Explorer

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the fair values of acquired assets and the related significant assumptions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the loan risk ratings assigned to the acquired loans. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these loan risk ratings. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm also selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the loan risk ratings assigned to the acquired loans. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ACL using certain qualitative factors. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component of the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm tested one of the issuer's controls over the determination of the ACL during an interim period. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions related to the qualitative factors. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness and existence of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the acquisition date. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged specialists to assist the issuer in estimating the amount of certain notes receivable and collectability of these notes receivable at year-end using various significant assumptions. The firm's approach for testing these notes receivable was to review and test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists beyond comparing certain of these assumptions to assumptions used in a prior year. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged specialists to assist the issuer in estimating the amount of certain notes receivable and collectability of these notes receivable at year-end using various significant assumptions. The firm's approach for testing these notes receivable was to review and test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for evaluating the reasonableness of another assumption was to develop an expectation of this assumption. The firm did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data produced by the issuer that the firm used to develop its expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged specialists to assist the issuer in estimating the amount of certain notes receivable and collectability of these notes receivable at year-end using various significant assumptions. The firm's approach for testing these notes receivable was to review and test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate another assumption the company's specialist used. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external information used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

During the year the issuer completed a business combination and issued a convertible note. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm capitalized transaction costs related to the business combination and the convertible note issuance. The firm did not (1) evaluate whether the issuer's capitalization of these costs was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations and (2) evaluate the reliability of certain external information it used to test these costs. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer completed a business combination and issued a convertible note. The following deficiencies were identified: · The convertible note included embedded features that required bifurcation in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. The firm did not perform any procedures to determine the fair value of these embedded features beyond asserting the value was not material as the probability of occurrence of the associated contingent events was remote. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer tracked certain of its inventory in a system that was hosted by a service organization. The firm used information from this system in its testing of this inventory but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of this information. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain inventory included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these substantive analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

For certain accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers and received no responses. The firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

For certain accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers and received no responses. The firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

For loans that were collectively evaluated for impairment the issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ACL using certain qualitative factors. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component of the ACL was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm tested one of the issuer's controls over the determination of the ACL during an interim period. The firm did not perform procedures to update the results of its testing from the interim date to year end. (AS 2201.55)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain unbilled receivables included selecting a sample of customer balances for testing. The firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test the amounts relieved from inventory and recorded in cost of goods sold. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the calculation of gross premiums earned and unearned premiums. The control owner utilized system queries in performing its review. The firm's testing of this control was not sufficient because its procedures were limited to inquiring of the control owner and reviewing query parameters for reasonableness. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk that revenue was recognized from policies with premiums that were deemed uncollectible. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that included the transfer of certain insurance reserve data from one system to another system. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the transfer of these data. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures and for certain revenue tests of details. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain data in its substantive analytical procedures but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures and for certain revenue tests of details. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's tests of details for certain revenue included recalculating revenue for a sample of revenue transactions. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information it used to recalculate this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

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

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's determination of the categorization of its available-for-sale (AFS) securities within the fair value hierarchy as set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of a sample of AFS securities. The firm did not assess whether the extent and timing of the issuer's review was sufficient to address the risks of material misstatement. Further the firm did not evaluate whether the items identified for follow up by the control owner were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test the fair values of these securities 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 a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the ACL. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions used to develop the ACL. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer estimated the ACL using various significant assumptions. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions it used. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer held certain inventory at a public warehouse. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of this inventory because it limited its procedures to confirming the quantities of this inventory with the public warehouse. (AS 2510.14)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures by comparing revenue to the issuer's forecasted revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test beyond inquiry or in the alternative test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information used to develop the issuer's forecasted revenue. (AS 2305.16)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain assets and liabilities. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of the acquired intangible assets. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the company's specialist report. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of certain assumptions provided by management to the company's specialist and used by the specialist in the determination of the fair value of the acquired intangible assets included in its report. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of journal entries. The firm did not sufficiently test the design and operating effectiveness of this control because its procedures to evaluate whether the control operators reviewing journal entries were different from the individuals preparing journal entries were limited to obtaining from management a listing of individuals who can prepare journal entries without testing the completeness of this listing. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

To test goodwill for potential impairment the issuer compared the estimated fair value of the related reporting unit to the carrying value of the reporting unit and determined that no impairment existed. For finite-lived intangible assets the issuer determined that the recoverable amounts were the same as the carrying amounts and therefore no impairment existed. The issuer had adopted ASU No. 2017-04 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions the issuer used to develop the fair value of its reporting units. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

To test goodwill for potential impairment the issuer compared the estimated fair value of the related reporting unit to the carrying value of the reporting unit and determined that no impairment existed. For finite-lived intangible assets the issuer determined that the recoverable amounts were the same as the carrying amounts and therefore no impairment existed. The issuer had adopted ASU No. 2017-04 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: - With respect to the intangible assets the firm did not perform procedures to test the reasonableness of the issuer's assumption that the recoverable value of each asset was the same as its carrying value in light of events that would indicate that the carrying amount of the intangible assets may not be recoverable including the issuer's declining stock prices negative working capital and recurring operating losses and cash flow losses in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30)

To test goodwill for potential impairment the issuer compared the estimated fair value of the related reporting unit to the carrying value of the reporting unit and determined that no impairment existed. For finite-lived intangible assets the issuer determined that the recoverable amounts were the same as the carrying amounts and therefore no impairment existed. The issuer had adopted ASU No. 2017-04 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: - With respect to goodwill the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of a departure from GAAP related to the omission of required disclosures that a relevant reporting unit had a negative carrying amount of net assets the amount of goodwill allocated to the reporting unit and in which reportable segment the reporting unit was included in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer had outstanding convertible notes payable. The issuer disclosed that certain notes were with a party with which the issuer had pending litigation. The issuer also disclosed that a convertible note with a related party was modified during the year to change the conversion price. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for the conversion price modification was in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 470-20 Debt— Debt with Conversion and Other Options. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer had outstanding convertible notes payable. The issuer disclosed that certain notes were with a party with which the issuer had pending litigation. The issuer also disclosed that a convertible note with a related party was modified during the year to change the conversion price. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate whether the pending litigation with the holder of certain notes would affect the financial statement classification of the notes. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer had outstanding convertible notes payable. The issuer disclosed that certain notes were with a party with which the issuer had pending litigation. The issuer also disclosed that a convertible note with a related party was modified during the year to change the conversion price. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the disclosures related to certain related party relationships and transactions were complete and accurate. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer uses applications to process and record revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing controls over user access to these applications. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to verify the appropriateness of user access to certain of these applications. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

In testing certain revenue the firm did not evaluate the terms of the services between the issuer and its customers. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of the reserve for accounts receivable. (AS 2501.07)

The firm used issuer inventory costing data in its substantive procedures to test the valuation of inventory. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm used issuer inventory costing data in its substantive procedures to test the valuation of inventory. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the method the issuer used to allocate inventory-related costs to certain inventory. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer uses applications to process and record revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing controls over change management. The firm did not test these controls for certain applications beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .50)

The firm tested information technology ('IT') dependent manual controls that used reports generated by certain of these applications. The firm's approach to test the accuracy and completeness of these reports depended on effective IT general controls. As a result of the above deficiencies the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain revenue compared to expectations. In evaluating the design of this control the firm did not assess the effect of a change in how the expectations were developed on the control's ability to effectively prevent or detect a misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

For certain revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk of whether revenue was recorded based on purchase orders. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used by the issuer in the operation of certain controls. (AS 2201.39)