Explorer

During the year the issuer completed a business combination where the issuer's operations from before the transaction remained on the issuer's existing information systems (“legacy systems”) and continued to be recorded in these systems separately from the other company's operations. The issuer disclosed the size categories and maturity date of certain of its deposit liabilities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of these disclosures but did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information from the issuer's legacy systems that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer entered into certain revenue arrangements with multiple performance obligations and allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between goods and services. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of new contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. 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 issuer determined the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various assumptions including revenue growth rates. The firm identified control deficiencies related to two controls selected for testing over management's review of these assumptions. Except for the two deficient controls the firm did not identify and test any controls that address the risk of potential misstatement related to errors in the assumptions including revenue growth rates. (AS 2201.39)

For one business unit the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of a monthly revenue variance analysis. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including for certain customers the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions and performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · In performing its testing of the selected transactions the firm did not evaluate whether the selling prices that the issuer used to record revenue agreed with the terms in the customer purchase orders or contracts. (AS 2301.08)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions and performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used 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)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions and performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · In performing the substantive analytical procedures the firm did not evaluate whether the relationship between cash receipts and revenue was sufficiently predictable. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

For another business unit the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of a monthly revenue variance analysis. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of substantive analytical procedures. The firm did not (1) evaluate whether prior period revenue was sufficiently predictive of revenue for the year and (2) develop certain other expectations it used in these analytical procedures based on industry revenue growth data at a level of precision to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2305.13 .14 and .17)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of certain assumptions used to determine depreciation expense on long-lived 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 issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over one revenue stream that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of revenue data between the billing system and general ledger system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing other controls over this revenue stream that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of (1) revenue data between the general ledger system and one of its financial reporting systems and (2) revenue data among certain financial reporting systems. The firm did not sufficiently test the operating effectiveness of these controls because it did not evaluate how identified deficiencies in certain systems interface controls between these systems could impact the operating effectiveness of the revenue reconciliation controls. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over another revenue stream that consisted of the issuer's (1) review of customer contracts in excess of a specified threshold and (2) determination as to whether the revenue from the selected contracts was recognized in conformity with the relevant accounting standard. The firm did not evaluate whether the threshold used in the control could effectively prevent or detect a material misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The expectations the firm used were not sufficiently precise to identify differences that could be potential material misstatements individually or in the aggregate because the firm did not disaggregate the data used to develop the expectations to address important factors that have an effect on the recognition of the revenue. (AS 2305.17)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test certain other revenue beyond (1) examining customer invoices produced by the issuer for a sample of revenue transactions (2) verifying the mathematical accuracy of those invoices and reconciling the total invoiced amounts to the general ledger and (3) obtaining customer contracts for the selected revenue transactions and summarizing certain terms of those contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to (1) test the existence and cost of certain inventory and (2) evaluate whether inventory was recorded at the lower of cost or net realizable value. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance for slow moving inventory. (AS 2501.07)

The firm identified fraud criteria for purposes of identifying and selecting journal entries for testing and communicated to the principal auditor that its audit procedures would include an examination of all journal entries and other adjustments that met these criteria. In identifying and selecting journal entries that met the criteria the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test those journal entries because it excluded certain journal entries from testing without having an appropriate rationale for their exclusion. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer reported certain investment securities at fair value and classified them as Level 1 and Level 2 securities in the fair value hierarchy in accordance with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The firm's approach for substantively testing the classification of these securities was to use an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's methodology for determining the fair value hierarchy levels and develop an independent expectation of the securities that were classified as Level 1. The firm did not sufficiently test the classification of these securities because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not compare its independent expectation to the securities that the issuer classified as Level 1 and evaluate the differences. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.26; AS 2810.13)

