Explorer

The issuer recorded its investment securities and related disclosures based on data it obtained from a service organization. The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's comparisons of its recorded investment securities to these data. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of these securities within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2301.08)

For investment securities tested at an interim date the firm did not perform any procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year end. (AS 2301.45)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on rates automatically applied to various transaction types and volumes. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of changes to these rates. The firm did not test the aspect of this control that addressed whether all applicable rate changes were made and appropriately applied to the corresponding transaction types and volumes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and inventory. 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. As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of these sales incentives. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these controls the firm did not test the aspect of the control that addressed the control owner's review of the accuracy of certain sales incentives. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over certain of these sales incentives 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 offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of these sales incentives. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these controls the control owner used an automated tool to assess the accuracy of certain other sales incentives. The firm did not test the configuration or programming of this tool or perform other procedures to test this tool that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that this aspect of the control was designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over certain of these sales incentives 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 offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of these sales incentives. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's testing of an aspect of these controls that addressed whether these sales incentives were appropriately recorded in the general ledger was not sufficient because the number of items the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the controls operated. (AS 2201.46) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over certain of these sales incentives 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 offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of these sales incentives. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm 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 these controls. (AS 1105.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over certain of these sales incentives 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 performed substantive procedures to test the accuracy of certain issuer-produced data the firm used in its testing of the sales incentive liability. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of these substantive procedures were smaller than the ones the firm determined necessary to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer held certain inventory at external warehouses. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and reconciliation of this inventory to the general ledger. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the (1) accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data and reports and (2) reliability of data and reports that the issuer obtained from the external warehouses that were used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held certain inventory at external warehouses. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and reconciliation of this inventory to the general ledger. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether items that met the criteria for investigation were identified for review. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the recorded amounts of certain assets acquired and liabilities assumed. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices 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 also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2501.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices 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 also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of changes made to this IT system through administrative user access. 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 the instances selected for testing. Further the firm did not determine whether the control owners possessed the necessary authority and competence to perform this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the accuracy of the issuer's disclosures related to standalone selling prices under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices 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 also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

The firm did not identify and test any controls over long-lived assets and depreciation expense. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain long-lived assets and depreciation expense. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other long-lived assets the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these long-lived assets for possible impairment beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other long-lived assets the following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test these long-lived assets were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample sizes 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 test any controls over the issuer's domestic pension assets and liabilities. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to (1) test the fair value of these pension assets and (2) evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of these pension assets within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement beyond obtaining a confirmation from the pension asset custodian. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing three controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the fair value of these acquired intangible assets. For two of these controls the firm did not evaluate the criteria the control owners used to identify items for follow-up when assessing the reasonableness of certain assumptions used. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing three controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the fair value of these acquired intangible assets. For the third control 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)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data that the company's specialist used to develop certain of these assumptions. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over managing changes to the issuer's production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain data that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data that the company's specialist used to develop certain of these assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using various assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was required to make certain disclosures related to these business combinations in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations beyond asserting that these disclosures were either not material to the financial statements or not applicable. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue and the related deferred revenue. 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 these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiencies 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 firm selected for testing a control over managing changes to the issuer's production environment for each of these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two IT systems the firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the populations of changes that the control owners used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control over managing changes to the issuer's production environment for each of these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two other IT systems the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test controls over the completeness of the populations of changes that the control owners used in the operation of the control because it limited its procedures to inspecting evidence that the control owner traced one system change into the populations used. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing a control over managing changes to the issuer's production environment for each of these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another IT system when evaluating the design of the control the firm did not assess whether the control owner's review of system changes was sufficiently precise to achieve the control's objective. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer used a service organization to maintain databases that the issuer used in the recognition of revenue and the related deferred revenue. The firm obtained a service auditor's report and identified complementary user entity controls that the service auditor's report described as necessary. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had implemented these controls with respect to one of these databases. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue as follows: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue 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 substantive procedures over revenue 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)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on the expected cost plus a margin approach which included significant assumptions related to the expected costs of satisfying each of the performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's reviews of the estimated standalone selling prices including the significant assumptions. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls over managing changes to the issuer's production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm 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 these controls. (AS 1105.10)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on the expected cost plus a margin approach which included significant assumptions related to the expected costs of satisfying each of the performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimated standalone selling prices was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the expected costs of satisfying each of the performance obligations. (AS 2501.16)

The firm selected for testing various manual controls over the issuer's deferred revenue calculation. The following deficiencies were identified: · For three of these controls the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing various manual controls over the issuer's deferred revenue calculation. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another of these controls the firm did not 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 firm's testing of an automated control over deferred revenue was not sufficient because the firm did not test the configuration or programming of this control or perform other procedures to test this control that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that this control was designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and a certain asset and liability. 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 these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiencies 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 firm selected for testing controls over change management that consisted of the review and testing of changes to certain IT systems prior to implementation into the production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these controls the firm did not 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 firm selected for testing controls over change management that consisted of the review and testing of changes to certain IT systems prior to implementation into the production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · When testing the operating effectiveness of certain of these controls the firm did not determine whether the control owners possessed the necessary competence to perform these controls effectively. (AS 2201.44)

The firm selected for testing controls over change management that consisted of the review and testing of changes to certain IT systems prior to implementation into the production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's testing of an aspect of one of these controls that involved the use of automated tools was not sufficient because the firm did not test the configuration of these tools or perform other procedures to test these tools that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that this aspect of the control was designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls over change management that consisted of the review and testing of changes to certain IT systems prior to implementation into the production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's testing of one of these controls was not sufficient because it did not evaluate whether the changes it selected were appropriately tested by the issuer prior to implementation into the production environment. Further the firm's testing of another control was not sufficient because its procedures to test the control were limited to inquiry. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of user access to another IT system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain information that the control owners used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over managing changes to the issuer's production environment. The following deficiencies were identified: · One of these controls consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes made to this IT system. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether these changes had met the necessary criteria to be implemented into the production environment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)