Explorer

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data the issuer used to develop the significant assumptions. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognizes multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue and the related accounts which were measured based on estimates the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected a sample of transactions to test the measurement of this revenue. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether data was appropriately used and significant assumptions were appropriately applied in measuring this revenue because it did not compare the amount of revenue it calculated for the selected transactions to the amount of revenue recorded by the issuer. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recognizes multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue and the related accounts which were measured based on estimates the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions that the issuer used to estimate this type of revenue. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognizes multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue and the related accounts which were measured based on estimates the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption that the issuer used to estimate a related account. (AS 2501.16)

For a second type of revenue the following deficiency was identified: • For certain revenue of this type the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's identification of performance obligations because it did not evaluate (1) the issuer's basis for concluding that the goods and services or bundles thereof represented a single or multiple performance obligation(s) and (2) whether the issuer was acting as the principal for the transaction rather than an agent. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a second type of revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test when the issuer recognized revenue because it did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) the issuer had satisfied the performance obligation(s) at the time revenue was recognized and (2) the revenue for each performance obligation should have been recognized at a point-in-time or over time. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a second type of revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the determination of the transaction prices because when concluding that variable consideration did not exist the firm did not evaluate aspects of the revenue transactions that indicated the presence of variable consideration. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

For a second type of revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not test or identify and test controls over the completeness and accuracy of issuer-produced data the issuer used to develop significant assumptions used in measuring variable consideration for certain revenue of this type. (AS 1105.10)

For a second type of revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption the issuer used to measure this revenue. (AS 2501.16)

To substantively test the valuation of inventory the firm developed an independent expectation with respect to certain inventory. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test the valuation of inventory that was not included in its independent expectation. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded (1) journal entries into the general ledger during the financial reporting period and (2) adjustments during the period end financial reporting process. The firm selected for testing journal entries and adjustments meeting certain fraud criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the selected journal entries and adjustments because it did not examine the underlying support for the entries. (AS 2401.61)

To substantively test the valuation of inventory the firm developed an independent expectation with respect to certain inventory. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it developed. (AS 2501.22)

To substantively test the valuation of inventory the firm developed an independent expectation with respect to certain inventory. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions it used that the issuer developed. (AS 2501.24)

To substantively test the valuation of inventory the firm developed an independent expectation with respect to certain inventory. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain assumptions it obtained from an external appraiser. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.23)

To substantively test the valuation of inventory the firm developed an independent expectation with respect to certain inventory. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of certain data it used. (AS 2501.24)

The issuer reported a warrant liability. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this liability was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the relevance of certain data the issuer used to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported a warrant liability. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this liability was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether this assumption was consistent with certain information including existing market information and historical and recent experience related to the issuer's stock taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded (1) journal entries into the general ledger during the financial reporting period and (2) adjustments during the period end financial reporting process. The firm selected for testing journal entries and adjustments meeting certain fraud criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test the completeness of the population of adjustments. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded (1) journal entries into the general ledger during the financial reporting period and (2) adjustments during the period end financial reporting process. The firm selected for testing journal entries and adjustments meeting certain fraud criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness of the population of journal entries because it limited its procedures to observation of the issuer downloading the journal entries and rolling forward certain equity accounts. (AS 1105.10)

To test revenue and accounts receivable the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions and confirmed a sample of customer receivables using certain issuer-prepared reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data included in one of the issuer-prepared reports ('invoice detailed report') used in its substantive testing of revenue and accounts receivable because the firm did not test the validity of the information used to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the data. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

To test revenue and accounts receivable the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions and confirmed a sample of customer receivables using certain issuer-prepared reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of (1) the invoice detailed report used in its substantive testing of revenue and accounts receivable and (2) another issuer-prepared report used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

To test revenue and accounts receivable the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions and confirmed a sample of customer receivables using certain issuer-prepared reports. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain revenue transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether (1) a sales contract existed with the customer and (2) the issuer had satisfied its performance obligation prior to recognizing revenue beyond agreeing the transactions or related purchase order information to the invoice detailed report referred to above. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the reasonableness of the significant inputs and assumptions used to record the business combination. 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's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the significant account was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the significant account was to review and test management's process. The firm not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the internal data and did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of the external data the issuer used to develop certain assumptions. (AS 2502.26 .28 and .39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the significant account was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test whether the fair value measurement was accurately calculated from the data and the issuer's assumptions. (AS 2502.39)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of management's review of qualitative factors and the reasonableness of loan grade basis points used in the determination of the ALL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the qualitative factors and loan grade basis points. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of assigned loan risk ratings. The firm did not identify that this control only operated over newly originated loans and as designed would not prevent or detect a material misstatement related to the assignment of loan risk ratings to loans in the issuer's existing loan portfolio. (AS 2301.19)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the qualitative factors and loan grade basis points used by the issuer to determine the ALL beyond comparing the current period qualitative factors and loan grade basis points to those used in prior periods. (AS 2501.07)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of assigned loan risk ratings was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing described above. Further the sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of assigned loan risk ratings was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of other-than-temporary impairment of investment securities. The firm did not identify that this control only operated over certain investment securities and as designed would not prevent or detect a material misstatement related to the other investment securities. (AS 2301.19)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the valuation of investment securities 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. Further the sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the valuation of investment securities was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the reasonableness of the significant inputs and assumptions used to record the business combination. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer data and the relevance and reliability of external data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used an external valuation specialist to determine the fair value of the acquired entity. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the acquired entity was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the projections developed by the issuer that the external valuation specialist used. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer used an external valuation specialist to determine the fair value of the acquired entity. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the acquired entity was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the external valuation specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer used a valuation model to determine the fair value of a significant account. The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of management's review of the reasonableness of the assumptions used in the valuation model and the output from the valuation model. 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 used a valuation model to determine the fair value of a significant account. The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of management's review of the reasonableness of the assumptions used in the valuation model and the output from the valuation model. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test the necessary complementary user controls to place reliance on or identify and test any other controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain assumptions and reports from a service organization used in the operation of controls. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The firm used the work of an external party engaged by management to test certain controls that addressed this significant account. The firm did not assess the competence and objectivity of the external party. (AS 2201.18)

The firm used the work of an external party engaged by management to test certain controls that addressed this significant account. The firm did not evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the external party's work. (AS 2605.24)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain data. 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 did not identify and test any controls over certain data that was not subject to this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any relevant controls that addressed the risks of material misstatement related to a significant account. (AS 2201.39)

The firm performed substantive analytical procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm used certain system-generated data to develop its expectations but did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 2305.16)

The firm performed substantive analytical procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm performed these analytical procedures using established thresholds for investigating differences based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. As a result the thresholds that the firm used did not provide the desired level of assurance that misstatements that could have been material would be identified. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2305.20)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the determination of certain revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also used this data to substantively test this revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or (as discussed above) identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy of certain revenue disclosures in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of certain liabilities using an assumption developed by the specialist. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over a significant account. For one control the firm did not evaluate the specific procedures that the control owner performed to determine that the significant account was appropriately recognized. (AS 2201.42 and .44)