Explorer

The issuer's ACL included reserves for loans collectively evaluated for impairment and for loans individually evaluated for impairment. For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer estimated quantitative qualitative and economic reserve components. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the methods the issuer used to develop the ACL were in conformity with the requirements of GAAP because it did not evaluate whether the issuer's economic reserve component was duplicative of a portion of the qualitative reserve component that also related to economic conditions. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer's ACL included reserves for loans collectively evaluated for impairment and for loans individually evaluated for impairment. For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer estimated quantitative qualitative and economic reserve components. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance of certain external data the issuer used in developing the economic reserve and the qualitative reserve. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm used certain issuer-produced data in its substantive testing of one type of revenue and the related deferred revenue but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosures related to revenue and determined that certain disclosures were omitted. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these omissions in a subsequent filing.

The firm's substantive procedures to test payroll expenses included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used employee headcount information produced by a service organization to develop its expectations but did not evaluate the reliability of this information. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these revenue types the issuer recognized revenue for certain of these transactions based on labor hours recorded in the issuer's time system. The firm did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the labor hours allocated to these transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed cycle counts of the majority of its inventory. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test this inventory because the firm did not evaluate the methodology and selection parameters used by the issuer or perform other procedures to determine whether the issuer's cycle-count procedures 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)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For both of these revenue types the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for these transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used various system-generated reports and issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of certain of the issuer's revenue and related disclosures but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these reports and schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer provided a company's specialist with certain demographic and employment data that were used to estimate the issuer's projected benefit obligation. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of these data because it (1) did not test the accuracy of certain important data attributes for the participants selected for testing and (2) limited its completeness procedures to testing whether certain participants were appropriately removed from the data. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm used issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of certain revenue disclosures but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used certain issuer-produced production volume data to develop its expectations but did not sufficiently test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the production volume data because the firm's procedures were limited to comparing the production volume data to other issuer-produced data which were used to derive revenue. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer determined its excess and obsolete (E&O) reserve for certain inventory based in part on a calculation of the amount of this inventory it expected to use to manufacture certain products. The firm did not identify and test any controls over this calculation. (AS 2201.39)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this E&O reserve 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)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the E&O reserve was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the issuer used to develop the E&O reserve because the firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate certain significant differences between these assumptions and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the unit cost of certain categories of inventory. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain inventory at locations owned by external parties. The firm performed confirmation procedures to test the existence of this inventory but did not maintain control over the confirmation requests because the issuer sent the requests. (AS 2310.28)

With respect to certain of the issuer's inventory disclosures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of its financial statement disclosures but did not test the aspect of the control that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-prepared schedules used to prepare these inventory disclosures. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to certain of the issuer's inventory disclosures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used these issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of these inventory disclosures but did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of the impairment of certain goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to address the appropriateness of certain significant assumptions developed and used by management's expert in the quantitative assessment. (CAS 500.8; CAS 540.24)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of the impairment of certain goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to address the relevance and reliability of certain data the issuer used to develop certain significant assumptions which management's expert used in the quantitative assessment. (CAS 540.25)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for and disclosures related to goodwill and certain intangible assets were in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. (AS 2401.58)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value of the issuer's common stock issued in various share-based transactions beyond obtaining and reading certain issuer-prepared documents. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. (AS 2401.58)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of a certain asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the appropriateness of the method used by the issuer to develop the fair value. The firm did not evaluate the work performed by the auditor-employed specialist or otherwise perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the method. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of a certain asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the appropriateness of the method used by the issuer to develop the fair value. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer and used to develop the fair value of this asset. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the completeness of certain liabilities. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the fair value of certain liabilities and certain other assets. (AS 2501.07)

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

The issuer disclosed in its financial statements that it recognized revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's recognition of revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether a payment made by the counterparty to another entity on behalf of the issuer was part of the proceeds from the issuer's sale of those assets to the counterparty. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the collectability of the outstanding receivable recorded at year end for the sale of the assets to the counterparty. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data it used to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used in the valuation of the assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.11)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the impairment recorded on the assets because it limited its procedures to inquiry regarding how the loss was calculated. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the agreements were appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not obtain an understanding of and test the inputs methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of the recorded assets related to these transactions. (AS 2502.09 .26 and .28)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test the valuation of the underlying collateral. (AS 2502.15)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the transactions should be identified as transactions with related parties because the counterparties were controlled by an individual who was listed as an officer of the issuer in a public filing and certain of the collateral was held by an entity the issuer disclosed as an entity with control. (AS 2410.14)

The firm did not test whether certain transactions were recorded on the proper dates and at the correct amounts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared data used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm used certain price and quantity information from outside sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2502.40)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's financial statements included sufficient disclosures of the risks and uncertainties related to its revenue and related activities in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 275 Risks and Uncertainties and other relevant standards. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to determine whether any of the revenue and related activities were with related parties. (AS 2410.10)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of evidence it used to test the issuer's ownership rights to certain assets at year end. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of these assets at year end (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not test the disposal of certain assets including the loss recorded on disposition. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test payments for the purchase of the assets from the counterparty. (AS 2301.08)