Explorer

The issuer used an internally developed information-technology (IT) system to calculate the amount of revenue and the related deferred revenue to be recorded for certain revenue transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this revenue and the related deferred revenue. The firm's approach to testing these controls depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs) including controls over change management. As a result of the deficiency in the firm's testing of the control discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an internally developed information-technology (IT) system to calculate the amount of revenue and the related deferred revenue to be recorded for certain revenue transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related deferred 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 control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

During the year the issuer recorded revenue as a result of a change in accounting estimate related to certain revenue that was previously deferred. The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to this change in estimate that were required under FASB ASC Topic 250 Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue based on contractual rates and hours incurred for services provided to its customers and the firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions by business unit for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For revenue for two business units the firm did not perform any procedures to test the contractual rates and hours incurred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue based on contractual rates and hours incurred for services provided to its customers and the firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions by business unit for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For revenue for another business unit the firm used contractual rate and service hour information from one of the issuer's systems in its testing but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of the contractual rates and the accuracy and completeness of the service hours. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue based on contractual rates and hours incurred for services provided to its customers and the firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions by business unit for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For revenue for two other business units the firm used service hour information from another of the issuer's systems in its testing but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue based on contractual rates and hours incurred for services provided to its customers and the firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions by business unit for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For revenue for one business unit the firm did not perform any procedures to test the contractual rates. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer determined that certain of its derivative contracts qualified for the scope exception for normal purchases and normal sales under FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging and recorded revenue for transactions related to these contracts. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for these contracts including the revenue recognized was appropriate. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer disclosed the amount of revenue assigned to each of its reportable segments. The firm selected for testing an automated control that used information from the issuer's general ledger to assign revenue to each reportable segment in the issuer's financial reporting system. The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiring of management whether this control was designed to assign revenue related to a business acquired during the year to the appropriate reportable segments. (AS 2201.42)

The firm used the assigned revenue amounts from the issuer's financial reporting system in its substantive testing of this disclosure but did not test or sufficiently test the control over the appropriateness of the revenue assigned to the reportable segments. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions including forecasted revenue and gross margins in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern. Subsequent to year end but prior to the issuance of the financial statements the issuer entered into a debt agreement that included a guarantee that required it to make payments to holders of this debt if certain criteria were met. The following deficiencies were identified: · In evaluating the reasonableness of the forecasted cash flows the firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate significant differences between the forecasted revenue for the first two months of the forecast and the actual results for this same period. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2415.03) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated whether any potential guaranteed payments should have been included in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over its going concern evaluation and subsequent events disclosures and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of its revenue disclosures. The firm did not test the aspect of this control related to the control owner's review of the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-prepared schedules used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm used these issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of certain revenue disclosures. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these schedules. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm excluded from the scope of its financial statement audit the post-acquisition revenue and cost of revenue for this acquired business but did not evaluate certain factors that were relevant to the assessment of the risks of material misstatement associated with these accounts including the materiality of this revenue and cost of revenue and the complexity of the issuer's contracts with its customers. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

The issuer used a service organization to estimate the quantitative component of the ACL. The firm obtained a service auditor's report and identified a complementary user control that the service auditor's report described as necessary. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had implemented this control. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The issuer placed items in deposit suspense or certain cash accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm selected for testing controls that included reviews of the reconciling items in these accounts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether items that had been cleared from these accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

To substantively test deposit liabilities the firm tested certain deposit suspense and cash account reconciliations. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether items that the issuer had cleared from these accounts had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an internally developed information-technology (IT) system to process certain revenue and the related deferred revenue. The firm selected for testing a control over change management for this revenue system but did not perform any procedures to determine whether the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing represented the complete population of changes made to this system. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this revenue and the related deferred revenue. The firm's approach to testing these controls depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs) including controls over change management. As a result of the deficiency in the firm's testing of the control discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related deferred 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 control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recorded an estimated liability for deferred compensation expense related to certain of its employees. The firm did not identify and test any controls over this liability. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions including forecasted revenue and gross margins in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern. Subsequent to year end but prior to the issuance of the financial statements the issuer entered into a debt agreement that included a guarantee that required it to make payments to holders of this debt if certain criteria were met. The following deficiencies were identified: · In evaluating the reasonableness of the forecasted cash flows the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's exclusion of any potential payments related to the guarantee from the forecasted cash flows was appropriate. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2415.03) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated whether any potential guaranteed payments should have been included in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over its going concern evaluation and subsequent events disclosures and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's estimate for this liability. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the observability of the pricing inputs at the individual instrument level that the issuer used to determine the categorization of certain of its investment securities within the fair value hierarchy as set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of these investment securities within the fair value hierarchy beyond tracing the balances that were disclosed for each category to an issuer-prepared analysis. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the cycle-count results. The firm did not evaluate whether this control was designed to address whether this inventory was counted with sufficient frequency in accordance with the issuer's cycle-count policy. (AS 2201.42)

