IPG
    Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

10-K
INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. filed this Form 10-K on 02/22/2016
Entire Document
 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - (continued)
(Amounts in Millions, Except Per Share Amounts)



the fair value and perform the quantitative impairment test by comparing the fair value with the carrying value. Otherwise, no additional testing is required.
For reporting units not included in the qualitative assessment, or for any reporting units identified in the qualitative assessment as "more likely than not" that the fair value is less than its carrying value, the first step of the quantitative impairment test is performed. For our annual impairment test, we compare the respective fair value of our reporting units' equity to the carrying value of their net assets. The first step is a comparison of the fair value of each reporting unit to its carrying value, including goodwill. The sum of the fair values of all our reporting units is reconciled to our current market capitalization plus an estimated control premium. Goodwill allocated to a reporting unit whose fair value is equal to or greater than its carrying value is not impaired, and no further testing is required. Should the carrying amount for a reporting unit exceed its fair value, then the first step of the quantitative impairment test is failed and the magnitude of any goodwill impairment is determined under the second step, which is a comparison of the implied fair value of a reporting unit's goodwill to its carrying value. The implied fair value of goodwill is the excess of the fair value of the reporting unit over its carrying value, excluding goodwill. Impaired goodwill is written down to its implied fair value with a charge to expense in the period the impairment is identified.
For our 2015 and 2014 annual impairment tests, we performed a qualitative impairment assessment for ten and nine reporting units and performed the first step of a two-step quantitative impairment test for two and four reporting units, respectively. For the qualitative analysis we took into consideration all the relevant events and circumstances, including financial performance, macroeconomic conditions and entity-specific factors such as client wins and losses. Based on this assessment, we have concluded that for each of our reporting units subject to the qualitative assessment, it is not “more likely than not” that its fair value was less than its carrying value; therefore, no additional testing was required.
The 2015 and 2014 fair values of reporting units for which we performed quantitative impairment tests were estimated using a combination of the income approach, which incorporates the use of the discounted cash flow method, and the market approach, which incorporates the use of earnings and revenue multiples based on market data. We generally applied an equal weighting to the income and market approaches for our analysis. For the income approach, we used projections, which require the use of significant estimates and assumptions specific to the reporting unit as well as those based on general economic conditions. Factors specific to each reporting unit include revenue growth, profit margins, terminal value growth rates, capital expenditures projections, assumed tax rates, discount rates and other assumptions deemed reasonable by management. For the market approach, we used judgment in identifying the relevant comparable-company market multiples.
These estimates and assumptions may vary between each reporting unit depending on the facts and circumstances specific to that unit. The discount rate for each reporting unit is influenced by general market conditions as well as factors specific to the reporting unit. For the 2015 test, the discount rate we used for our reporting units tested was 11.0%, and the terminal value growth rate for both reporting units tested was 3.0%. The terminal value growth rate represents the expected long-term growth rate for the advertising and marketing services industry, incorporating the type of services the reporting unit provides, and the global economy. For the 2015 test, the revenue growth rates for our reporting units used in our analysis were generally between 4.0% and 6.0%. Factors influencing the revenue growth rates include the nature of the services the reporting unit provides for its clients, the geographic locations in which the reporting unit conducts business and the maturity of the reporting unit. We believe that the estimates and assumptions we made are reasonable, but they are susceptible to change from period to period. Actual results of operations, cash flows and other factors will likely differ from the estimates used in our valuation, and it is possible that differences and changes could be material. A deterioration in profitability, adverse market conditions, significant client losses, changes in spending levels of our existing clients or a different economic outlook than currently estimated by management could have a significant impact on the estimated fair value of our reporting units and could result in an impairment charge in the future.
We also perform a sensitivity analysis to detail the impact that changes in assumptions may have on the outcome of the first step of the impairment test. Our sensitivity analysis provides a range of fair value for each reporting unit, where the low end of the range reduces growth rates by 0.25% and increases discount rates by 0.5%, and the high end of the range increases growth rates by 0.25% and decreases discount rates by 0.5%. We use the average of our fair values for purposes of our comparison between carrying value and fair value for the first step of the quantitative impairment test.
The table below displays the goodwill midpoint of the range for each reporting unit tested in the 2015 and 2014 annual impairment tests. Our results of the comparison between carrying value and fair value at the average fair value indicated that for the 2015 and 2014 test there were no reporting units whose fair value exceeded its carrying value by less than 20%.

32