Explorer

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's adjustment to the fair value estimate for these assets was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer's ALL included a reserve for loans individually evaluated for impairment ('specific reserve') and a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment ('collective reserve'). The issuer's collective reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors ('qualitative component'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the ALL including the collective reserve. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the ALL including the appropriateness of the basis points applied to determine the qualitative component. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ALL included a reserve for loans individually evaluated for impairment ('specific reserve') and a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment ('collective reserve'). The issuer's collective reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors ('qualitative component'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the ALL including the collective reserve. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and/or reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ALL included a reserve for loans individually evaluated for impairment ('specific reserve') and a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment ('collective reserve'). The issuer's collective reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors ('qualitative component'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its loan portfolio to identify potentially impaired loans for the specific reserve. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the completeness of loans the issuer assessed individually for impairment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ALL included a reserve for loans individually evaluated for impairment ('specific reserve') and a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment ('collective reserve'). The issuer's collective reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors ('qualitative component'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its loan portfolio to identify potentially impaired loans for the specific reserve. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and/or reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ALL included a reserve for loans individually evaluated for impairment ('specific reserve') and a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment ('collective reserve'). The issuer's collective reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors ('qualitative component'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the valuation of impaired loans. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the methods and assumptions used to determine the valuation of the specific reserve for these impaired loans. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ALL included a reserve for loans individually evaluated for impairment ('specific reserve') and a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment ('collective reserve'). The issuer's collective reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors ('qualitative component'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the collective reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the basis points that were applied to determine the qualitative component beyond comparing these basis points to the basis points that were applied in prior years and assessing whether certain changes or lack thereof to the basis points from the prior year were directionally consistent with internal or external data and performing procedures to test certain data. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11) [This citation refers to AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates which was in effect for this audit. This standard was replaced by AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair Value Measurements which became effective for audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15 2020.]

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of recorded manual journal entries. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of these journal entries. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of recorded manual journal entries. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the reports 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 deficiencies below. The firm's approach to test ACL was to test management's process. The issuer engaged a specialist to prepare a model validation report over the issuer's model to estimate the quantitative component of the ACL. The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the company-produced data used by the company's specialist in its model validation report. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. To determine the qualitative component of the ACL the issuer identified one or more data inputs relevant to each identified qualitative factor and established quantitative ranges for these inputs corresponding with the risk level expected to be assigned to each factor and loan pool. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the assessed risk levels and related basis points applied to the collateral factor reserves. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer utilized a service organization to process its securities transactions. The issuer used an impairment analysis prepared by the service organization to determine whether certain investment securities had credit related impairments. The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of credit ratings used by the service organization in developing the issuer's impairment analysis for these investment securities. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing various controls that consisted of management's review of (1) inventory costs including capitalized overhead (2) inventory valuation and (3) related account reconciliations. 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 issuer recognized revenue through multiple segments from foreign and domestic sales. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the recognition of revenue by one of the issuer's segments during the year from domestic sales to ensure that revenue was recognized only after performance obligations were satisfied and customers obtained control of the goods. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm selected for testing a control over the valuation of this goodwill that consisted of the performance of an annual impairment analysis and management's review and approval of (1) certain projections and base data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption and (2) the impairment analysis performed including the VIU model and carrying amount of the goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain data produced by the issuer that was provided to the company's specialist and used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm selected for testing a control over the valuation of this goodwill that consisted of the performance of an annual impairment analysis and management's review and approval of (1) certain projections and base data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption and (2) the impairment analysis performed including the VIU model and carrying amount of the goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of a significant assumption used by the issuer in the VIU model. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis beyond evaluating the consistency of the assumptions with historical experience and obtaining and reading the report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist beyond inquiry and testing the accuracy of certain data used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6-.A10; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to certain projected data used by the issuer in the VIU model including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to achieve the assumptions and projected data beyond inquiry obtaining a current contract and bid from an external vendor unrelated to the significant assumption and performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The principal auditor instructed the firm to test certain controls over revenue and accounts receivable that consisted of management's review of (1) changes to customer data (2) the accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts (3) credit memos (4) sales reversal entries (5) the rebate reserves and underlying assumptions and (6) the allocation of the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on their relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiency was identified: • 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 principal auditor instructed the firm to test certain controls over revenue and accounts receivable that consisted of management's review of (1) changes to customer data (2) the accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts (3) credit memos (4) sales reversal entries (5) the rebate reserves and underlying assumptions and (6) the allocation of the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on their relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiency was identified: • For certain of these controls the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data or reports used in the operation of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The principal auditor also instructed the firm to perform certain procedures to substantively test revenue including the performance of a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of cash receipts data underlying the analysis. To test this data the firm agreed a sample of cash receipts to bank statements and/or customer invoices. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the cash receipts data was sufficiently precise and appropriate for use in the analysis because it did not evaluate whether: • the cash receipts of two of the selections were related to sales invoices outstanding in accounts receivables; • the entire cash receipt of one of the selections was related to sales invoices outstanding in accounts receivables using independent information from the customers as the firm only agreed a portion of the cash receipt to a customer invoice; and • the recorded cash reversal against the customer balance of one of the selections related to revenue and a related outstanding accounts receivable or evaluate whether this was a true exception in the context of the testing attributes. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing three controls over sales discounts and related accruals that consisted of management's (1) review of the accrual calculation and reconciliation of the accrual balance to the general ledger (2) analysis of accrual carryovers and (3) approval of sales discount disbursements. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer issued shares for services rendered by an external party. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for the issuance of the shares was in conformity with GAAP including whether the shares were appropriately measured at fair value on the correct date and whether the expense was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2810.30)