Due to the deficiency discussed above the firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the cycle-count procedures the issuer used for this 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)

The issuer placed items in deposit suspense accounts when the items required further evaluation. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of these deposit suspense accounts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated reports used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used these system-generated reports in its substantive testing of deposit liabilities but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over in-transit inventory for one of the issuer's business units. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test this inventory. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the issuer's review of the reasonableness of the fair values of acquired real estate investment properties. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine whether all items that required investigation had been identified. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions including forecasted revenue and gross margins in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern. Subsequent to year end but prior to the issuance of the financial statements the issuer entered into a debt agreement that included a guarantee that required it to make payments to holders of this debt if certain criteria were met. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of its subsequent events disclosures. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether these disclosures were in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated whether any potential guaranteed payments should have been included in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over its going concern evaluation and subsequent events disclosures and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 740 Income Taxes. The firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the fair values of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized revenue from a contract over time using an input method based on labor hours incurred. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated labor hours to complete this contract at year end beyond inquiring of management and for a sample of employees confirming their labor hours budgeted for the contract as of year end. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions including forecasted revenue and gross margins in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern. Subsequent to year end but prior to the issuance of the financial statements the issuer entered into a debt agreement that included a guarantee that required it to make payments to holders of this debt if certain criteria were met. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer should have included information related to the potential payments related to the guarantee in its subsequent events disclosures. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated whether any potential guaranteed payments should have been included in its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over its going concern evaluation and subsequent events disclosures and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer performed its annual analysis of goodwill for potential impairment as of an interim date. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's quarterly assessment of qualitative and quantitative factors to determine whether indicators of potential impairment of goodwill existed. The firm did not identify that this control was not designed to identify and evaluate certain qualitative indicators of potential impairment. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer performed its annual analysis of goodwill for potential impairment as of an interim date. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's quarterly assessment of qualitative and quantitative factors to determine whether indicators of potential impairment of goodwill existed. In testing the operating effectiveness of this control at year end the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer performed its annual analysis of goodwill for potential impairment as of an interim date. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end for one of the issuer's reporting units. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer used an internally developed information-technology (IT) system to calculate the amount of revenue and the related deferred revenue to be recorded for certain revenue transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over change management for this revenue system but did not perform any procedures to determine whether the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing represented the complete population of changes made to this system. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not evaluate certain conditions and events that were present at the issuer prior to the issuance of the financial statements that indicated that there could be substantial doubt about the issuer's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. (AS 2415.03)

Certain of the issuer's debt was collateralized by the issuer's loans and investment securities that were held in custody by the lending party. As of the current year end the issuer disclosed information related to assets pledged as collateral for this debt and amended its prior-year comparative disclosure. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain information provided by the issuer to test the loans pledged as collateral but did not perform any procedures to test or test any 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 certain assumptions used to estimate the quantitative component of the allowance for credit losses (ACL) but did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of an issuer-prepared analysis that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm identified and tested a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the allowance for credit losses (ACL) including a comparison of certain metrics between the issuer and its peers. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine which peers to select for comparison. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm identified and tested a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the allowance for credit losses (ACL) including a comparison of certain metrics between the issuer and its peers. The firm did not test the aspects of this control that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the peer information that the control owner used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's valuation and presentation and disclosure of certain investment securities. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the valuation of these investment securities. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's categorization of these investment securities within the fair value hierarchy set forth in FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement beyond tracing the balances that were disclosed for each category to issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded the fair values of certain of its available-for-sale (AFS) securities based on broker quotes. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the methods and assumptions the issuer used to value these securities. (AS 2201.39)