Impairment testing is one of those recurring exercises that can feel routine right up until the year it isn’t. Whether it’s an annual goodwill test or a triggering-event assessment for long-lived assets, the mechanics matter — and so does knowing which test applies when.
Two Different Tests, Two Different Triggers
Goodwill and long-lived assets (property, plant and equipment, and finite-lived intangibles) are tested for impairment differently, and it’s worth keeping the distinction straight:
- Goodwill: Tested at least annually at the reporting unit level, plus whenever a triggering event occurs (e.g. a sustained stock price decline, loss of a major customer, or a significant adverse change in the business climate)
- Long-lived assets: Not tested annually by default — only when indicators of impairment are present (a triggering event), using a recoverability test based on undiscounted cash flows before any fair value write-down is considered
The Goodwill Test in Practice
Companies can start with a qualitative assessment (the “Step Zero” option) — if it’s more likely than not that fair value exceeds carrying value based on qualitative factors, no further testing is required that year. Otherwise, the quantitative test compares the reporting unit’s fair value to its carrying value:
- Fair value is typically estimated using a blend of the income approach (discounted cash flow) and the market approach (guideline public companies or transactions)
- The result is reconciled to the company’s overall market capitalization, where applicable, to check that the sum of reporting unit fair values is reasonable
- If carrying value exceeds fair value, the impairment charge is simply the difference — capped at the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit
Why the Discount Rate and Terminal Growth Assumptions Draw the Most Scrutiny
In most impairment tests, the two assumptions that move the answer the most — and that auditors and regulators focus on most closely — are the discount rate and the terminal growth rate. A discount rate that’s too low, or a terminal growth rate that’s too optimistic relative to the industry’s long-run growth, can mask a real economic decline in the business. This is why a sensitivity analysis showing the fair value “headroom” over carrying value at a range of reasonable assumptions is a standard part of a defensible impairment memo — not just the base-case output.
The Practical Takeaway
Impairment testing is easiest when it isn’t a surprise. Reporting units with thin headroom in a prior year, businesses that have underperformed their acquisition-date projections, or macro headwinds specific to an industry are all reasons to get ahead of the analysis before year-end, rather than scrambling once auditors start asking pointed questions about the assumptions behind last year’s model.
Leave a comment