Explorer

As a result of the firm's ITGC testing deficiency the firm did not perform sufficient other audit procedures as follows: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test certain revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For inventory at three business units one of which was affected by additional audit deficiencies the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over inventory costing. (AS 2201.39)

For inventory at three business units one of which was affected by additional audit deficiencies the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's performance of physical inventory counts. The firm did not test the aspect of these controls that addressed whether recorded inventory reflected the results of the issuer's physical counts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For inventory at three business units one of which was affected by additional audit deficiencies the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of this inventory because it did not inspect any records of the issuer's counts on which the year-end inventory was based. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held loans receivable that were measured at fair value. The issuer determined the fair values of these loans based on discounted cash flows it developed using various significant assumptions including the issuer's approach to grouping loans in order to estimate fair value. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the (1) reasonableness of the issuer's grouping of loans and (2) mathematical logic of the discounted cash flow models used by the issuer to determine the fair values of these loans. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over loans receivable and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

For inventory at three business units one of which was affected by additional audit deficiencies the following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test inventory were 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 discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm identified a fraud risk related to the potential for management to override controls including recording unsupported journal entries. The firm subjected certain of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to these business units the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed this risk. (AS 2201.39)

The firm identified a fraud risk related to the potential for management to override controls including recording unsupported journal entries. The firm subjected certain of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to these business units the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test journal entries to address this risk. (AS 2401.58)

For one business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing a sample of transactions. For certain of the transactions it selected for testing the firm was unable to obtain evidence demonstrating that the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. The firm did not consider the effect of these unexamined transactions on its evaluation of the sample results. (AS 2315.25)

For a second business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk related to accuracy of the quantity of items ordered. (AS 2201.39)

For a second business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For one business unit the firm selected for testing the issuer's cycle-count control over the existence of inventory. The firm did not evaluate whether this control was designed to address whether all recorded inventory items were counted. (AS 2201.42)

Due to the deficiency discussed above the firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the cycle-count procedures the issuer used for this inventory were sufficiently reliable to produce results substantially the same as those that would have been obtained by a count of all items each year. (AS 2510.11)

For another business unit the issuer performed full physical counts of inventory at various locations before year end. To test the existence of inventory at these locations the firm observed the issuer's physical counts and made certain independent test counts. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these locations the firm obtained an inventory listing from a date subsequent to the issuer's physical count. The firm did not inspect any records of the issuer's counts and apply appropriate tests of intervening transactions between the date of the issuer's counts and the date of the inventory listing. (AS 2510.12)

For another business unit the issuer performed full physical counts of inventory at various locations before year end. To test the existence of inventory at these locations the firm observed the issuer's physical counts and made certain independent test counts. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another location the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain differences it identified from its independent test counts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these loans was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the expected timing of cash flows and the grouping of loans. (AS 2501.16)

For another business unit the issuer performed full physical counts of inventory at various locations before year end. To test the existence of inventory at these locations the firm observed the issuer's physical counts and made certain independent test counts. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two locations and certain other locations the firm did not perform appropriate procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain issuer-produced reports it used to test intervening transactions between the dates of its inventory observations and year end. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the fair values of assets acquired in these business combinations including the significant assumptions used. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the fair values of assets acquired in these business combinations including the significant assumptions used. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. For one of these business combinations the issuer engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions developed by the issuer or the company's specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist that was used in the measurement of an acquired intangible asset. The firm did not identify that the work of the auditor-employed specialist did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate (1) whether this assumption was consistent with recent existing market information and (2) whether certain data the company's specialist used to develop this assumption were relevant to the assumption beyond observing that the data were from comparable industries. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. For one of these business combinations the issuer engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions developed by the issuer or the company's specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist that was used in the measurement of an acquired intangible asset. The firm did not identify that the work of the auditor-employed specialist did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate (1) whether this assumption was consistent with recent existing market information and (2) whether certain data the company's specialist used to develop this assumption were relevant to the assumption beyond observing that the data were from comparable industries. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. For one of these business combinations the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence of inventory at the acquisition date. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used various service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain investment transactions and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for each of these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that addressed the issuer's review of certain investments for potential impairment. The firm did not evaluate whether the control was designed to consider all of the relevant requirements of FASB ASC Topic 326 Current Expected Credit Losses when assessing whether an impairment loss or credit impairment existed for these investments. (AS 2201.42 and .B22)

