XML 24 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.4.0.3
Goodwill and Acquired Intangible Assets (Notes)
 9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Goodwill and Intangible Assets Disclosure [Abstract]  
Goodwill and Acquired Intangible Assets
Goodwill and Acquired Intangible Assets
Goodwill
The carrying amount of goodwill by reportable segment as of June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2016 is as follows:

Vistaprint business unit

Upload and Print business units

All Other
business units

Total
Balance as of June 30, 2015 (1)
$
124,636


$
250,487


$
25,506


$
400,629

Acquisitions (2)
—


101,379


—


101,379

Impairments (3)
—

 
(30,841
)
 
—

 
(30,841
)
Adjustments
—


(62
)

—


(62
)
Effect of currency translation adjustments (4)
(1,628
)

5,615


(356
)

3,631

Balance as of March 31, 2016
$
123,008


$
326,578


$
25,150


$
474,736

_________________
(1) Our segment reporting was revised during the first quarter of fiscal 2016 and, as such, we have re-allocated our goodwill by segment for the period ended June 30, 2015. In connection with our change in operating segments, there was an immaterial re-allocation of historical goodwill in the period. See Note 14 for additional details.
(2) See Note 7 for additional details.
(3) During the third quarter of fiscal 2016 we recorded an impairment of $30,841 related to our Exagroup reporting unit. See below for additional details.
(4) Relates to goodwill held by subsidiaries whose functional currency is not the U.S. Dollar.
Acquired Intangible Assets
Acquired intangible assets amortization expense for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2016 was $10,812 and $30,114, respectively, and $4,719 and $16,803 for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2015. Amortization expense has increased in the three and nine months ended March 31, 2016 primarily due to our acquisitions of WIRmachenDRUCK, Exagroup, druck.at, and Tradeprint.
Impairment Review
We perform our annual goodwill impairment test on January 1 of each fiscal year unless interim indicators of impairment exist. We perform our impairment test at a reporting unit level, which is either an operating segment or one level below, referred to as a “component.” The level at which the impairment test is performed requires an assessment of whether the operations below an operating segment should be aggregated as one reporting unit due to their similarity or reviewed individually. As of January 1, 2016, we have ten reporting units containing goodwill, including six operating segments that are part of the Upload and Print business units reportable segment, three operating segments that are part of the All Other business units reportable segment and the Vistaprint business unit operating and reportable segment.
We have the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. For our annual impairment test as of January 1, 2016, we evaluated each of our ten reporting units individually. We considered the timing of our most recent fair value assessment and associated headroom, actual operating results as compared to cash flow forecasts used in the most recent fair value assessments, current long-term forecasts for each reporting unit, and the general market and economic environment of each reporting unit. Our qualitative assessment for fiscal 2016 determined that there was no indication that the carrying value for nine of our reporting units exceeded the fair value. We concluded that the goodwill of our Exagroup reporting unit, which is part of our Upload and Print business units reportable segment, may not be fully recoverable as the reporting unit is forecasting lower projected revenue and profitability levels than originally estimated as of the acquisition date. This change is due in part to Exagroup's need to, and plans to react to heightened competition in its target market, as well as reduction in our expectations for long-term margins in this business. As a result of the decline in the long-term expected cash flows, we performed the quantitative two-step goodwill impairment test.
Prior to performing the quantitative goodwill impairment test, we first evaluated the recoverability of the Exagroup long-lived assets as the change in expected long-term cash flows is indicative of a potential impairment. Long-lived and intangible assets are required to be reviewed whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. The related estimated future undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset group are compared to the asset group's carrying amount, and an impairment charge is recorded for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the asset. We performed the recoverability test using undiscounted cash flows for our Exagroup asset group and concluded that no impairment of long-lived assets exists.     
In order to execute the quantitative goodwill impairment test, we first compared the fair value of the Exagroup reporting unit to its carrying value. We used the income approach, specifically the discounted cash flow (DCF) method, to derive the fair value of the Exagroup reporting unit. This approach calculates fair value by estimating the after-tax cash flows attributable to a reporting unit and then discounting the after-tax cash flows to a present value using a risk-adjusted discount rate. We selected this method as being the most meaningful in preparing our goodwill assessment as we believe the income approach most appropriately measures our income producing assets. We considered using the market approach but concluded it was not appropriate in valuing this particular reporting unit given the lack of relevant market comparisons available for application of the market approach. The cash flow projections in the Exagroup fair value analysis are based on management's estimates of revenue growth rates and operating margins, taking into consideration industry and market conditions. The discount rate is based on a weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”), which represents the average rate a business must pay its providers of debt and equity, plus a risk premium. The WACC of 13% used to test the Exagroup goodwill was derived from a group of comparable companies. The calculated fair value of the Exagroup reporting unit was determined to be less than the carrying value as of January 1, 2016 and, as such, we concluded that the second step of the goodwill analysis was required to measure the impairment loss.
We performed step two of the goodwill impairment test and measured the fair value of all assets and liabilities of the reporting unit, including any unrecognized intangible assets, in a hypothetical analysis that calculated the implied fair value of goodwill in the same manner as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. The carrying amount of the goodwill as of January 1, 2016 was compared to the implied fair value of the goodwill, resulting in a partial impairment loss of $30,841 during the quarter ended March 31, 2016. A portion of the impairment loss has been attributed to the noncontrolling interest based on its third-party shareholders' 30% ownership interest.
Our goodwill analysis requires significant judgment, including the identification of reporting units and the amount and timing of expected future cash flows. While we believe our assumptions are reasonable, actual results could differ from our projections.