The issuer reported certain investment securities at fair value and classified them as Level 1 and Level 2 securities in the fair value hierarchy in accordance with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. The firm's approach for substantively testing the classification of these securities was to use an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's methodology for determining the fair value hierarchy levels and develop an independent expectation of the securities that were classified as Level 1. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether any of the securities classified as Level 2 should have been classified as Level 3. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain aspects of this account the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to certain items that exceeded the monetary threshold the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining certain issuer-prepared documents to test that the items were (1) properly recorded and (2) recorded at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain aspects of this account the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to certain other items that exceeded the monetary threshold the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining certain issuer-prepared documents to test that the items were recorded at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain aspects of this account the firm selected items for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to certain items that exceeded the monetary threshold the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining certain issuer-prepared documents to test that the items were (1) properly recorded and (2) recorded at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond scanning a listing of journal entries to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the risk of management override. (AS 2401.58)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The expectations the firm used were not sufficiently precise because although disaggregated the firm's procedures consisted of comparisons of amounts and certain ratios to prior years without determining whether the prior-year amounts and ratios were sufficiently predictive of current-year amounts and ratios. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm developed its expectations in part using data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue. The firm did not evaluate whether these data were sufficiently relevant and reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used certain system-generated data in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not establish an amount of difference from the expectation that could be accepted without further investigation. (AS 2305.20)

For investment income the firm's substantive procedures consisted of performing analytical procedures using certain issuer data or data from a third-party service provider. For the analytical procedures the firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships and whether its expectations of interest rates based on the trend over several previous years were sufficiently precise. (AS 2305.13 .14 and .17).

For investment income the firm's substantive procedures consisted of performing analytical procedures using certain issuer data or data from a third-party service provider. The firm did not evaluate whether the data used in the analytical procedures was sufficiently reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 2305.16)

The firm did not appropriately consider the characteristics of potentially fraudulent journal entries in determining the criteria it used to identify and select journal entries for testing because it limited its procedures to certain journal entries recorded at year end without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to perform procedures to test journal entries that met certain risk criteria as determined by the principal auditor to address a fraud risk related to management override of controls that was identified by the principal auditor. The firm did not identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing as instructed by the principal auditor. (AS 2401.58)

The firm did not plan and perform an audit that provided a reasonable basis for its audit opinion on the issuer's financial statements because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and obtaining a bank statement one sale invoice and one purchase invoice. (AS 1101.03; AS 1105.04; AS 2101.08 and .10; AS 2105.03; AS 2110.04; AS 2301.08; AS 2805.05; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because it did not select its sample from the entire population of data that was used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources. The following deficiency was identified: · To test certain revenue the firm selected transactions from a report the issuer prepared and recalculated the related revenue using the key terms underlying the selected transactions as reflected in the report. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the (1) occurrence of the selected transactions and (2) accuracy of the key terms underlying those transactions that the firm used to recalculate the related revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of information it obtained from the issuer's website and used to test the valuation of certain liabilities and an unrealized gain. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the selected journal entries because it did not examine the underlying support for the entries and instead limited its procedures to reading the journal entry descriptions. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a revenue-related disclosure required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain revenue beyond determining for a sample of revenue transactions that a contract existed between the issuer and the respective clients and agreeing the respective amounts recorded to invoices the issuer generated. (AS 2301.08)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain receivables and related assets was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer operated an e-commerce platform. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of third-party invoices including the performance of certain two-way and three-way matches between those invoices and documents and/or information produced by the issuer. The firm did not test the aspects of the control related to the two-way and three-way matches. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer operated an e-commerce platform. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing another control over revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of certain changes the issuer made to data in its system that affected revenue recognition. The firm identified a deficiency in the design and operating effectiveness of this control. The firm identified and tested a compensating control that it believed would mitigate the deficiency. The firm did not identify that the other control did not address the appropriateness of changes made by authorized personnel. (AS 2201.68)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of goodwill and intangible assets for impairment. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used in its impairment analysis. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform an impairment evaluation for certain goodwill and intangible assets as of year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill and intangible assets impairment evaluation was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external information it used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform an impairment evaluation for certain goodwill and intangible assets as of year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill and intangible assets impairment evaluation 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 revenue projections it developed that were used by the company's specialist including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out those projections. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform an impairment evaluation for certain goodwill and intangible assets as of year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill and intangible assets impairment evaluation was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions the issuer developed that were used by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.16)

The firm identified control deficiencies during its testing of internal controls. The firm did not evaluate the severity of certain of these control deficiencies to determine whether the deficiencies individually or in combination with other deficiencies constituted a material weakness. (AS 2201.62)

To substantively test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions as its testing was limited to comparing prior year revenues to current year amounts. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of journal entries. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess (1) the appropriateness of the journal entries and (2) whether the journal entries had been approved in accordance with the issuer's process to support appropriate segregation of duties related to journal entry initiation review and posting. (AS 2201.42 and .44)