Explorer

The issuer used an IT system to retain certain data related to MSRs and loan servicing revenue. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used reports generated by this IT system. As a result of the following audit deficiencies the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the transfer of data between certain of the issuer's revenue systems and the general ledger. For the first control the firm did not test the configuration or programming of certain automated aspects of the control or perform other procedures to test this control that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these automated aspects of the control were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer used an IT system to retain certain data related to MSRs and loan servicing revenue. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used reports generated by this IT system. · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk that certain users could make unauthorized changes to the data in this system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used an IT system to retain certain data related to MSRs and loan servicing revenue. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used reports generated by this IT system. · The firm selected for testing (1) an automated control over the transfer of data from the issuer's source system into this IT system and (2) controls over the generation of the reports used in these IT-dependent manual controls. The firm did not test the configuration or programming of these controls or perform other procedures to test these controls that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test MSRs and loan servicing 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 due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of forecasted sales that were used to estimate the valuation of certain inventory. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the issuer's ability to achieve these forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of the inventory subledger to its general ledger and its review of this reconciliation. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the appropriateness of certain inventory adjustments that the firm selected for testing that were included in this reconciliation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's substantive procedures to test these inventory adjustments consisted of selecting a sample of items for testing. The firm used issuer-produced quantity information in these substantive procedures but did not perform any procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of potential indicators of impairment for its long-lived assets and certain investments. The firm did not evaluate whether the thresholds that the control owner used to identify certain impairment indicators were sufficiently precise to prevent or detect material misstatements. (AS 2201.42)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of potential indicators of impairment for its long-lived assets and certain investments. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed a quantitative impairment assessment of certain long-lived assets and investments that had impairment indicators. The firm used certain issuer-produced data in its substantive testing of this impairment assessment but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10)

For another of the issuer's long-lived assets the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's conclusion that an impairment assessment was not required even though an impairment indicator existed for this long-lived asset. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the transfer of data between certain of the issuer's revenue systems and the general ledger. For the second control the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data that the control owner used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recorded transactions related to revenue and inventory at numerous business units. To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue and inventory for certain of these business units the firm selected entity-level controls for testing including two controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of financial information. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the first control 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 issuer recorded transactions related to revenue and inventory at numerous business units. To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue and inventory for certain of these business units the firm selected entity-level controls for testing including two controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of financial information. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the second control the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports that the control owners used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recorded transactions related to revenue and inventory at numerous business units. To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue and inventory for certain of these business units the firm selected entity-level controls for testing including two controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of financial information. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the second control the firm did not test the aspects of this control that addressed the accuracy or completeness of certain other reports used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed the goodwill area and also identified the deficiency below. For four of the issuer's reporting units the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the forecasts and valuation model used in its goodwill impairment analysis including the assumptions used. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the accounting for certain lease transactions. 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 internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm used issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of the issuer's (1) assessment of certain long-lived assets for possible impairment and (2) long-lived asset disclosures. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of certain data included in these issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm performed substantive procedures to test the accuracy of a schedule that the issuer used to prepare certain of its lease disclosures. The sample size the firm used in these substantive procedures was smaller than the one 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 this schedule. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its asset groupings used in the evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the specific assets that were included in the asset groupings. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer identified that events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of certain long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate whether these events or changes in circumstances indicated that the carrying amounts of certain other long-lived assets may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's contracts provided for the reimbursement of costs for services performed on behalf of its customers and the issuer did not recognize revenue from these services. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether these services were part of the issuer's performance obligation under its customer contracts that should have been recognized as revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to revenue and deferred revenue at certain business units that the firm subjected to more extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the issuer's (1) identification of matters at its business units that could affect revenue recognition and (2) review of certain new and modified contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. The issuer used the matters identified in the first control as the population of contracts to be reviewed in the second control. The firm did not evaluate whether the first control was designed to address whether a complete population of these new and modified contracts was identified for review in the second control. (AS 2201.42) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the control owner's review of certain journal entries. The firm did not evaluate whether the design of this control was sufficient to address whether journal entries prepared and posted by the same individual were authorized and appropriate. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer used a service organization for recordkeeping and processing of transactions related to investment securities. The firm did not perform any procedures that addressed the accuracy of certain data from the service organization that was used to determine the classification of investment purchases and sales in the statement of cash flows. (AS 2301.08)

The firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test certain revenue deductions. The firm did not determine whether the expectation used in this substantive analytical procedure was based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

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 relative standalone selling prices were determined based in part on the issuer's categorization of its product offerings and pricing discounts it offered its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's categorization of its product offerings and pricing discounts that were used to determine the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

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

The firm did not identify and evaluate a GAAP departure related to the issuer's classification of distributions received from an equity method investee as investing activities within the statement of cash flows rather than as operating activities considering the nature of the activities that generated the distributions in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 230 Statement of Cash Flows. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its classification of the distributions received from the investee within the statement of cash flows 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 classification of distributions received from its equity method investee within the statement of cash flows 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.

