Explorer

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over this revenue as follows: · For certain of this revenue the firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data and reports the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach to substantively test the fair value of certain investments was to develop independent expectations of the fair values using the work of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The auditor-employed specialist used data from external sources to develop certain significant assumptions for its independent expectations. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance of these data. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm's approach to substantively test the fair value of certain investments was to develop independent expectations of the fair values using the work of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain other significant assumptions used for its independent expectations. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

For this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain of this revenue the firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer performed an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used in the impairment assessment. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the impairment assessment because its procedures were limited to performing sensitivity analyses. (AS 2501.16)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the qualitative factors used to determine whether indicators of possible impairment existed. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing one component of the issuer's reserve for excess and obsolete inventory was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption the issuer used because the firm did not (1) take into account the issuer's ability to carry out this assumption (2) take into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer and (3) evaluate significant differences between this assumption and the issuer's historical experience. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm used a system-generated report in its substantive procedures to test the remainder of the issuer's reserve for excess and obsolete inventory. The firm relied on its testing of the accuracy and completeness of this report that was performed in the prior year. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this report because it did not take into account that user access controls over this IT system were ineffective. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. For certain of these selections the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the customer contracts met the collectability criteria required to recognize revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because these customers did not meet one or more of the issuer's established credit policies and the firm did not evaluate the basis on which the customer or transaction was approved. (AS 2301.08)

For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the estimated costs to complete the open contracts the firm selected for testing. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and determined the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the valuation of these assets. (AS 2501.16)

The firm identified a significant deficiency related to an IT system that the issuer used to record revenue. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue at one business unit included selecting samples of transactions for testing. The sample sizes the firm used 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 it did not take into account the potential effect of the significant deficiency on the controls it relied upon. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the (1) revenue calculations (2) accuracy and completeness of certain related information and (3) corresponding journal entries. In its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control the firm did not test these aspects. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of this assessment and related significant assumptions. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information produced by the issuer that the firm used in its substantive testing of the income tax provision and a deferred tax asset. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used forecasted financial information in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern and concluded that the substantial doubt was alleviated by its plans. In evaluating management's plans the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain forecasted financial information because it did not evaluate management's ability to sustain revenue from existing customers. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2415.03 .08 and .09)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or by the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer because its procedures were limited to evaluating the assumptions for consistency with the issuer's recent experience. Further the firm did not evaluate certain significant differences between these assumptions and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer processed and recorded revenue transactions using its general ledger system. The firm tested certain automated and information technology ('IT')-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated by or maintained in the general ledger system. The firm's approach to test the accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls ('ITGCs'). In response to an ineffective ITGC over the issuer's general ledger system the firm selected for testing a compensating control that consisted of a review of system changes. 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 a result the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls over these areas was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46 and .68)

The firm's approach for testing the issuer's loan portfolio consisted of sending positive confirmation requests for loans greater than a certain amount and negative confirmation requests for a sample of loans below that threshold. For loans below the threshold the firm did not perform any other procedures to test the existence of those loans. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the review of revenue. 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. Further the firm did not perform procedures to test whether the controls were operating as designed. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test that revenue was appropriately recognized. In its sample the firm did not test certain aspects of the transactions including valuation. (AS 2301.08)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests as of an interim date. The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the completeness of the listing used to make its selections for confirmation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm performed alternative procedures for confirmations that were not returned by comparing selected amounts to a report of subsequent cash receipts compiled by the firm using issuer data. The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer data the firm used to compile the cash receipts report. (AS 1105.10; AS 2310.33)

