Explorer

The firm used an issuer-prepared schedule in its substantive testing of a revenue disclosure. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this schedule. (AS 1105.10)

For four types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For three of these types of revenue the firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual terms for certain of the transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For four types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For three of these types of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For four types of revenue the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these types of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain arrangements as single performance obligations satisfied over time on a straight-line basis. The firm selected a sample of these arrangements for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether recognizing revenue for multiple services as a single performance obligation recognized over time on a straight-line basis was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain arrangements as single performance obligations satisfied over time on a straight-line basis. The firm selected a sample of these arrangements for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the arrangements selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation was being satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For revenue at one of these five business units the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions included in customer contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used two service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain transactions related to an investment and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the issuer's authorization of these transactions with the custodian. The firm did not test the aspects of these controls that addressed whether the custodian's system was configured to require appropriate authorizations prior to completing these transactions. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B22)

The issuer used two service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain transactions related to an investment and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the issuer's authorization of these transactions with the custodian. The firm did not identify and test any controls over an authentication device that the issuer used to authorize these transactions. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used two service organizations for the custody recordkeeping and processing of certain transactions related to an investment and these service organizations used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at certain sub-service organizations. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

During the year the issuer issued warrants that were recorded as liabilities. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these warrants at issuance was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate using an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for the method it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

During the year the issuer issued warrants that were recorded as liabilities. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these warrants at issuance was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate using an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a significant assumption it developed because the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) evaluate whether the external data it used to develop this assumption were relevant to the assumption beyond observing that the data were from companies with similar market capitalization and (2) evaluate the reasonableness of using the low end of the range of the comparable company data in developing this assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

For revenue at one of these five business units the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures related to this revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For revenue at another business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reliability of certain external information that it used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For revenue at another business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recorded this revenue net of certain deductions. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these sales deductions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed an assessment of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end using various significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions including taking into account factors affecting the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these assumptions because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and evaluating the assumptions for consistency with recent experience. (AS 2501.16 and .17) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue for these business units the firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's comparisons and reviews of the (1) budget to actual results and (2) prior-period actual results to current-period actual results. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to investigate identified variances and determine whether items identified for follow up had been appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · To address the risks of material misstatement related to revenue for these business units the firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's comparisons and reviews of the (1) budget to actual results and (2) prior-period actual results to current-period actual results. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of the budget used in the operation of one of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these business units the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information the firm used in its substantive testing including substantive analytical procedures. (AS 1105.10; AS 2305.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer held certain investments and assets and engaged specialists to assist it in determining the fair values of these investments and assets using various significant assumptions developed by the issuer or the company's specialists. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of these investments and/or assets. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the methods inputs and assumptions used to determine the fair values. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer held certain investments and assets and engaged specialists to assist it in determining the fair values of these investments and assets using various significant assumptions developed by the issuer or the company's specialists. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified misstatements in its substantive testing of certain investments. The firm did not evaluate whether the misstatements it identified should have had an effect on the firm's conclusion about the effectiveness of the issuer's controls. (AS 2201.B8)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. For certain investments the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these investments the firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair values. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. For certain investments the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For another investment the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the investments area but did not identify the deficiencies below. For certain investments the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain other investments the issuer used the investees' unaudited financial results in estimating the fair values. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the investees' financial results it used as audit evidence because it did not apply or request that another auditor apply appropriate auditing procedures to the unaudited financial statements. (AS 1105.B3)

For certain of these assets the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the fair values of these assets. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

For certain of these assets the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the fair values of these assets. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by certain of the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer performed an assessment of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end using various significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions because its procedures were limited to evaluating the assumptions for consistency with certain industry information. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of this industry information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

For certain other of these assets the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The issuer used a service organization for the recordkeeping of these assets and this service organization used sub-service organizations for certain functions. The firm did not obtain an understanding of or test any relevant controls at these sub-service organizations. (AS 2201.39 and .B19)

For certain other of these assets the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by one of the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8b)

For certain other of these assets the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the relevance and reliability of information produced by the service organization discussed above and used by the company's specialist to estimate the fair value of these assets. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used various service organizations to host and/or maintain IT systems that the issuer used to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue at one business unit. In its testing of controls over this account the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified control deficiencies related to various complementary user controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of user access to these IT systems. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies because it did not evaluate or fully evaluate the magnitude of the potential misstatements resulting from these deficiencies. (AS 2201.62 and .B22)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm obtained the service auditor's reports for these service organizations and identified certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to change management the firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of certain complementary user controls that the service auditor's report described as necessary. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm identified various control deficiencies in its testing of controls. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies because it did not evaluate the magnitude of the potential misstatements resulting from the deficiencies. (AS 2201.62)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm identified multiple misstatements in its substantive testing. The firm did not evaluate whether the misstatements it identified should have had an effect on the firm's conclusion about the effectiveness of the issuer's controls. (AS 2201.B8)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For one type of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the accuracy of pricing information used to record this first type of revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm identified a fraud risk related to the potential for management to override controls including recording unsupported journal entries. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test journal entries to address this risk at certain business units. (AS 2401.58)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For a second type of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information the issuer used to record revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For the second type of revenue the firm selected for testing a control consisting of the issuer's review of recorded revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the allocation of revenue. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For revenue at this business unit which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For the second type of revenue the firm selected for testing a control consisting of the issuer's review of recorded revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. For two types of revenue at two business units one of which was affected by certain of the audit deficiencies discussed above the firm used certain issuer-produced information in its substantive testing of this revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the recognition and fair values of acquired assets including the assumptions used. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess (1) the reasonableness of certain assumptions and (2) whether all identifiable intangible assets were recognized. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were 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's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not evaluate significant differences between this assumption and the issuer's historical and recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information it used in its substantive testing of certain significant assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. The firm did not identify that the work of the auditor-employed specialist did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information the company's specialist used. (AS 1105.A8a; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Business Combination areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not evaluate whether separately identifiable intangible assets should have been recorded related to (1) certain technology in development and (2) technical expertise possessed by the acquired business. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used several information-technology (IT) systems to process and record certain revenue at one business unit. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed a risk of material misstatement related to the occurrence of revenue. (AS 2201.39)