Explorer

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's review of administrative access to certain tools the issuer used to manage access to certain IT systems. The firm did not perform procedures to assess the control owners' (1) determination of whether administrative access to these tools was appropriate and (2) evaluation of certain users' access. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm performed substantive procedures to test certain revenue as of an interim date. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year end because it did not (1) compare relevant information about this revenue at the interim date with comparable information at year end to identify amounts that appear unusual and investigate such amounts and (2) perform audit procedures to test the remaining period beyond performing a correlation analysis without testing the underlying data used in this analysis. (AS 2301.45)

For certain revenue and the related deferred revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over certain data that the issuer used to determine whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing this revenue and the related deferred revenue included performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable deferred revenue and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The sample the firm tested for the second half of the year was smaller than the one the firm determined necessary for these procedures. (AS 1105.10)

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

The issuer used an IT system to process and record transactions related to inventory and debt. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of instances where administrative access was granted that allowed the issuer's IT personnel to make changes to this system. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether (1) users performed appropriate actions when granted this access and (2) this access was appropriately granted for certain instances selected for testing. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an IT system to process and record transactions related to inventory and debt. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of instances where administrative access was granted that allowed the issuer's IT personnel to make changes to this system. The number of instances selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the control operated. (AS 2201.46)

In its testing of controls over this inventory and debt the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory held at one of its warehouses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether all of this inventory was assigned a frequency to be counted. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory held at one of its warehouses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review and approval of count frequencies that had been assigned to this inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether these approved count frequencies were entered into the system accurately and completely. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory held at one of its warehouses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review and approval of count frequencies that had been assigned to this inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated reports used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that the issuer used to process and record revenue transactions. The firm did not sufficiently test these controls because the firm did not test whether these controls were designed to address and/or operated as designed for each relevant processing alternative. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory held at one of its warehouses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing an automated control over the selection of items for cycle counting this inventory. The firm did not test whether the system was appropriately configured to achieve the frequency schedule established by management. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's cycle-count procedures for certain inventory held at other locations. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a system-generated report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient other audit procedures as follows: · The firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the cycle-count procedures the issuer used for certain 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)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies 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 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. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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

The firm's substantive procedures to test the unit cost of certain inventory included selecting a sample of inventory items for testing. For certain items in its sample the firm did not perform any procedures to test the cost of the raw materials included in the unit costs. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of revenue including the estimated costs to complete. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain data in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's sample size for testing revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that the issuer used to process and record transactions related to revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable. The firm did not sufficiently test these controls because the firm did not test the programming of these controls or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing certain other controls that the issuer used to process and record revenue transactions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that the issuer used to process and record transactions related to revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable. For certain of these controls the firm did not test whether these controls operated as designed for each relevant processing alternative. (AS 2201.44)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed including the assumptions and data the issuer used. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess (1) the fair values of certain tangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed and (2) the reasonableness of certain of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the fair values of assets acquired and liabilities assumed including the assumptions and data the issuer used. The firm did not test the aspects of one of these controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of certain of these data. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain of the significant assumptions the issuer used because the firm did not evaluate whether these assumptions were consistent with certain industry factors and the issuer's historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data that the company's specialist used to determine the fair value of certain of these acquired intangible assets. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of capitalized cost variances for certain inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of these acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these acquired intangible assets the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption that the issuer used in these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of these acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · For another of these acquired intangible assets the firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data that a company's specialist used to develop a significant assumption that was used in these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain acquired deferred revenue consisted of 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 tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's omission of the disclosure of revenue recognized from contracts with customers separately from its other sources of revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosure of revenue recognized from contracts with customers and determined a disclosure was 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 this omission in a subsequent filing.

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue and the related accounts receivable as follows: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data or reports the firm used (1) to make its selections to test certain controls or (2) in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an IT system to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue and inventory at one of the issuer's locations. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm selected for testing an ITGC that consisted of the issuer's review of changes made to this IT system. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine which of these changes required approval prior to implementation into the production environment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an IT system to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue and inventory at one of the issuer's locations. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The firm selected for testing an ITGC that consisted of the issuer's review of changes made to this IT system. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine which of these changes required approval prior to implementation into the production environment. As a result of this deficiency in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain price and quantity information that was entered into these IT systems and used to generate customer invoices and recognize revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes to prices maintained in these IT systems. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of certain of these price changes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes to prices maintained in these IT systems. The number of price changes the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the control operated. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at certain of the issuer's locations. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these locations the firm selected for testing an automated control over the generation of customer invoices. The firm did not test the programming of this automated control or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the control was designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.46)

The sample size that the firm used in certain of 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these locations the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these sales deductions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these locations the firm's substantive procedures to test these sales deductions consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm used data to develop its expectations but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of these data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these locations the firm's substantive procedures to test these sales deductions consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm identified differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not evaluate these differences beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2305.21)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue and the related accounts receivable as follows: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable 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 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain revenue the issuer used a service organization to fulfill certain customer orders and the remaining customer orders were fulfilled by the issuer. The issuer recognized this revenue based on the date when delivery occurred. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over these delivery dates. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

For certain revenue the issuer used a service organization to fulfill certain customer orders and the remaining customer orders were fulfilled by the issuer. The issuer recognized this revenue based on the date when delivery occurred. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used these delivery dates in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test these delivery dates beyond comparing the dates to system-generated reports. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ACL using qualitative factors. With respect to one of these qualitative factors the following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the ACL including an assessment of this qualitative factor for reasonableness. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop this qualitative factor. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ACL using qualitative factors. With respect to one of these qualitative factors the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions the issuer used to develop this qualitative factor. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer assigned certain loans a loan risk rating which was an important input in estimating the quantitative component of the ACL. The firm's substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of the assigned loan risk rating for these loans included selecting a sample of loans for testing. The firm's sample size was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)