Explorer

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the allowance for doubtful accounts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures performed to investigate certain accounts receivable balances and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of accounts receivable was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance for doubtful accounts for one customer because in response to the customer indicating in its written confirmation reply that its balance to the issuer was zero the firm limited its procedures to obtaining a written representation from the issuer's management. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11; AS 2810.03)

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 identify and test any controls that addressed the risk of developers migrating changes to production without proper approval and testing. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain IT-dependent controls. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's monthly review of the financial results. 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 selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's monthly review of the financial results. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing three controls that consisted of the configuration of the application to (1) only allow key fields to be populated with certain data (2) sequentially assign sales order customer invoice and cash receipt numbers and (3) not allow customer invoices and journal entries to be posted when the accounting period is closed. The firm did not sufficiently test the configuration of the application because it did not test the operation of the control over all types of revenue transactions that occurred during the year. Further the sample sizes the firm used to test these controls were too small due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of access and change management controls described above. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .46)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether transactions processed by the issuer's revenue application were accurately recorded. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls to address revenue adjustments. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not test the completeness of data used in its substantive procedures to test cut-off. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain controls over the recording of revenue that consisted of matching information from the invoice to other data the firm did not directly test the operating effectiveness of the controls because its procedures were substantive in nature. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm selected for testing certain review controls over revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the appropriateness of the (1) timing of revenue recognition and (2) price changes from the issuer's system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the 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 selected for testing certain review controls over a certain asset. The firm did not evaluate the specific 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 internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain management review controls the firm did not evaluate the specific 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 internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated reports it used to make its selections for testing the operating effectiveness of certain controls over revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the 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's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data and/or reports used in the operation of certain controls over a certain asset. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control over the initiation and approval of wire transfers. The firm did not identify and test any controls over segregation of duties between the initiator the approver and the sender of wire transfers. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm tested certain ITGCs over the issuer's logical access and change management for the issuer's system. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the specific procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether to grant role access to users or whether the granted role access continued to be appropriate because its procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness did not include any procedures related to assessing the appropriateness of the roles configured within the system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm tested certain ITGCs over the issuer's logical access and change management for the issuer's system. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently test the design and operating effectiveness of certain ITGCs related to change management because its procedures to test the completeness of the population of changes were limited to observing the generation of change information from an application outside the issuer's primary system and obtaining an administrator activity log. (AS 1105.10)

As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's ITGC testing 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 and a certain asset were effective as each control was dependent on the effectiveness of ITGCs. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing two review controls over the qualitative factors used in the calculation of the ALL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedure that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the qualitative factors. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test a control over certain assumptions used in the calculation of the ALL. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of all loans to determine whether they should be put on non-accrual status. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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 ALL because the firm's procedures to test the qualitative factors and risk adjustment percentages the issuer used to determine the ALL were limited to (1) reading the issuer's analysis (2) comparing the factors and percentages to the prior year and (3) evaluating whether certain changes or lack thereof to the factors and percentages from the prior year were directionally consistent with internal or external data. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The issuer determined the qualitative component of the ALL by applying basis points to each qualitative factor. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to the basis points used. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer determined the qualitative component of the ALL by applying basis points to each qualitative factor. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation. 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 determined the qualitative component of the ALL by applying basis points to each qualitative factor. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for the assumptions it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer determined the qualitative component of the ALL by applying basis points to each qualitative factor. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that the range it used for its independent expectation encompassed only reasonable outcomes and was supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2501.25)

The issuer also reported an unallocated component of the ALL. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop this component. (AS 2501.16)

The firm used confirmations to test the existence of loans. The sample size did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it was based on a level of reliance on other substantive procedures that was not supported given the nature and scope of those other substantive procedures. (AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm used negative confirmations to substantively test the existence of certain types of loans. The firm's use of negative confirmations did not reduce audit risk to an acceptable level because the population of such loans was not comprised of a large number of small balances. (AS 2310.20)

The issuer reported a reserve for inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the appropriateness of the method and certain assumptions used to determine the reserve. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the reserve for inventory 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 issuer also reevaluated its controls over the reserve for inventory 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 sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test service 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer reported certain loans for which the borrowers were provided temporary payment relief under the law. The issuer identified that one borrower did not make any subsequent payments on a loan for which it had previously been provided payment relief. As a result the issuer determined that the value of this loan was dependent on the underlying collateral. The issuer estimated the fair value of the loan's collateral and recorded a specific provision within the ALLL. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the valuation of loans for which the borrowers had received temporary payment relief under the law. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer received additional information concerning the value of the collateral for the above loan 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 issuer also reevaluated its controls over the valuation of similar loans 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 to include this material weakness.

The issuer reported certain loans for which the borrowers were provided temporary payment relief under the law. The issuer identified that one borrower did not make any subsequent payments on a loan for which it had previously been provided payment relief. As a result the issuer determined that the value of this loan was dependent on the underlying collateral. The issuer estimated the fair value of the loan's collateral and recorded a specific provision within the ALLL. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining the issuer's analysis to test the reasonableness of this specific provision. (AS 2501.07) Unrelated to our review the issuer received additional information concerning the value of the collateral for the above loan 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 issuer also reevaluated its controls over the valuation of similar loans 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 to include this material weakness. [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 issuer's ALLL included a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment. This reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the ALLL. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and/or reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ALLL included a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment. This reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the qualitative component of the ALLL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the basis point adjustments for the qualitative factors. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's ALLL included a reserve for loans collectively evaluated for impairment. This reserve included a component that was determined by using certain qualitative factors. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain basis points that were applied to determine the qualitative component beyond comparing these basis points to the basis points that were applied in prior years and concluding on their overall reasonableness. (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 issuer's general reserve component of the ALL included a qualitative reserve. For each of the qualitative factors evaluated in determining the reserve the issuer assigned a risk level and then assigned basis point adjustments based on the risk level. The firm selected for testing several controls over the review of the ALL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the risk levels and related basis point adjustments. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to the Goodwill the issuer performed a qualitative assessment to determine whether or not a triggering event had occurred. The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of this assessment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the occurrence of the triggering events. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reliability of reports obtained from the issuer's franchisees that it used in its substantive procedures because it limited its procedures to performing a walkthrough of the issuer's process to access the reports and vouching certain transactions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected for confirmation a sample of revenue transactions. The firm emailed the franchisees the confirmation request and received electronic responses. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risk associated with electronic responses beyond verifying the correspondent's name was consistent with the authorized respondent's name. (AS 2310.29)

The issuer reported a reserve for inventory. The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of certain assumptions used to determine the reserve for individual inventory items. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the reserve for inventory 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 issuer also reevaluated its controls over the reserve for inventory 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.

During the year the issuer acquired a business including an intangible asset. The issuer developed assumptions to determine the fair value of the acquired intangible asset. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption. (AS 2501.16)

With respect to Inventory the firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the method used to develop the reserve was appropriate. (AS 2501.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the reserve for inventory 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 issuer also reevaluated its controls over the reserve for inventory 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.

With respect to Inventory the firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions beyond inquiry and performing a retrospective analysis. (AS 2501.16) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the reserve for inventory 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 issuer also reevaluated its controls over the reserve for inventory 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 issuer reported revenue from the sale of products. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm selected for testing a control that included reviews of product pricing. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that certain of the control owners performed including the criteria that the control owners used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. Further the firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of another aspect of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported revenue from the sale of products. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm selected for testing a control that included the review of price overrides. The firm did not test the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the appropriateness of price changes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)