← Back to Explorer
Deloitte & Touche LLP
United States · Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited · Annually Inspected
- Inspection year
- 2024
- Report date
- 26-Feb-2025
- PCAOB release
- 104-2025-036
- Audits reviewed
- 63
- Audits w/ Part I.A deficiencies
- 9
- Part I.A deficiency rate
- 14%
- Part I.A deficiencies
- 23
- Part I.B deficiencies
- 10
- Report
- View PDF ↗
Deficiencies (23)
Grouped by issuer and in the same order as the PCAOB report, so each item ties back directly to the source.
Issuer A5 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amounts of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the unsatisfied performance obligations the issuer expected to be recognized as revenue within the next 12 months. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 2 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amounts of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of unsatisfied performance obligations that it expected to be recognized as revenue beyond the next 12 months. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 3 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amounts of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test this disclosure. The firm did not determine whether the expectation it used in this analytical procedure was based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2305.13; AS 2305.14 | |
| 4 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amounts of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm established its threshold for investigating differences based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the above deficiencies in the firm's testing of controls. As a result the threshold that the firm used did not provide the desired level of assurance that misstatements that could have been material would be identified. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2305.20) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.16; AS 2301.18; AS 2301.37; AS 2305.20 | |
| 5 | Pension Assets | The firm sent a positive confirmation request to the custodian for certain pension plan assets which was returned with exceptions. The firm did not evaluate the nature of these exceptions. (AS 2310.33) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2310.33 |
Issuer B3 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The issuer assigned each loan a loan risk rating which was an important input in estimating the quantitative component of the ACL. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review for a sample of loans of the loan risk ratings assigned to the loans. The firm identified deviations in the operation of this control but did not evaluate the effect of these deviations on the operating effectiveness of the control. (AS 2201.48) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.48 | |
| 2 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The issuer assigned each loan a loan risk rating which was an important input in estimating the quantitative component of the ACL. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review for a sample of loans of the loan risk ratings assigned to the loans. In its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control the firm excluded certain loans from its testing population. (AS 2201.44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.44 | |
| 3 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The issuer assigned each loan a loan risk rating which was an important input in estimating the quantitative component of the ACL. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of the assigned loan risk ratings for certain loans included making a selection of loans for testing. The firm identified differences in the assigned loan risk ratings but did not evaluate the effect of these differences on whether it had obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Further the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the loan risk ratings for the loans that were excluded from the firm's control testing procedures discussed above. (AS 2301.08) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8 |
Issuer C3 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The issuer determined the qualitative reserve component of the ACL using various qualitative factors. The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's reviews of these factors. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these factors. (AS 2201.42 and .44) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 2 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The issuer assigned each loan a loan risk rating which was an important input in estimating the quantitative component of the ACL. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the risk ratings for certain loans. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these risk ratings. (AS 2201.42 and .44) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 3 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The issuer assigned each loan a loan risk rating which was an important input in estimating the quantitative component of the ACL. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the risk ratings for certain loans. For this control and two other controls the firm selected for testing over the ACL the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain loan information used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.39 |
Issuer D3 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amount of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of this disclosure. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-prepared schedules related to this disclosure that were used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 2 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amount of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used these issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of this disclosure but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these schedules. (AS 1105.10) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 1105.10 | |
| 3 | Revenue | The issuer disclosed the amount of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in this required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2810.30; AS 2810.31 |
Issuer E2 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inventory | The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether this inventory was counted with sufficient frequency in accordance with the issuer's cycle-count policy. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 2 | Inventory | 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) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2510.11 |
Issuer F2 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leases | The issuer engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain leased assets using various data and assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to (1) test the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced data used by the company's specialists and (2) evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information used by one of the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8a) Financial statement audit only | AS 1105.A8a | |
| 2 | Leases | The issuer engaged specialists to determine the fair value of certain leased assets using various data and assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8b) Financial statement audit only | AS 1105.A8b |
Issuer G3 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leases | The issuer used (1) store-level operating results to evaluate whether any impairment indicators existed for its long-lived assets including lease right-of-use assets and (2) store-level cash-flow forecasts to evaluate the recoverability of certain of these assets. The issuer excluded certain costs from these analyses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's reviews of these operating results and cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of excluding these costs. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 2 | Leases | The issuer used (1) store-level operating results to evaluate whether any impairment indicators existed for its long-lived assets including lease right-of-use assets and (2) store-level cash-flow forecasts to evaluate the recoverability of certain of these assets. The issuer excluded certain costs from these analyses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used these operating results in its substantive procedures to evaluate whether any impairment indicators existed for these assets. The firm did not evaluate whether these excluded costs were directly associated with the identified asset groups. (AS 2301.08) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8 | |
| 3 | Leases | The issuer used (1) store-level operating results to evaluate whether any impairment indicators existed for its long-lived assets including lease right-of-use assets and (2) store-level cash-flow forecasts to evaluate the recoverability of certain of these assets. The issuer excluded certain costs from these analyses. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the recoverability of certain of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's method to determine the recoverability of these assets using cash-flow forecasts that excluded these costs was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2501.10) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2501.10 |
Issuer H1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Investment Securities | The issuer recorded available-for-sale securities at fair value. The firm selected for testing a control that included comparing recorded prices from an external service provider to prices determined by the control owner. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to (1) determine the comparative prices and (2) to identify items for follow-up. (AS 2201.42 and .44) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 |
Issuer I1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Certain Assets | The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's presentation of certain assets as current assets because it did not evaluate beyond inquiring of management the issuer's intent to consume all of these assets within one year from the balance sheet date. (AS 2301.08) Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8 |