Explorer

The issuer determined the fair value of a significant account using certain assumptions and data. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these assumptions because it did not evaluate information that was inconsistent with the assumptions. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The issuer determined the fair value of a significant account using certain assumptions and data. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy of this data. (AS 2502.39)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of certain significant accounts including consideration of contradictory information that was included in the work papers. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the relevance of certain data from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialist used to develop an assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain other data from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialist used to develop its assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer that the company's specialist used. Specifically beyond comparing assumptions for the current year to actual results the firm did not evaluate (1) whether the assumptions were consistent with historical and recent experience taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer and (2) the issuer's intent and ability to carry out the assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an estimate of a significant account. The firm selected a sample to test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the company's specialist. The firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy and completeness of this data because it selected its sample from a sub-population of the data. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an estimate of a significant account. The firm selected a sample to test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the company's specialist. The firm did not test the accuracy of certain other data that the company's specialist used to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm did not perform procedures to test one significant account beyond tracing amounts to the general ledger. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for a second significant account was in conformity with applicable GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected samples to test certain other significant accounts. The sample sizes the firm used to perform these substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample sizes including tolerable misstatement for the populations the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the populations. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

With respect to Certain Significant Accounts the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the significant accounts for one of the issuer's business units. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Certain Significant Accounts the firm did not evaluate whether cash flows associated with these significant accounts were presented in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30)

With respect to Certain Significant Accounts the firm did not identify and appropriately address a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to this business unit. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not test whether all criteria for recognition were met. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to develop an estimate related to this significant account. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to an aspect of the issuer's methodology that was used to develop the estimate. (AS 2501.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the issuer and by the company's specialist including evaluating a significant difference between one of the assumptions and a significant assumption used by the issuer in another estimate tested. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the auditor-engaged specialist's work provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not perform additional procedures or request the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the disclaimer in the auditor-engaged specialist's report. (AS 1210.09 and .12)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain attributes related to this significant account. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not evaluate beyond reviewing issuer documentation the issuer's adoption of new accounting principles. (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 GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether the significant account was appropriately recorded. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used an issuer-prepared schedule and certain system-generated reports in certain of its substantive procedures to test this significant account but did not test the accuracy and completeness of the schedule and reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm used issuer-prepared schedules in certain other of its substantive procedures to test this significant account but did not test the completeness of the schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach to testing the account included selecting a sample of transactions from certain portions of the account using issuer-provided reports. The firm did not test the completeness of the reports from which it made sample selections for three portions of the account (AS 2315.24).

The firm's approach to testing the account included selecting a sample of transactions from certain portions of the account using issuer-provided reports. The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports used to test two other portions of the account. (AS 1105.10).

The firm selected for testing two controls over the review of transactions recorded to a significant account. For one control the firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the review of transactions recorded to a significant account. The firm did not test the aspects of both of these controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the information used in their operation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the issuer's valuation of a significant account. (AS 2501.16)

To test certain significant accounts the firm's substantive procedures included confirmation of the balances. The issuer sent the confirmation request on behalf of the firm and received the response directly from the recipient of the request. The firm did not maintain control of the confirmation request and response through direct communication with the intended recipient of the confirmation request. (AS 2310.28)

To test certain significant accounts the firm's substantive procedures included confirmation of the balances. The issuer sent the confirmation request on behalf of the firm and received the response directly from the recipient of the request. For one of these significant accounts the firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond comparing the amount to the confirmation to test the valuation of the account. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's presentation of a significant account. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the issuer's accounting for certain changes to a significant account beyond obtaining external invoices. (AS 2301.08)

Deficiency evaluating the discount rate used in the issuer's fair value estimate for a significant account.

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test an accounting estimate in a significant account. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond comparing the account balance to the amount reported in the prior year to test the completeness and valuation of a significant account. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2501.07)

The issuer used an information technology ('IT') application to initiate process and record transactions related to certain significant accounts. The firm tested IT general controls ('ITGCs') over and application controls within this IT application. The firm identified multiple control deficiencies related to controls over logical access and program changes. The firm concluded that none of the deficiencies rose to the level of a significant deficiency or material weakness individually or in the aggregate. In reaching this conclusion the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the severity of the control deficiencies because it did not evaluate the effect of the deficiencies on the related IT-dependent manual controls and application controls. (AS 2201.62 and .65)

The firm did not identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used by the firm to test the ITGCs and application controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of aspects of these significant accounts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In addition the firm did not test controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used in these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of aspects of these significant accounts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In addition the firm did not test controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used in these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used the work of internal audit to test certain controls over the review of these significant accounts through the second or third quarters of the issuer's year end but did not perform any procedures to update the results of that testing from those interim dates to year end. (AS 2201.55)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on an agreement with an external party. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer appropriately accounted for this significant account in accordance with GAAP because it limited its procedures to concluding that the significant account was appropriately recorded based on certain GAAP guidance that specifically excluded the significant account. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on an agreement with an external party. The firm did not evaluate the effect of the issuer's non-compliance with a requirement of the agreement on the accounting for the significant account. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain aspects of the data that the firm used in its substantive testing of a significant account. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain aspects of this account the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to certain items that exceeded the monetary threshold the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining certain issuer-prepared documents to test that the items were (1) properly recorded and (2) recorded at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain aspects of this account the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to certain other items that exceeded the monetary threshold the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining certain issuer-prepared documents to test that the items were recorded at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain aspects of this account the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to certain items that exceeded the monetary threshold the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining certain issuer-prepared documents to test that the items were (1) properly recorded and (2) recorded at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The sample size used to test a significant account was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population including the expected size and frequency of misstatements. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)