The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer data used in its roll forward procedures performed from the date of confirmation to year end. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing several controls that consisted of reviews of aspects of the issuer's loan portfolio to evaluate the reasonableness of loan grades and the identification of problem loans that management used in its evaluation of the ALL. The firm did not evaluate the specific criteria the control owners used to identify individual loans for follow up and whether loans meeting such criteria were identified for investigation and resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm used the results from internal audit ('IA')'s deposit confirmation testing for certain deposit accounts. The firm did not test any of the work performed by IA. (AS 2605.20-.21 .24 and .26)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test investments because it selected for testing underlying investments from the issuer's two largest funds which was not representative of the population of investments. (AS 2315.24)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and related accounts and long-lived assets. In its testing of controls over revenue and related accounts as well as long-lived assets the firm tested various IT-dependent controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm selected for testing a change management control over this IT system that consisted of the documentation review testing and approval of changes in a ticketing system prior to their migration into production. The firm did not perform procedures to test the operating effectiveness of this control beyond inquiries of management and obtaining a list of all changes that occurred during the year. (AS 2201.44)

To substantively test long-lived assets the firm selected additions to and disposals of long-lived assets that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of additions and disposals. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

As a result of the firm's ITGC testing deficiency the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test long-lived assets because it did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that it used to substantively test these account balances. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and related accounts and long-lived assets. In its testing of controls over revenue and related accounts as well as long-lived assets the firm tested various IT-dependent controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm selected for testing a change management control over this IT system that consisted of the documentation review testing and approval of changes in a ticketing system prior to their migration into production. As a result of this deficiency in the firm's testing of an IT general control (ITGC) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

For revenue and related accounts the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: the firm selected for testing a control related to a revenue reconciliation. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether this control could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For revenue and related accounts the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: the firm used the work of the issuer's internal audit as evidence of the operating effectiveness of certain controls selected for testing over revenue and related accounts. The firm or the issuer's internal audit did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether these controls could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. Further the issuer's internal audit tested certain of these controls through an interim date but the firm did not perform any procedures to update the results of the testing from that interim date to year end. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .55)

For revenue and related accounts the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: the firm used the work of the issuer's internal audit as evidence of the operating effectiveness of certain controls selected for testing over revenue and related accounts. The firm or the issuer's internal audit did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether these controls could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. The firm's use of the work of internal audit did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence that controls related to estimating costs to complete were operating as designed given the significant amount of subjectivity and judgment involved in these controls. (AS 2201.19; AS 2605.20 and .21)

The firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue and related accounts transactions. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of certain system-generated reports from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

As a result of the firm's ITGC testing deficiency the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts because it did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that it used to substantively test these account balances. (AS 1105.10)

For long-lived assets the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: The firm selected for testing a control related to performing an impairment analysis on land. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether this control could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For long-lived assets the following additional deficiency related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: the firm used the work of the issuer's internal audit as evidence of the operating effectiveness of certain controls selected for testing over long-lived assets. The firm or the issuer's internal audit did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether these controls could effectively prevent or detect material misstatements. Further the issuer's internal audit tested these controls through an interim date but the firm did not perform any procedures to update the results of that testing from that interim date to year end. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .55)

During the year the issuer entered into certain transactions. The firm did not identify and appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer's accounting for two transactions. (AS 2810.30)

During the year the issuer entered into certain transactions. With respect to one other transaction the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the issuer's financial statements of a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's accounting for this transaction. (AS 2810.30)

During the year the issuer entered into certain transactions. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately accounted for another aspect of this transaction. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer issued shares of common stock in exchange for services rendered. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately accounted for these shares in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer also issued shares of preferred stock and applied a discount in determining the fair value of the shares. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the discount. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

With regard to the issuance of the common stock and the preferred stock (discussed above) the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the issuer's financial statements of a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by with FASB ASC Topic 718 Compensation — Stock Compensation. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported certain other equity-related transactions during the year. The firm did not perform any procedures to test these transactions including their fair value. (AS 2301.08; AS 2502.15)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review subsequent transactions. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance because the firm limited its procedures to obtaining (1) a listing of outstanding receivable balances by customer and the related aging and (2) evidence of certain subsequent cash receipts. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .13)

The issuer's main information technology ('IT') application processed financial transactions and maintained related data. The firm selected for testing IT general controls ('ITGCs') that consisted of controls over access and change management. The firm did not test administrator access to the database and the operating system supporting this application. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not use the appropriate (1) tolerable misstatement for the population and (2) risk assessment in its sampling tool. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)