For certain revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recorded share-based compensation expense. The firm did not evaluate whether the grant date used by the issuer to measure the share-based compensation was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 718 Compensation—Stock Compensation. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that met specific criteria to evaluate whether the revenue was appropriately recognized. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions from this revenue source. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm observed physical inventory counts on various dates subsequent to year end. The firm did not perform procedures to test intervening transactions between the issuer's year end and the dates of its inventory observations beyond testing the purchase activity for one location. (AS 2510.12)

For certain subsidiaries the firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing without having an appropriate basis for excluding those subsidiaries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For certain selected transactions the firm did not perform sufficient procedures because it limited its testing to comparing transactions to issuer-prepared information. (AS 2301.08)

The firm identified uncorrected statements in the current and prior year audits. The firm did not evaluate whether the uncorrected misstatements were material individually or in combination with other misstatements including (1) the effects of the uncorrected misstatements on the specific accounts and disclosures involved (2) the effects of the misstatements identified in the prior year on the current year financial statements and (3) the effects of misstatements detected in the current year that relate to prior years. (AS 2810.17 and .18)

The firm did not test certain subsequent event transactions disclosed in the financial statements prior to the issuance of the auditor's report. Specifically the procedures performed to test the subsequent event transactions to third party supporting documentation were performed after the issuance of the auditor's report. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to address an identified fraud risk related to revenue cut-off. (AS 2301.13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm's analytical procedures consisted of developing an expectation of revenue. The firm did not (1) test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data it used to develop its expectations (2) develop expectations at a level of precision that provided the desired level of assurance that differences that could be potential material misstatements individually or in the aggregate would be identified for investigation and (3) establish a threshold for investigation of differences from expectations. (AS 2305.16 .17 and .20)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of a GAAP departure related to the omission of required disclosures under FASB ASC Subtopic 606-10-50 Revenue from Contracts with Customers— Overall — Disclosure and ASC Subtopic 235-10-50 Notes to Financial Statements — Overall — Disclosure including an accounting policy disclosure. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not test certain related party transactions. Specifically the procedures performed to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the financial statement disclosures about interest and accrued wages payable to a related party as well as obtaining a confirmation from the related party were performed after the issuance of the auditor's report. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer had certain loans that were due to a related party. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the nature and terms of these loans. In addition the firm did not perform certain auditing procedures including procedures to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the financial statement disclosures and obtaining signed copies of the loan agreements until after the issuance of the auditor's report. (AS 2301.08; AS 2410.12)

The issuer had certain loans that were due to a related party. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate whether a significant transaction associated with these loans was accounted for in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30)

The issuer had certain loans that were due to a related party. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test the activity and year-end amounts of certain accounts associated with these loans. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing. (AS 2401.58)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm did not identify or appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations regarding the amounts of revenue and earnings of the acquired company since the acquisition date that were included in the income statement. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of transactional data that was used by the issuer to record revenue and used by the firm in its test of details over a majority of the issuer's revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of certain assets. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control related to certain assets that was being performed quarterly at all locations. The firm did not test whether (1) the control operated consistently at all locations; (2) all such assets at each location were subject to the control; (3) variances that exceeded the issuer's threshold were appropriately investigated and resolved; and (4) adjustments that the issuer made as a result of the control were appropriately approved and recorded. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that included management's review of the reserve analysis for certain assets. 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)

During the year the issuer acquired an intangible asset as part of a business combination. The issuer classified the intangible asset as finite-lived and began amortizing the intangible asset over its estimated useful life. The firm did not identify or appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to issuer's classification of the intangible asset as finite-lived and recording of amortization which was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other for this type of intangible asset. (AS 2810.30)

During the year the issuer acquired a business in exchange for shares of its common stock. Later that year the issuer and seller entered into an agreement to terminate the business combination. The issuer did not assign any value to its common stock returned under the termination agreement. The firm did not identify or appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's common stock returned under the termination agreement which should have been recorded as a reduction to stockholders' equity at the cost of the returned shares in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 505-30 Treasury Stock. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer's revenue included equipment leases. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether elements of these leases should have been accounted for as sales-type leases in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 842 Leases. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the issuer's identification and recognition of uncertain tax positions taken. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for income taxes including uncertain tax positions and concluded that material misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K and disclosed that the financial statements should no longer be relied upon.

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test an income statement account. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether (1) the rate at which certain revenue was recognized was appropriate and (2) the performance obligations had been met prior to the recognition of certain of this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)