Explorer

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analyses. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment and used a recent fair value calculation prepared by an external specialist in concluding to not perform a quantitative goodwill impairment test. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry of the external specialist to (1) test the data (2) evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions and (3) evaluate the relevance and reliability of information the specialist used in the recent fair value calculation that the firm used to support its evaluation of the issuer's qualitative assessment. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The issuer reported goodwill for several reporting units and performed a quantitative assessment of the impairment of goodwill for each reporting unit. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed its annual analysis of the possible impairment of goodwill as of an interim date. The firm performed substantive procedures to evaluate certain assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts that the issuer used to determine the fair value of its reporting units for this analysis. The firm however (1) evaluated these assumptions at the consolidated financial statement level and not at the reporting unit level and (2) did not evaluate certain other assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts including the issuer's ability to carry out specific actions. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. To determine the fair value of the reporting unit the issuer developed cash-flow forecasts using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain industry information it used in evaluating the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and 06)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. To determine the fair value of the reporting unit the issuer developed cash-flow forecasts using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to revenue growth rates because it did not evaluate significant differences between these assumptions and industry information and historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. To determine the fair value of the reporting unit the issuer developed cash-flow forecasts using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions because it did not take into account (1) certain contractual restrictions or (2) the issuer's written plans or other relevant documentation that could affect the issuer's ability to carry out its planned actions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill and certain intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the (1) reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and (2) relevance and reliability of certain external information used by the company's specialist in developing another significant assumption. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over goodwill and these intangible assets and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · In testing the issuer's process the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · In testing the issuer's process the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist because its procedures were limited to evaluating this assumption for consistency with historical experience without taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance and reliability of the company's specialist's work because it did not identify and evaluate inconsistencies between another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and (1) the auditor-employed specialist's independent expectation of this assumption and (2) management's analysis of this assumption. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

The issuer performed an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used in the impairment assessment. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the impairment assessment because its procedures were limited to performing sensitivity analyses. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of the impairment of certain goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to address the appropriateness of certain significant assumptions developed and used by management's expert in the quantitative assessment. (CAS 500.8; CAS 540.24)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist because the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a component of this assumption. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used in this impairment analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used in this impairment analysis beyond performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer because its procedures were limited to comparing this assumption with the assumption used in prior years' impairment assessments. Further the firm did not evaluate a significant difference between this assumption and the issuer's historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not evaluate the consistency of this assumption with historical or recent experience taking into account that this assumption was based on certain conditions or events that affected the company in the current year that may not recur in future years. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to revenue growth rates used in its quantitative assessment of goodwill at the Reporting Unit including consideration of the recent declines in the Reporting Unit's revenue growth rate. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the revenue growth rates and certain costs for the Reporting Unit because it did not take into account beyond reading the issuer's overall business plan the issuer's ability to carry out its intended courses of action. (AS 2501.17)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • For one component within the Reporting Unit the firm did not evaluate whether the significant assumptions the issuer used in its quantitative assessment were consistent with the issuer's historical and recent experience taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer beyond observing that the assumptions were directionally consistent with the issuer's overall business plan and strategy. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of goodwill was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the method the issuer used to perform its impairment analyses was in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework including the requirements of International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets (“IAS 36”) because the firm did not evaluate whether the period of cash flow projections the issuer used to evaluate goodwill for impairment was in accordance with IAS 36. (AS 2501.10)

For one reporting unit the issuer engaged an external specialist to perform a quantitative assessment to evaluate goodwill for impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the quantitative assessment was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the company's specialist in the quantitative assessment and/or used by the firm in developing its independent expectation. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