The issuer used various service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain investment transactions and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for each of these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that addressed the issuer's review of certain investments for potential impairment. The firm did not evaluate whether the control was designed to consider all of the relevant requirements of FASB ASC Topic 326 Current Expected Credit Losses when assessing whether an impairment loss or credit impairment existed for these investments. (AS 2201.42 and .B22)

The issuer used various service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain investment transactions and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for each of these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the review of monthly investment reconciliations. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used various service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain investment transactions and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for each of these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at certain sub-service organizations. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these loans was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the discount rates the issuer selected from a range of potential discount rates it developed. The firm did not identify that the work of the auditor-employed specialist did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for (1) the discount rates used and (2) the issuer's selection of the discount rates from the range of potential discount rates. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

The issuer used various service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain investment transactions and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for each of these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one sub-service organization the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether there were any changes in the sub-service organization's controls from the date of the service auditor's report to year end given the length of period under audit not covered by the service auditor's report. (AS 2201.B24 and .B25)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test these investments 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that no impairment or credit loss existed for certain investments because it did not take into account certain relevant requirements of FASB ASC Topic 326. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with evaluating the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of investments within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. The firm identified certain differences between the categorizations determined by the issuer and those determined by the auditor-engaged specialist but did not perform any procedures to evaluate these differences. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an IT system to process and record transactions and data which the issuer used in estimating its insurance reserves. The firm selected for testing controls over change management for this system but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an IT system to process and record transactions and data which the issuer used in estimating its insurance reserves. In its testing of controls over insurance reserves the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data generated or maintained by this IT system. As a result of the deficiency in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an IT system to process and record transactions and data which the issuer used in estimating its insurance reserves. In its testing of controls over insurance reserves the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reliability of certain data that the issuer obtained from external parties and used in the operation of these IT-dependent controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing insurance reserves was to develop an independent expectation using these external data. The firm did not evaluate the reliability of these data used in developing its independent expectation. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm used the work of internal audit as evidence of the effectiveness of certain controls over revenue inventory and accounts payable that the firm selected for testing. The firm identified that certain individuals from internal audit also served as control owners for certain of these controls. The firm did not sufficiently assess the objectivity of internal audit because it did not determine whether these individuals participated in the audit of these controls. (AS 2201.18; AS 2605.10)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the cycle-count results. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these controls the firm did not test beyond inquiry certain aspects of this control. Further in evaluating the design of another aspect of this control the firm did not determine whether certain items identified for follow up were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these loans was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the expected timing of cash flows and the grouping of loans. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the cycle-count results. The following deficiencies were identified: · In evaluating the design of an aspect of another control the firm did not evaluate whether the thresholds the control owner used to identify items for investigation were sufficiently precise to detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the cycle-count results. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain information used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

To test the existence of this inventory the firm performed independent physical counts of inventory at year end. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently test inventory because it did not compare the inventory listings it used to perform its substantive procedures to the recorded balance. (AS 2301.08)

To test the existence of this inventory the firm performed independent physical counts of inventory at year end. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's sample size for testing the existence of this inventory was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

For certain inventory the firm did not identify and test any controls over the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test the cost of certain inventory consisted of selecting a sample of items for testing. The sample size the firm used 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 as it did not take into account that one of the controls it relied upon was ineffective. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer used service organizations to process and/or record transactions for revenue and related accounts and the firm used certain information including delivery information produced by these service organizations in its substantive testing of these accounts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and/or completeness of certain of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used service organizations to process and/or record transactions for revenue and related accounts and the firm used certain information including delivery information produced by these service organizations in its substantive testing of these accounts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included selecting a sample of revenue transactions. For certain selections the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test this delivery information beyond comparing the information to another report from the service organization. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and determined the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using forecasted cash flows which included significant assumptions related to sales growth product mix and pricing for the forecast period. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the forecasted sales growth. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and determined the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using forecasted cash flows which included significant assumptions related to sales growth product mix and pricing for the forecast period. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain pricing assumptions because it limited its procedures to inquiry of management and review of internal plans without taking into account the issuer's ability to carry out its planned course of action. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate transactions related to certain revenue. In its testing of controls over this revenue the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data generated by this IT system. As a result of the following audit deficiencies the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over this revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The firm's substantive procedures to test one type of revenue at one business unit included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm's sample was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)