Explorer

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

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · With respect to the substantive analytical procedure for the first type of revenue the firm did not develop expectations that were sufficiently precise to identify potential material misstatements because it did not consider factors that significantly affected the amounts being audited. (AS 2305.17)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · With respect to the substantive analytical procedure for the second type of revenue 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)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected a sample of transactions to perform its test of details over the first type of revenue. The firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer met the performance obligation prior to the recognition of revenue for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test controls over the completeness of certain transactions included in a system-generated report that it used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included analytical procedures. The firm developed its expectation for its analytical procedures using recorded amounts of revenue. The firm did not evaluate whether this data was sufficiently relevant and reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of certain assets. 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)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of certain assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer's general reserve of the ALL included a qualitative reserve component that was determined by applying basis points to each of the identified qualitative factors and applying the average of those rates to each loan segment. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to the basis points and for its selection of assumptions from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to calculate the ACL. The firm selected for testing an IT-dependent management review control over the valuation of the ACL that was dependent upon (1) the effectiveness of IT general controls (ITGCs) over this system and (2) the accuracy and completeness of reports generated from this system used in the operation of the control. As a result of the deficiencies the firm's testing of this IT-dependent manual control was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to calculate the ACL. The firm selected for testing an IT-dependent management review control over the valuation of the ACL that was dependent upon (1) the effectiveness of IT general controls (ITGCs) over this system and (2) the accuracy and completeness of reports generated from this system used in the operation of the control. · The firm selected for testing a review control over user access. The firm did not evaluate the specific procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether the granted access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to calculate the ACL. The firm selected for testing an IT-dependent management review control over the valuation of the ACL that was dependent upon (1) the effectiveness of IT general controls (ITGCs) over this system and (2) the accuracy and completeness of reports generated from this system used in the operation of the control. · The firm selected for testing a change management control. The firm did not test or test any controls over the completeness of the change management population used by the firm to select items for testing the change management control. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to calculate the ACL. The firm selected for testing an IT-dependent management review control over the valuation of the ACL that was dependent upon (1) the effectiveness of IT general controls (ITGCs) over this system and (2) the accuracy and completeness of reports generated from this system used in the operation of the control. · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the reports generated from this IT system used in the performance of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer engaged a specialist to appraise the value of land that collateralized certain of the issuer's loans. The issuer applied adjustments for project percentage of completion and selling cost estimates to the appraised land value to determine the specific reserve to apply to these loans. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the aggregate appraisal value of the land securing the loans beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6 -.A10; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to appraise the value of land that collateralized certain of the issuer's loans. The issuer applied adjustments for project percentage of completion and selling cost estimates to the appraised land value to determine the specific reserve to apply to these loans. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the estimates for percentages of completion for the construction projects and selling cost adjustments. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the completeness of a report from which it made its selections to test two types of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected key item transactions to test these two types of revenue. The firm did not perform procedures beyond performing cut-off procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions to address the assessed risk of material misstatement. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for one of these types of revenue as the principal rather than as an agent was appropriate because the firm concluded that the issuer had the ability to direct and control the goods or services but it did not perform any procedures to support this conclusion. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the issuer's determination of the transaction price for a sample of transactions for a third type of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of data from sources external to the issuer that were used by the company's specialist in developing significant assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the journal entries that met the criteria because it limited its procedures to certain journal entries without having an appropriate rationale. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data that it used to test certain components of an income statement account. (AS 1105.10)

In addition for one component of this income statement account the firm only tested amounts near year end and did not test the appropriateness of recognition. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test another component of this income statement account because it did not vouch its selections to the underlying agreements. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not test the fair value of the issuer's equity used in a transaction. (AS 2502.15)

To test the valuation of certain investments the firm selected specific investments for testing. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining portion of these certain investments. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from product sales through multiple distribution channels and locations. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue from one of the issuer's distribution channels consisted of (1) vouching a sample of receivables at year-end to subsequent cash collections (2) testing sales cut-off at year-end and (3) testing manual journal entries meeting certain criteria. In addition for locations meeting certain criteria the firm vouched a sample of sales transactions to supporting documentation. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue because the firm's procedures were limited to testing (1) receivables and sales transactions at or near year end (2) certain revenue recorded through manual journal entries and (3) sales transactions from certain locations selected in a manner that was not representative of the remaining population and as such the results of testing performed could not be projected to the remaining population. (AS 2301.08; AS 2315.24)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of its intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the issuer's quantitative assessment beyond (1) inquiry (2) obtaining and reading the issuer's analysis certain internal documentation and letters of intent from customers and (3) performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of its intangible assets. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumption related to the discount rate the issuer used in the quantitative assessment because it limited its procedures to comparing this assumption to the issuer's cost of borrowing. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer completed a significant transaction. The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's presentation of this transaction in the financial statements. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer completed a significant transaction. The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to this transaction. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on its estimated progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligations. The firm did not perform procedures to test this revenue beyond selecting a sample of revenue transactions and vouching them to contracts and invoices. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on its estimated progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligations. The firm did not perform any procedures to test a disclosure related to this revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on an agreement with an external party. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer appropriately accounted for this significant account in accordance with GAAP because it limited its procedures to concluding that the significant account was appropriately recorded based on certain GAAP guidance that specifically excluded the significant account. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on an agreement with an external party. The firm did not evaluate the effect of the issuer's non-compliance with a requirement of the agreement on the accounting for the significant account. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's reporting in the statement of cash flows of the purchase and sale of investment securities that did not result in the payment or receipt of cash rather than the exclusion of such noncash transactions from the statement of cash flows in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 230 Statement of Cash Flows. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer disclosed that it recognized revenue in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. For certain revenue transactions the firm did not (1) take into account certain contradictory audit evidence and (2) perform procedures to evaluate whether (a) performance obligations were appropriately identified (b) the determination of transaction prices was appropriate (c) the issuer was acting as either a principal or agent for goods or services and (d) it was appropriate to recognize revenue at a point in time or over time. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The issuer disclosed that it recognized revenue in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports produced by the issuer that the firm used in its testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test a portion of a revenue related account. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain long-lived assets that were recorded at cost and reviewed by the issuer for indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence of these long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain long-lived assets that were recorded at cost and reviewed by the issuer for indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not sufficiently test the valuation of certain of these long-lived assets because the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used in the issuer's impairment assessment. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recorded certain adjustments as part of its year-end financial reporting process. The firm did not perform any procedures to examine these adjustments. (AS 2301.41)

The firm identified uncorrected misstatements in the current year audit. The firm did not evaluate whether the uncorrected misstatements were material individually or in combination with other misstatements. (AS 2810.17)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's recognition of all revenue under this arrangement up front which is not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The firm included evidence in its audit work papers indicating that an entity associated with a related party transaction was inconsistent with the entity disclosed in the financial statements for this transaction. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate this contradictory evidence and whether it had an effect on the financial statement disclosures. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.03)

The issuer did not record an allowance for doubtful accounts based on an assumption. The firm's approach for evaluating the reasonableness of this assumption was to develop an independent expectation of the issuer's assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for an assumption it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 2501.16)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the issuer did not record an allowance for doubtful accounts based on an assumption. The firm's approach for evaluating the reasonableness of this assumption was to develop an independent expectation of the issuer's assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer data that the firm used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer merged with another company in a business combination. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately recognized and measured this merger in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805. (AS 2810.30)