Deficiencies testing cycle-count controls, an excess/obsolescence reserve, and supplier confirmations for inventory.

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis which included performing procedures to test the accuracy of information used in this analysis. The software-assisted analysis was designed to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash that the issuer recorded through journal entries. The firm however did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the cash data used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis which included performing procedures to test the accuracy of information used in this analysis. The software-assisted analysis was designed to test the relationships between revenue and cash that the issuer recorded through journal entries. The firm however did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the cash data used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record certain sales transactions based on data provided by the issuer. The firm did not identify and test any complementary user entity controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data provided to the service organization. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The firm used certain system-generated data to substantively test certain revenue. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions including those related to long-lived assets. In its testing over long-lived assets 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 IT general controls the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions including those related to long-lived assets. In its testing over long-lived assets 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 a control over user access that consisted of the validation by the owner or owner's representative of access requests prior to the creation and modification of user access rights. The firm did not test the aspect of the control related to the modification of user access rights to the system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions including those related to long-lived assets. In its testing over long-lived assets 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 another control over user access that consisted of the periodic review and validation of the appropriateness of the access rights granted to users. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine whether the role(s) and related functions assigned to each user were appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a configurable IT application control over certain revenue that consisted of the issuer's revenue system automatically pulling prices from a validated contract and blocking manual price changes at the order level. The firm did not test the aspect of the control related to the recording of sales revenue to ensure that the price used to record such revenue was based on the contract price within the issuer's revenue system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of goodwill was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the method the issuer used to perform its impairment analyses was in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework including the requirements of International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets (“IAS 36”) because the firm did not evaluate whether the period of cash flow projections the issuer used to evaluate goodwill for impairment was in accordance with IAS 36. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue and computed the related deferred revenue using an assumption that it developed from data obtained from external sources. The firm performed certain procedures to test this external data. The firm also performed a test of details on a sample of revenue transactions to test the occurrence of this revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the relevance and reliability of the external data because it limited its procedures to (1) confirming the data with two of the external sources and (2) verifying that certain information was appropriately captured by certain of the external sources. (AS 1105.04 and.06) In connection with our review the firm determined that it would be unable to perform additional procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the relevance and reliability of the external data and withdrew its report on the issuer's financial statements. Shortly after the firm withdrew its report the issuer withdrew its registration statement on Form F-1.

The issuer recognized certain revenue and computed the related deferred revenue using an assumption that it developed from data obtained from external sources. The firm performed certain procedures to test this external data. The firm also performed a test of details on a sample of revenue transactions to test the occurrence of this revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain revenue transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the firm determined that it would be unable to perform additional procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the relevance and reliability of the external data and withdrew its report on the issuer's financial statements. Shortly after the firm withdrew its report the issuer withdrew its registration statement on Form F-1.

To test the existence of accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable as of either an interim date or year-end. To extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end the firm tested the respective customer's year-end account balances by agreeing subsequent cash collections from those customers to the issuer's bank statements. The following deficiency was identified: · For positive confirmation requests for which the firm did not receive a response the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the receivables were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test the existence of accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable as of either an interim date or year-end. To extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end the firm tested the respective customer's year-end account balances by agreeing subsequent cash collections from those customers to the issuer's bank statements. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end because it did not perform any procedures to (1) evaluate whether the subsequent cash collections tested related to the customers' year-end account balances and (2) test any uncollected portion of the customers' year-end account balances. (AS 2301.45)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested an IT-dependent manual control that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of this IT-dependent control was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a user access control over this IT system that consisted of management's review and approval of user access requests. The firm did not perform procedures to test an aspect of this control related to the assignment of user access rights. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a user access control over this IT system that consisted of management's review and approval of user access requests. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the completeness of the population of user access requests from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing another user access control over this IT system that consisted of the issuer's periodic monitoring of user access rights for appropriateness. The firm did not perform any procedures to (1) evaluate whether it was appropriate for the control to exclude certain users from monitoring and (2) test an aspect of this control that addressed whether the role and related functions assigned to each user were appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the issuer's review of invoices and contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether certain revenue generated from these contracts was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue because the firm did not evaluate whether certain revenue selected for testing was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2301.08 and .13)