to develop its expectations but did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of these data. (AS 2305.16)

For one type of revenue the issuer determined that it was the agent in the arrangements with its customers and recognized revenue on a net basis. The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in the issuer's disclosures related to this revenue in which the issuer disclosed it was the principal and recognized revenue on a gross basis. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated this disclosure and concluded that a misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements.

For another type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of this revenue and related disclosure was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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)

The issuer recognized revenue from a contract over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the estimated costs to complete this contract beyond inquiring of project managers. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used a service organization to initiate and process transactions related to revenue that are then recorded in the issuer's information-technology (IT) system. In its testing of controls over revenue the firm tested certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated by this service organization. The firm obtained a service auditor's report and identified complementary user controls that the service auditor's report described as necessary. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of the complementary user controls discussed below the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing a complementary user control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of user access to the service organization's IT system. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether previously granted access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B22)

The firm selected for testing a complementary user control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of user access to the service organization's IT system. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had implemented any complementary user controls related to change management. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

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 issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption that the issuer used to develop the estimated total costs to complete the contracts. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not evaluate the terms and conditions of agreements related to certain revenue to determine if the revenue was recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's revenue was recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (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)