Explorer

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test disclosures related to performance obligations expected to be recognized at year end and the periods over which the issuer expects to recognize those amounts beyond obtaining issuer-produced reports. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to estimated hours to complete. (AS 2501.16)

Deficiencies evaluating a specialist's valuation of intangible assets acquired in a business combination.

Deficiency in the basis for excluding certain business units from journal entry testing.

During the year the issuer made purchases and sales of certain intangible assets and recognized the related activity in its statements of operations and cash flows. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test these purchases and sales beyond obtaining issuer-produced reports. (AS 2301.08)

The firm identified uncorrected misstatements in certain disclosures in the current year audit. The firm did not evaluate whether these uncorrected misstatements were material individually or in combination with other misstatements. (AS 2810.17)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for certain long-lived assets using discounted cash flow forecasts that included the estimate of total revenues. The estimate of total revenues was also used in determining amortization expense associated with these assets. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiry of management and reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions underlying estimated total revenues including taking into account factors affecting the issuer's intent and ability to carry out those assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for certain long-lived assets using discounted cash flow forecasts that included the estimate of total revenues. The estimate of total revenues was also used in determining amortization expense associated with these assets. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the discount rate used by the issuer in its impairment analysis. Specifically the firm compared the discount rate to the stated rate on the issuer's outstanding debt but did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the stated rate reflected the weighted average cost of capital of the issuer plus a risk premium representing the risk associated with acquiring the asset. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed an impairment analysis for certain long-lived assets using discounted cash flow forecasts that included the estimate of total revenues. The estimate of total revenues was also used in determining amortization expense associated with these assets. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of disaggregated asset data used by the issuer in its impairment analysis and determination of amortization expense. (AS 1105.10)

The firm identified for testing journal entries meeting certain fraud criteria and then reviewed the listing of those journal entries for unusual entries. The firm did not select journal entries and other adjustments for testing. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not perform a test of details to address an identified fraud risk related to certain revenue; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's specialist that were used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of these assets. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm developed an expectation of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to evaluate their reasonableness. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not (i) perform procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for a component of the assumptions and (ii) did not evaluate the significant differences between its expectations and the assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption used by the company's specialist because it limited its procedures to a comparison to a similar assumption used by the issuer in the prior year. (AS 1105.A8b)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain other assets: · The firm did not sufficiently test the existence and fair value of certain assets because it limited its testing to determining that certain subsequent payments were received. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2501.07)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain other assets: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence and fair value of certain other assets. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2501.07)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain other assets: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the completeness of certain other assets including evaluating contrary evidence. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain other assets: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption for one of these assets because it did not evaluate the significant difference between this assumption and a related significant assumption used by the issuer in another estimate tested. (AS 2501.16)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain liabilities: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the completeness and fair value of certain liabilities. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2501.07)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain liabilities: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the fair value of certain other liabilities beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain liabilities: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness and valuation of certain other liabilities because it limited its procedures to cut-off testing. Further the firm inappropriately projected the results of its cut-off testing including misstatements identified to the entire balance of those liabilities. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not evaluate whether a certain contract was with a customer and whether the issuer had identified all of the performance obligations; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain liabilities: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for an assumption it derived and used in developing its independent expectation of the fair value of another liability. (AS 2501.22)

The following deficiency was identified related to certain liabilities: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of data it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of or inaccurate disclosures regarding certain assets and liabilities. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for assumptions it derived and used to develop an independent expectation of an estimate related to certain assets. (AS 2501.22)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy of certain reports it used to develop this independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm identified journal entries that met certain fraud criteria but did not examine the underlying support for the entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not evaluate whether the counterparty for one contract was a customer or acting as an agent for the issuer; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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 firm did not perform any procedures to test the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations for a certain contract; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate for a certain type of revenue whether it was probable that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which the issuer was entitled in exchange for the satisfaction of its performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer disclosed disaggregated revenue by source. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the disclosure including addressing a difference between the amounts disclosed and the amounts per the firm's work papers. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For confirmations returned with exceptions and for those for which differences were identified through alternative procedures the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the nature of those exceptions as it limited its procedures to inquiry. (AS 2310.33)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether methods the company's specialist used to determine the fair value of these assets were appropriate because the firm did not evaluate whether the data and significant assumptions were appropriately applied under the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm did not evaluate whether certain revenue recognition criteria had been met in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of evidence it used to test certain assets during the year. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry to test the issuer's ownership rights of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate the nature of these assets when evaluating the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of the assets in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2810.30)

To test the valuation of inventory the firm selected key items and then selected a sample of additional inventory items that exceeded a monetary threshold for testing. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of inventory that was less than the monetary threshold. (AS 2315.24)

To test the reasonableness of assigned loan grades to non-impaired loans which are an input used in estimating the ALL the firm selected loans originated in prior years that exceeded a monetary threshold for testing. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of loans originated in prior years. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm identified characteristics of potentially fraudulent entries or adjustments for testing but did not determine whether any journal entries met those characteristics and instead limited its testing to haphazardly selected journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

For certain revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate (1) the issuer's identification of its performance obligations and (2) whether such obligations were satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used in its substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's disclosures about its revenue recognition policy. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of the purchase consideration. (AS 2502.15)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of certain acquired assets. (AS 2502.15)

With respect to certain other acquired assets the firm did not obtain an understanding of and evaluate whether the valuation method the issuer used to develop its fair value estimate was appropriate in the circumstances. (AS 2502.09 and .18)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of these assets was to develop an independent fair value estimate using certain of the issuer's assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's assumptions that the firm used in developing an independent fair value estimate. (AS 2502.40)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of these assets was to develop an independent fair value estimate using certain of the issuer's assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's assumptions that the firm used in developing an independent fair value estimate. (AS 2502.40)