Explorer

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain significant assumptions related to this other estimate was to develop an expectation using model analyses and information provided by an auditor-employed specialist for comparison to the issuer's significant assumptions. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's work did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not perform procedures to address limitations set forth by the auditor-employed specialist. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test its goodwill for impairment and engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of its reporting units at year end. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the significant assumptions that were developed and used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the issuer's reporting units. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of those significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used multiple information technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue and related accounts. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. The firm selected for testing controls over change management and user access but for certain of these controls did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test or test any controls over (1) the completeness of the population of items from which it made its selections for testing or (2) the accuracy of information the firm used in its testing. Further for another of these change management controls when testing the completeness of the population from which the firm made its selections for testing the firm did not test all relevant sources of changes. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test its goodwill for impairment and engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of its reporting units at year end. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the significant assumptions that were developed and used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the issuer's reporting units. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the issuer that were used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the issuer's reporting units. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's quantitative goodwill assessment was to test the issuer's process. For one reporting unit the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions it developed. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's quantitative goodwill assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified for another reporting unit: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance of certain data used by the company's specialist to develop a significant assumption because the firm did not consider certain of the issuer's business objectives. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's quantitative goodwill assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified for another reporting unit: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to identify and select journal entries for testing to address the risks of management override identified by the firm because the firm did not use accurate information as the basis for the test. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer used an IT application to process revenue and cost of sales transactions. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this application. As a result of deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs for this application the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an IT application to process revenue and cost of sales transactions. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this application. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of segregation of duties. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to identify the population of individuals with administrative access. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an IT application to process revenue and cost of sales transactions. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this application. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of user access. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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 issuer used an IT application to process revenue and cost of sales transactions. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this application. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of user access. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of users with access to certain revenue transactions. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an IT application to process revenue and cost of sales transactions. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this application. The firm selected for testing a control over new modified and terminated user access. The firm identified deviations in the operation of this control but did not determine the effect of these deviations on the operating effectiveness of this control. (AS 2201.48)

With respect to the firm's testing of controls with an automated component: · The firm selected for testing various automated controls over certain revenue and related accounts. The firm's testing of these automated controls using a sample of only one instance of the controls' operation was not sufficient because the firm did not test the programming of these controls or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these automated controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an IT application to process revenue and cost of sales transactions. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this application. The firm selected for testing a control over change management but did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue and cost of sales. 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 a control that included the automated transfer of data between systems and the manual resolution of any errors in this data transfer. The firm did not test the manual aspect of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and cost of sales 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 sent positive confirmation requests for cash. The firm did not identify certain conditions indicating that certain bank confirmation responses or parts thereof might not be authentic or might not have come from the purported source. As a result the firm did not perform additional audit procedures to respond to those conditions and evaluate their effect if any on the other aspects of the audit. (AS 1105.09)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test those journal entries because other than inquiries of management it limited its procedures to one journal entry without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to that journal entry. (AS 2401.61)

With respect to the firm's testing of controls with an automated component: · For one type of revenue the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the automated calculation and recording of revenue and related accounts and a manual review of the accuracy of the data used in the operation of this control. The firm did not test the manual aspect of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to the firm's testing of controls with an automated component: · For certain revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over certain inputs and assumptions used by the issuer to recognize revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over the automated transfer or reconciliation of data between systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · Certain of these controls included the manual resolution of any errors in this data transfer. The firm did not test the operating effectiveness of the manual aspect of these controls. (AS 2201.44)

As instructed by the principal auditor the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of a list of physical assets that were verified for existence. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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 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)

The issuer used certain systems to process sales transactions and compute and record revenue and receivables. The firm selected for testing an automated control over the processing of sales transactions and computation of the final unit prices used in the determination of revenue. The firm did not test the configuration of this automated control for all types of revenue beyond observing the processing of one sales transaction for one system inquiring of management and reviewing the source code for another system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used certain systems to process sales transactions and compute and record revenue and receivables. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and receivables 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

During the year under audit the issuer identified certain impairment indicators and evaluated goodwill and intangible assets for impairment. The firm did not test any controls over management's periodic evaluation of goodwill and intangible assets for impairment when there were indicators of impairment present. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used by an external specialist engaged by the issuer to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets. (AS 2502.31)

The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions developed by the specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's review of long-lived assets for indicators of potential impairment. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of certain studies performed to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions used by the issuer to determine a quantitative reserve component of the ACL. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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 revenue that consisted of (1) management's review of information related to order entry shipping invoicing and accounts receivable and (2) the issuer's performance of a gross to net revenue analysis. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing two controls over revenue that consisted of (1) management's review of information related to order entry shipping invoicing and accounts receivable and (2) the issuer's performance of a gross to net revenue analysis. 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 a control over inventory that consisted of management's review of standard versus actual costs used by the issuer to record inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm selected for testing a control over accounts receivable that consisted of management's review and approval of the allowance for doubtful accounts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of management's review and approval of the models used by the issuer and the issuer's calculation of a complementary reserve component of the ACL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of a post-model adjustment included in this component of the ACL. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's monitoring of customers' financial condition through the use of a color-coded monitoring system to identify economic groups that experienced a decline in credit quality. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's monitoring of customers' financial condition through the use of a color-coded monitoring system to identify economic groups that experienced a decline in credit quality. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to identify economic groups which experienced a decline in credit quality. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of the economic risk ratings used by the issuer to determine the quantitative component of the ACL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of these economic risk ratings. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of assets collateralizing certain loans. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer in certain models to determine a complementary reserve component of the ACL was in conformity with the requirements of IFRS. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the issuer in these models. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer's ACL was comprised of various components including quantitative and complementary reserve components and the issuer used various models and assumptions to determine the individual components of the ACL. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer to determine the quantitative component of the ACL beyond for one such assumption consisting of loan risk ratings testing the mathematical accuracy of certain inputs for a sample of the issuer's risk rating models. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer held a portfolio of derivatives and investment securities (collectively 'investments') which were carried at fair value. - The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a reconciliation of mark to market values of derivatives and investment securities and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not test an aspect of the control related to certain investment securities. Further the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine whether items identified for follow-up were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy of certain inputs obtained from the issuer that the firm used to test work in progress inventory quantities. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test a portion of costs of goods sold. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held a portfolio of derivatives and investment securities (collectively 'investments') which were carried at fair value. - The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a reconciliation of mark to market values of derivatives and investment securities and the investigation of variances over established thresholds. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held a portfolio of derivatives and investment securities (collectively 'investments') which were carried at fair value. - The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of management's review and approval of certain adjustments to derivative values for counterparty credit risk. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the adjustments. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held a portfolio of derivatives and investment securities (collectively 'investments') which were carried at fair value. - The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of management's review and approval of certain adjustments to derivative values for counterparty credit risk. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)