For another reporting unit the issuer performed a qualitative assessment to evaluate goodwill for impairment and determined that it was not more likely than not that the carrying value of the reporting unit was more than its fair value. The firm's approach for substantively testing whether this goodwill was impaired was to develop an independent expectation of the fair value of the reporting unit. The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it independently derived and used in developing its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of goodwill for impairment at an interim date. The issuer also performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill for impairment at year-end and concluded that the performance of an additional quantitative assessment of goodwill was unnecessary. The firm's approach for substantively testing goodwill was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the specialist to perform the quantitative assessment of goodwill including taking into account the issuer's ability to carry out its stated intentions regarding the assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17; AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer evaluated certain goodwill for impairment using a discounted cash flow model which was developed using various assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing this goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer to evaluate this goodwill for impairment beyond for certain assumptions comparing the assumptions to the most recent approved budget and prior year impairment tests performing a sensitivity analysis and inquiring of management and for certain other assumptions comparing the assumptions to the most recent approved budget and prior year impairment tests. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported goodwill at several reporting units and evaluated certain reporting units for impairment using a discounted cash flow model ('DCF model') which relied on various assumptions. The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's goodwill impairment analysis for one reporting unit was to test the issuer's process. The firm also developed an independent expectation of the issuer's annual revenue growth rates for this reporting unit and compared those expectations to the annual revenue growth rate assumptions used by the issuer in the DCF model. The following deficiency was identified: · For the one reporting unit referred to above the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the annual revenue growth assumptions which the firm considered to be significant assumptions used by the issuer in its goodwill impairment analysis because the firm did not demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for (1) selecting the comparable companies it used to develop its independent expectation of the average annual revenue growth rate over a six-year period and (2) assuming that the ratio of advertising expenses to revenue ('advertising ratio') generated would be predictive of the revenue growth rate for 2023. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate differences between the (1) annual revenue growth rate assumptions used by the issuer and the compound annual revenue growth rates for the industry beyond determining the market share the issuer would need to capture to achieve its revenue growth rate for 2023 and (2) industry advertising ratio and the advertising ratio used by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of its reporting units. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's determination of an expected range of reasonable outcomes for certain assumptions and comparison of those expected ranges to the assumptions determined by the company specialist. The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry the procedures the control owner performed to determine the expected ranges. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's post-issuance monitoring program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist beyond inquiry of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's post-issuance monitoring program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist beyond performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of its goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions used. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform assessments of goodwill and intangible assets for possible impairment using various significant assumptions including assumptions related to forecasted cash flows. The firm's approach to evaluate these impairment assessments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the assessments of intangible assets and goodwill the firm did not (1) perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist or (2) identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a component of another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform assessments of goodwill and intangible assets for possible impairment using various significant assumptions including assumptions related to forecasted cash flows. The firm's approach to evaluate these impairment assessments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the assessments of intangible assets and goodwill for one reporting unit the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the issuer related to forecasted cash flows because its procedures were limited to (1) comparing the assumptions for one forecasted period to historical experience and (2) reviewing new revenue contracts that represented a small percentage of forecasted revenue. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform assessments of goodwill and intangible assets for possible impairment using various significant assumptions including assumptions related to forecasted cash flows. The firm's approach to evaluate these impairment assessments was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the assessments of certain intangible assets and goodwill for another reporting unit the firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain industry information it used in evaluating the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to forecasted cash flows. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

During the year the issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of goodwill for one reporting unit for possible impairment. The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions used in the issuer's assessment. For certain of these significant assumptions the firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform procedures beyond inquiring of the company's specialist to evaluate the reasonableness of these assumptions and (2) evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain data from an external source the company's specialist used to develop these assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value measurement of goodwill was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the earnings assumptions beyond inquiring of management as to certain cost saving initiatives underlying those assumptions. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test its goodwill for impairment and engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of its reporting units at year end. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the significant assumptions that were developed and used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the issuer's reporting units. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the issuer that were used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the issuer's reporting units. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's quantitative goodwill assessment was to test the issuer's process. For one reporting unit the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions it developed. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's quantitative goodwill assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified for another reporting unit: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The analysis included projected cash flows for four revenue categories provided by the issuer and assumptions developed by the specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the annual goodwill impairment analysis prepared by the specialist. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the preparation of the projected cash flows that were provided to the specialist. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The analysis included projected cash flows for four revenue categories provided by the issuer and assumptions developed by the specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently test the projected cash flows provided to the specialist because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and comparing the projected cash flows for one revenue category to another company's historical revenue without performing procedures to evaluate whether that company's historical results would be representative of the issuer's future results. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis beyond evaluating the consistency of the assumptions with historical experience and obtaining and reading the report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist beyond inquiry and testing the accuracy of certain data used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6-.A10; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to certain projected data used by the issuer in the VIU model including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to achieve the assumptions and projected data beyond inquiry obtaining a current contract and bid from an external vendor unrelated to the significant assumption and performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year after identifying impairment indicators the issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment. At year end the issuer performed its annual goodwill impairment assessment using a quantitative assessment. The issuer engaged a specialist to perform both assessments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed and used by the company's specialist in the year-end quantitative assessment. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's goodwill impairment analyses for certain reporting units was to develop independent expectations. The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions that it used in its independent expectations. (AS 2501.22)