Explorer

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of its goodwill. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the quantitative assessment beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The issuer engaged an external valuation firm to perform a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. The firm did not perform procedures to test this assessment beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of its goodwill for possible impairment and the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of this assessment and related significant assumptions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of the forecasted financial information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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 developing an independent expectation the firm used another significant assumption. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for its selection of this significant assumption from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

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 relevance and reliability of certain data the issuer used to develop certain significant assumptions which management's expert used in the quantitative assessment. (CAS 540.25)

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 procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's method to determine the fair value used in the assessment that excluded certain costs from these cash-flow forecasts was in conformity with GAAP. (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 demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it independently derived and used in 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 sufficient procedures to evaluate whether a quantitative assessment was required at year-end because it did not evaluate whether relevant events and circumstances were sufficient to offset unfavorable indicators of impairment. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

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 any substantive procedures to determine whether the issuer evaluated a portion of goodwill for impairment. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

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 identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate the relevance of external information used by the company's specialist to develop certain other significant assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of its goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's goodwill impairment assessment consisted of developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit as a range using an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the auditor-employed specialist's independent expectation of the fair value as a range encompassed only reasonable outcomes and was supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.25)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of its goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's goodwill impairment assessment consisted of developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit as a range 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 evaluate the relevance of data from external sources it used to develop the independent expectation as a range. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's goodwill impairment assessment consisted of developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit as a range using an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the auditor-employed specialist's independent expectation of the fair value as a range encompassed only reasonable outcomes and was supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.25)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's goodwill impairment assessment consisted of developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit as a range 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 evaluate the relevance of data from external sources it used to develop the independent expectation as a range. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

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 sufficiently evaluate the relevance of certain data used by the company's specialist to develop a significant assumption because the firm did not consider certain of the issuer's business objectives. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 procedures to test the quantitative assessment of goodwill performed during the year beyond inquiry and obtaining and reading the company's specialist report. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

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 sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance of data related to comparable companies used by the company's specialist in the year-end quantitative assessment because it did not evaluate (1) the relative values of income statement accounts in concluding that the companies were comparable and (2) that the data used from certain of the comparable companies was significantly dated. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 identify and evaluate a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure related to goodwill that is required by FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)