← Back to Explorer
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
United States · PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited · Annually Inspected
- Inspection year
- 2024
- Report date
- 26-Feb-2025
- PCAOB release
- 104-2025-040
- Audits reviewed
- 64
- Audits w/ Part I.A deficiencies
- 10
- Part I.A deficiency rate
- 16%
- Part I.A deficiencies
- 29
- Part I.B deficiencies
- 11
- Report
- View PDF ↗
Deficiencies (29)
Grouped by issuer and in the same order as the PCAOB report, so each item ties back directly to the source.
Issuer A3 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared analysis to assess whether the services promised in the issuer's contracts were distinct and should have been accounted for as separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements. Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8; AS 2301.13 | Incorrect opinion |
| 2 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time using an output method to measure its progress toward completion of its performance obligations. The firm did not evaluate whether this method was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2501.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements. Financial statement audit only | AS 2501.10 | Incorrect opinion |
| 3 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the expected costs of satisfying the performance obligations and related margins. (AS 2501.16) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements. Financial statement audit only | AS 2501.16 | Incorrect opinion |
Issuer B5 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | The issuer recognized certain revenue based on the issuer's estimate of the number of customers enrolled in plans under which the issuer provided services. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for this significant assumption because it did not evaluate the relevance of certain historical customer data that the issuer adjusted and used to develop this significant assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16) Financial statement audit only | AS 1105.4; AS 1105.6; AS 2501.16 | |
| 2 | Revenue | The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain payments that the issuer recognized as revenue met the criteria for revenue recognition set forth in FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08) Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8 | |
| 3 | Accounts Receivable | The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08) Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8 | |
| 4 | Accounts Receivable | The firm did not identify and evaluate various misstatements in the issuer's disclosures related to accounts receivable and other liabilities. (AS 2810.30 and .31) Financial statement audit only | AS 2810.30; AS 2810.31 | |
| 5 | Accounts Receivable | The issuer disclosed that it presented its accounts receivable net of certain unpaid costs. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether this presentation was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2301.08) Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8 |
Issuer C6 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Investment Securities | The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's allowance for credit impairment for certain investment securities. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 2 | Investment Securities | The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the allowance for credit impairment for these investment securities. (AS 2501.07) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2501.7 | |
| 3 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's ACL for certain loans. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 4 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the ACL for these loans. (AS 2501.07) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2501.7 | |
| 5 | Loans | The issuer disclosed the estimated fair values for certain loans measured at amortized cost. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of this disclosure but did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-prepared schedules used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 6 | Loans | The issuer disclosed the estimated fair values for certain loans measured at amortized cost. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the fair values of these loans beyond comparing the amounts disclosed to the issuer-prepared schedules discussed above. (AS 2501.07) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2501.7 |
Issuer D7 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain contracts under these types of arrangements for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate whether the contracts contained embedded leases and whether all performance obligations were identified. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 2 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether certain contracts contained embedded leases because it did not evaluate certain terms that may have met the definition of a lease. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8; AS 2810.3 | |
| 3 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether all performance obligations were identified for certain contracts because it did not identify that the contracts contained an option that may have represented a material right. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8; AS 2810.3 | |
| 4 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's determination of the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.39 | |
| 5 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to estimate standalone selling prices. (AS 2501.16) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2501.16 | |
| 6 | Other Assets | The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's capitalization of certain contract costs was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 340 Other Assets and Deferred Costs beyond for a selection of costs capitalized during the year reading the contracts and comparing the costs to the issuer's subledger. (AS 2301.08) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8 | |
| 7 | Other Assets | The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the period the issuer used to amortize the capitalized contract costs for contracts with multiple performance obligations was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 340. (AS 2301.08) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2301.8 |
Issuer E2 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | The firm identified control deficiencies related to controls over certain revenue contracts at one of the issuer's locations. The firm did not evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies individually or in combination to determine whether they represented a material weakness. (AS 2201.62) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2201.62 | |
| 2 | Accounts Receivable | The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivables as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31) Both financial statement and ICFR audits | AS 2310.31 |
Issuer F2 deficiencies
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Allowance for Credit/Loan Losses | The firm selected for testing a control that included the review of the data the issuer used to estimate the ACL but did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2201.42 and .44) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 | |
| 2 | Business Combinations | During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the valuation of certain assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a system-generated report that the control owners used in the operation of this control for certain liabilities assumed. (AS 2201.39) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.39 |
Issuer G1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Revenue | Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. In its evaluation of the issuer's revenue recognition for these arrangements the firm did not evaluate beyond reading certain issuer-prepared memorandums (1) whether the issuer identified all performance obligations in its customer contracts and (2) certain contractual terms and conditions that could affect the issuer's revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08) Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8 |
Issuer H1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Financial Reporting | The issuer disclosed various material weaknesses including deficiencies related to segregation of duties. In understanding the issuer's financial reporting process the firm identified that the general ledger system allowed individuals to both post and approve journal entries and to edit journal entries after they have been approved. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to address these risks related to inappropriate segregation of duties. (AS 2301.08; AS 2401.61) Financial statement audit only | AS 2301.8; AS 2401.61 |
Issuer I1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Going Concern | The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of its evaluation of its ability to continue as a going concern. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the issuer used to develop the forecasted cash flows used in its evaluation. (AS 2201.42 and .44) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44 |
Issuer J1 deficiency
| # | Area | Deficiency | Standard | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Journal Entries | The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of manual journal entries prior to posting them to the general ledger. In evaluating the design of this control the firm did not identify that the general ledger system allowed the control owners to modify journal entries prior to posting. (AS 2201.42) ICFR audit only | AS 2201.42 |