Explorer

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 relevance of external information it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

To test the existence of cash held in a bank located in another country the firm observed issuer personnel via video conference log into a bank portal and inspect a screenshot of the account balances. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of this audit evidence. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected for testing a control that included the review of journal entries. 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 service organizations for accounting and custodial services. The firm's approach to testing net realized gain or loss on investment securities and investment income included reliance on controls. The firm did not test beyond inquiry complementary user controls over net realized gain or loss and investment income identified in the service auditors' reports. (AS 2601.14)

The issuer used service organizations for accounting and custodial services. The firm's approach to testing net realized gain or loss on investment securities and investment income included reliance on controls. Given the length of the period under audit not covered by the service auditors' reports the firm inappropriately limited its procedures to reading the bridge letters. (AS 2601.16)

Certain service organizations used sub-service organizations to assist with the accounting and custodial services and the controls for the sub-service organizations were not addressed in the service auditors' reports. The firm did not determine whether it was necessary to obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at the sub-service organizations. (AS 2601.16)

The issuer used service organizations for accounting and custodial services. The firm's approach to testing net realized gain or loss on investment securities and investment income included reliance on controls. The firm did not test beyond inquiry complementary user controls over net realized gain or loss and investment income identified in the service auditors' reports. (AS 2601.14)

Certain service organizations used sub-service organizations to assist with the accounting and custodial services and the controls for the sub-service organizations were not addressed in the service auditors' reports. The firm did not determine whether it was necessary to obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at the sub-service organizations. (AS 2601.16)

The issuer used service organizations for accounting and custodial services. The firm's approach to testing net realized gain or loss on investment securities and investment income included reliance on controls. The firm did not test beyond inquiry complementary user controls over net realized gain or loss and investment income identified in the service auditors' reports. (AS 2601.14)

The firm did not identify and test controls over the existence of investments. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to investments and capital share transactions. The following deficiency was identified: • This service organization used a sub-service organization to provide an accounting system that calculated gains and losses. The controls for the sub-service organization were not addressed in the service auditor's report. The firm did not perform procedures to obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at the sub-service organization. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to investments and capital share transactions. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm obtained the service auditor's report and identified for testing certain complementary user entity controls (CUECs). For the identified CUECs 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 .44 and .B22)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record transactions related to investments and capital share transactions. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any CUECs over the accuracy and completeness of certain data that the service auditor's report described as being necessary. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue at numerous locations based on the contractual terms of each sales arrangement and certain contractually determined price adjustments. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of contractual terms entered into the issuer's revenue system and used to recognize revenue. The firm did not evaluate certain information obtained during its testing that appeared to be inconsistent with the contractual terms in the issuer's revenue system. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer recognized revenue at numerous locations based on the contractual terms of each sales arrangement and certain contractually determined price adjustments. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of contractual terms entered into the issuer's revenue system and used to recognize revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the determination of price adjustments used to recognize revenue at one location. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue upon delivery of services to customers. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether services had been delivered for certain revenue transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to initiate process and record revenue transactions. In its testing of controls over revenue the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to initiate process and record revenue transactions. In its testing of controls over revenue the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). The firm selected for testing two user access controls over this IT system that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of privileged system access including a review of the activity performed by users that are granted such access to confirm that it was aligned with the access request/requirement. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to (1) evaluate whether the activity was aligned with the access request/requirement and (2) investigate and timely resolve any activity performed by the user beyond the access request/requirement. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For certain revenue which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to user access the following additional deficiency was identified: The firm did not identify and test any controls over the manually recorded transaction prices used to recognize the revenue to ensure that they agreed with the prices associated with the respective sales orders. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used an IT system to process and record revenue transactions. In its testing of controls over revenue the firm tested various automated controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective ITGCs. As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these automated controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing certain user access controls over this IT system that consisted of the configuration of the IT systems to restrict access to authorized users depending on the nature of the activities performed by the users. The firm did not test aspects of these controls that would address certain risks identified by the firm associated with certain personnel having privileged access to specific functions of the IT system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in its certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was 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. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue recognition criteria had been satisfied. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of certain inventory at year end. Specifically the firm's observation procedures were not suitable because they did not provide any evidence of the quantity and physical condition of the inventory. (AS 2510.09)

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

For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue recognition criteria had been satisfied. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm's approach for substantively testing the present value of operating lease right-of-use assets and operating lease liabilities was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the discount rate used to determine the present value. (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 ending on or after December 15 2020.]

The firm did not identify and appropriately address the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

To test revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform procedures beyond performing year-end cut-off procedures to test the remaining population of sales transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

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

During the year the issuer completed a business combination. The firm did not evaluate whether this transaction was recorded in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30)

To test certain revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform procedures to test the remaining population of sales transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

To test the related receivables the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold or met specific criteria. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of receivables. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for confirmation certain debt and received electronic responses to its confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risk associated with electronic responses. (AS 2310.29)

During the year the issuer entered into agreements to jointly develop certain products and recorded the amounts paid in connection with these agreements as finite-lived intangible assets. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's capitalization of these costs met the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 730 Research and Development. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer entered into agreements to jointly develop certain products and recorded the amounts paid in connection with these agreements as finite-lived intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test the useful life established for these assets. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer granted shares to non-employees for services. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these shares was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop the fair value of these shares was (1) in conformity with the requirements of GAAP including FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement and (2) appropriate for the nature of the related account taking into account the firm's understanding of the issuer and its environment. (AS 2501.10)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of the resulting noncontrolling interest and goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain information used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of these accounts. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of the resulting noncontrolling interest and goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the work of the company's specialist because it did not identify that (1) certain information in the company specialist's valuation report was inconsistent with a disclosure in the issuer's financial statements and (2) the company's specialist report was not final even though the issuer disclosed that it had completed its valuation of the accounts. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

The issuer reported derivative liabilities at fair value. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry of management and testing certain inputs used in the calculation to test the fair value of the derivative liabilities. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not select journal entries and other adjustments that met its identified fraud characteristics for testing. (AS 2401.61)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas and identified the deficiencies below in the related areas reviewed. The firm's approach to testing certain revenue included reliance on controls. The firm did not identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of system reports that the issuer used in the operation of its controls that the firm selected for testing. (AS 2301.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas and identified the deficiencies below in the related areas reviewed. The firm did not consider fraud characteristics in identifying and selecting journal entries and other adjustments for testing. (AS 2401.61)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's valuation of the acquiree's investment in the acquirer. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this acquisition and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure related to this business combination required by FASB ASC Topic 805. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of impairment of an investment and concluded that it was not impaired. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test the accuracy of certain issuer-produced information included in the assessment to support the issuer's conclusion. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas and identified the deficiencies below in the related areas reviewed. The firm's approach to testing certain revenue included reliance on controls. The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because this procedure was designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency described above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas and identified the deficiencies below in the related areas reviewed. The firm did not perform any procedures to examine a material adjustment the issuer made to revenue during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)