Explorer

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of the accounts receivable aging reports and the accuracy and completeness of data related to payments collected by the issuer subsequent to year end which were used in its audit procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test whether revenue was recognized in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness and accuracy of the data used in the issuer's revenue analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer entered into an agreement to acquire the assets and liabilities of an entity. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the acquisition because it did not: · Test the valuation of common stock issued in connection with the acquisition. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into an agreement to acquire the assets and liabilities of an entity. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the acquisition because it did not: · Test the existence completeness and valuation of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the acquisition date. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into an agreement to acquire the assets and liabilities of an entity. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the acquisition because it did not: · Perform any procedures to determine whether the issuer had identified all separately identifiable tangible and intangible assets acquired that required recognition as of the acquisition date. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into an agreement to acquire the assets and liabilities of an entity. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the acquisition because it did not: · Test the fair value of the earn-out liability as of the acquisition date and at year end beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to major classes of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer maintains inventory at multiple locations and performs physical inventory counts at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one location the firm did not (1) project the misstated results of its sample to the items from which the sample was selected and (2) consider the nature and cause of misstatements identified in the sample of items tested to determine whether there could be additional errors. (AS 2315.26 and .27)

The issuer maintains inventory at multiple locations and performs physical inventory counts at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another location the firm's counts identified a significant number of misstatements and the firm determined the issuer had not performed a year-end physical inventory count. The issuer then performed a physical inventory count ('subsequent count'). The firm did not perform any testing of the subsequent count or any other procedures to determine the effectiveness of the method used by the issuer to perform the subsequent count and the reliance that could be placed upon the issuer's representations of quantities and physical condition of inventories at that location. (AS 2510.09)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of inventories because it did not: · Perform any procedures to evaluate whether inventory was measured at the lower of cost or net realizable value at certain locations. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of inventories because it did not: · Perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the bill of materials reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of inventories because it did not: · Perform sufficient procedures to test the material costs in work-in-process (WIP) finished goods (FG) and raw materials because it did not perform any procedures to test certain sampled items and limited its procedures for certain other sampled items to comparing the items to a prior-year inventory listing. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing certain information technology general controls (ITGCs) automated controls and information technology (IT) dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by the issuer's IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test the completeness of the population of changes made to various application systems that the firm used to evaluate change controls. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of inventories because it did not: · Perform any procedures to test or test any control over the accuracy and completeness of the number of labor hours used by the issuer to determine the labor costs allocated to WIP and FG. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of inventories because it did not: · Perform substantive procedures to test the allocation of overhead costs and the percentage of completion estimate beyond recalculation and inquiry of management. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of inventories because it did not: · Perform procedures to test the inventory reserve beyond comparing the year-end inventory reserve balance to the prior year amount. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not test shipping terms of inventory purchased from a foreign supplier for inventory received subsequent to year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to a related party note payable that was not presented on the face of the balance sheet in accordance with FASB ASC Subtopic 235-10-S99 Notes to Financial Statements — Overall — SEC Materials. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm selected for testing certain information technology general controls (ITGCs) automated controls and information technology (IT) dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by the issuer's IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the population of program code changes the control operators used in the performance of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain information technology general controls (ITGCs) automated controls and information technology (IT) dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by the issuer's IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test user access provisioning controls over applications that supported revenue accounting. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain information technology general controls (ITGCs) automated controls and information technology (IT) dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by the issuer's IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the design of a periodic access review control. (AS 2201.42)

The firm selected for testing certain information technology general controls (ITGCs) automated controls and information technology (IT) dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by the issuer's IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the user profile reports used to perform the periodic access review control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate and test various controls in the revenue cycle because it did not: · Evaluate the severity of identified control deficiencies to determine whether the deficiencies in combination with other deficiencies constituted a material weakness. (AS 2201.62)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate and test various controls in the revenue cycle because it did not: · Identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of reports that control owners used in the operation of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions to its general ledger. The firm obtained the service auditor's report for this service organization and identified for testing certain complementary user entity controls (CUECs). The firm identified control deficiencies related to certain of these CUECs. The firm did not evaluate the effect of these deficiencies on the issuer's ability to meet control objectives stated in the service auditor's report. (AS 2201.62 and .B22)

As a result of the deficiencies in ITGC testing discussed above the firm did not sufficiently test whether the information technology (IT) automated application controls and the IT-dependent manual controls it selected for testing over revenue were effective as each control was dependent on the effectiveness of ITGCs. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used a service organization to provide management reporting related to certain revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer implemented the appropriate CUECs as described in the service auditor's report. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

In addition the firm relied upon a report produced by the service organization in its substantive procedures over certain revenue but did not test or identify and test any controls over (as discussed above) the accuracy and completeness of the report. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain revenue items selected for testing the firm did not evaluate whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not test the issuer's disclosure of revenue by type beyond tracing the amounts to an issuer-prepared schedule. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer's ALL included a qualitative component. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the qualitative component of the ALL because the firm's procedures to test certain assumptions the issuer used to determine the qualitative component were limited to comparing these assumptions to prior periods inquiring about changes and recalculating the allowance. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a selection of loans. For the items for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the loan balances were accurate and existed as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The issuer reported certain receivables that were due from a related party. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's presentation of these receivables was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 310 Receivables because it did not evaluate (1) the nature or terms of the receivables or (2) other relevant information known to the firm. (AS 2810.03 and .30)

The issuer reported certain receivables that were due from a related party. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for concluding that the receivables were fully collectible because it limited its procedures to assessing the related party's shareholders' equity balance. (AS 2410.12)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the cost of inventory. (AS 2301.08)

The principal auditor instructed the firm to test certain controls over long-lived assets that consisted of the issuer's monthly reconciliation of certain accounts and monthly and quarterly reviews of accrued capital expenditures. The number of items selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the controls were operating effectively because the firm did not test the number of items that it determined necessary. (AS 2201.46)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify that one of the valuation reports prepared by the company's specialist was used for a different purpose than its stated intention and evaluate its use for that purpose. (AS 1105.A9)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to determine whether the issuer identified and recorded all aspects of the transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test certain estimates related to these transactions beyond testing the mathematical accuracy of the issuer's documentation. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain other significant assumptions used by the company's specialist. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist and significant assumptions developed by the issuer (2) evaluate whether external data that the company's specialist used to develop certain significant assumptions were relevant and reliable and (3) evaluate the relevance and reliability of data it used in its procedures. (AS 1105.04 .06 .A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the fair value of certain other accounts and whether they were appropriately recorded in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer entered into several significant transactions and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

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

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test certain revenue. The firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of this revenue for the sample of transactions beyond inspecting certain issuer-prepared reports and customer invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's approach to testing loans and the ALL included reliance on certain controls. The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to loans and this loan information was used in the firm's procedures to test loans and the ALL. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiring of management to test complementary user controls over loans identified in the service auditor's report. (AS 2601.14)

The issuer's ALL consisted of a qualitative component and an unallocated reserve component. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to both test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used the issuer's loan grades in its independent expectation. The firm selected loans that met specific criteria to test the loan's assigned grade. The firm did not perform procedures to test loan grades for the remaining population of loans. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer's ALL consisted of a qualitative component and an unallocated reserve component. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to both test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions it used to develop the qualitative component. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer's ALL consisted of a qualitative component and an unallocated reserve component. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to both test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop the unallocated reserve component. (AS 2501.16)