Explorer

The issuer completed a quantitative assessment that indicated that goodwill was not impaired but recorded an impairment of goodwill based solely on qualitative information. The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer recording an impairment solely on qualitative information which is not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other. (AS 2502.15; AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the goodwill impairment and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm's post-issuance monitoring program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of impairment indicators for goodwill. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (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 firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's identification of reporting units in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2201.39)

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 any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from external sources used by the company's specialist to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 firm's post-issuance monitoring program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop the fair value of its reporting units was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 because the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's identification of its reporting units. (AS 2501.10)

The firm's post-issuance monitoring program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform procedures beyond reviewing the issuer's fourth quarter triggering event assessment to evaluate whether a quantitative assessment was required during the fourth quarter including consideration of contrary evidence included in the firm's audit work papers. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The issuer used the fair value of the acquired business at the acquisition date to record a goodwill impairment at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the fair value of the acquired business at the acquisition date was an appropriate or relevant measurement for use in the goodwill impairment analysis as of year end. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used the fair value of the acquired business at the acquisition date to record a goodwill impairment at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and appropriately address a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to the facts and circumstances leading to the goodwill impairment as required by FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer used the fair value of the acquired business at the acquisition date to record a goodwill impairment at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate whether the impairment of goodwill was the result of an error in the initial valuation at the acquisition date. (AS 2810.30)

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 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)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer performed an assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment which in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 and FASB ASC Topic 360 was required to be performed prior to performing an impairment assessment of goodwill. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

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 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: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of (1) historical financial information the firm used in evaluating the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to forecasted cash flows and (2) the carrying value of certain asset groups. (AS 1105.10)

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)

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. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of a significant assumption used in this assessment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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)

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)

At year end the issuer concluded that it was not necessary to perform an additional quantitative assessment of goodwill for this reporting unit. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the issuer's conclusion because it did not evaluate the issuer's basis for concluding that certain events and circumstances that occurred during the year did not indicate that it was more likely than not that the fair value of this reporting unit was below its carrying amount. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

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 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 historical differences between earnings declines experienced by the issuer and those included in an industry market report that was used to support certain assumptions. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The firm selected for testing a control consisting of a review of forecasts used in the issuer's impairment analysis including an evaluation of the revenue growth and earnings assumptions underlying these forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

In addition the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a reporting package used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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 perform any procedures to test the accuracy of a report that was used to support certain assumptions. (AS 2502.26 .28 and .39)

The firm identified certain deficiencies in the control environment. The firm however did not consider the effect of these deficiencies in other areas of the audit in (1) forming conclusions about the design and operating effectiveness of the controls in those areas and (2) determining the level of control reliance used in the design of its substantive procedures in those areas. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B6; AS 2301.34)

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 evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of those significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 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 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 firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of the reasonableness of the forecasts used in the issuer's goodwill impairment analysis including an evaluation of the revenue-growth assumptions underlying these forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the revenue-growth assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer performed its annual analysis of goodwill for potential impairment as of an interim date. The firm did not evaluate an indicator of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

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 evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the criteria that the control owner used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 changed the number of its reporting units in the current year for purposes of its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the goodwill associated with any of the prior-year reporting units may have been impaired at the time of the issuer's change in the number of reporting units. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer changed the number of its reporting units in the current year for purposes of its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 250 related to its change in the number of reporting units. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's review of its goodwill impairment analysis. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer changed the number of its reporting units in the current year for purposes of its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's change in the number of reporting units was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other and was preferable under FASB ASC Topic 250 Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine its enterprise value and used that valuation in its impairment analysis for goodwill. The external specialist used a combination of the income approach and the market approach. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the projected cash flows provided by the issuer used in the income approach beyond obtaining a listing of the issuer's contracts and reviewing a selection of those contracts. (AS 1210.12) [This citation refers to AS 1210 Using the Work of a Specialist which was in effect for this audit. This standard was replaced by AS 1210 Using the Work of an Auditor-Engaged Specialist. In addition AS 1105 Audit Evidence and AS 1201 Supervision of the Audit Engagement which were in effect for this audit were revised to include appendices for auditor's use of the work of a company's specialist and auditor's supervision of the work of an auditor-employed specialist respectively. This replacement and these revisions are effective for audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15 2020.]

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine its enterprise value and used that valuation in its impairment analysis for goodwill. The external specialist used a combination of the income approach and the market approach. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information used in the market approach. (AS 2502.31)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine its enterprise value and used that valuation in its impairment analysis for goodwill. The external specialist used a combination of the income approach and the market approach. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the discount rate used in the impairment analysis. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

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 selected for testing a control over the valuation of this goodwill that consisted of the performance of an annual impairment analysis and management's review and approval of (1) certain projections and base data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption and (2) the impairment analysis performed including the VIU model and carrying amount of the goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain data produced by the issuer that was provided to the company's specialist and used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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 selected for testing a control over the valuation of this goodwill that consisted of the performance of an annual impairment analysis and management's review and approval of (1) certain projections and base data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption and (2) the impairment analysis performed including the VIU model and carrying amount of the goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of a significant assumption used by the issuer in the VIU model. (AS 2201.42 and .44)