Impairment Testing: Asset Impairment under IAS 36 and Swiss GAAP FER 27

Forces the company to recognise the losses in value on its assets.

Introduction: impairment testing at the heart of accounting integrity

At every annual close, finance departments and audit committees face the same dreaded question they have asked since 2008: are our assets still worth what the balance sheet claims? Goodwill from a poorly calibrated acquisition, industrial machinery whose profitability is eroding, brands bought at the top of the cycle, capitalised R&D projects with no commercial outlet — all are line items that may conceal a latent loss in value the accounts have not yet recognised.

The asset impairment test, or impairment testing, is precisely the accounting mechanism that forces a company to confront this reality. Codified internationally by the IASB standard IAS 36 — Impairment of Assets and, in Switzerland, by Swiss GAAP FER 27 — Impairment of Assets, it imposes a discipline at least annual, and more frequent whenever indicators of impairment arise.

« An asset is impaired when its carrying amount exceeds its recoverable amount, defined as the higher of its fair value less costs of disposal and its value in use. » — IASB, IAS 36 paragraph 6.

The practical difficulty stems from the convergence of three factors in 2026: an interest-rate environment that mechanically raises the cost of capital and compresses discounted values in use, a wave of mergers and acquisitions over the past five years that generated massive goodwill now exposed, and heightened scrutiny from auditors and regulators (AMF, ESMA, SIX) over the robustness of impairment tests. For an SME, a mid-market company or a listed group, a poorly conducted test produces two symmetrical risks: an excessive impairment that destroys earnings, or an absence of impairment that exposes the company to a restatement and to a challenge to the fair presentation of the accounts.

This article reviews the technical and accounting definition of the impairment test, its origin and its IFRS and Swiss GAAP FER regulatory framework, the operational and strategic reasons that justify its rigour, the full methodology from identifying cash-generating units through to calculating the recoverable amount, the application calendar and triggering indicators, the profile of the independent valuer to appoint, two quantified case studies, the founder's perspective, ten frequently asked questions and an operational summary.

Secure your next impairment test

Book a confidential 30-minute call with Hectelion to discuss your next impairment test and validate the methodological approach before the close.

Definition: what is an impairment test?

The impairment test is the accounting procedure by which a company compares the carrying amount of an asset — or a group of assets — with its recoverable amount, in order to determine whether a loss in value should be recognised. If the carrying amount exceeds the recoverable amount, the difference constitutes an impairment to be recognised immediately as an expense in the income statement.

The recoverable amount is defined, under both IAS 36 and FER 27, as the higher of two values: fair value less costs of disposal and value in use. Fair value corresponds to the price that would be received to sell the asset in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, net of direct disposal costs. Value in use corresponds to the present value of the future cash flows expected from the continuing use of the asset and from its disposal at the end of its cycle, discounted at a rate reflecting the asset's specific risk.

The impairment test is not the same as a conventional business valuation intended to set a transaction price. It is a standardised accounting procedure whose objective is to ensure that the balance sheet reflects a true and fair view of the value of the assets held. Its methodological rigour, its sources of assumptions and its documentary framework are strictly governed by the applicable standard and subject to review by the external auditor.

Origin: from Enron to IAS 36 and FER 27

The issue of asset impairment is not new, but its modern codification traces its roots to the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s. The Enron affair (2001), followed by WorldCom (2002), exposed how easily companies could keep overvalued assets on the balance sheet — notably goodwill and intangible assets — long after their real economic value had collapsed.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) responded by issuing, in March 2004, the IAS 36 — Impairment of Assets standard, in its revised version still in force today. The standard imposes two structuring principles: the recoverable amount of an asset must be tested whenever there is an indicator of impairment, and mandatorily every year for goodwill and intangible assets with an indefinite useful life, regardless of any indicator. The standard applies to all assets except those governed by specific standards (inventories IAS 2, financial instruments IFRS 9, deferred taxes IAS 12, etc.).

In Switzerland, the Foundation for Accounting and Reporting Recommendations (FER) issued Swiss GAAP FER 27 — Impairment of Assets, modelled in principle on IAS 36 but simplified for unlisted companies and SMEs. Groups listed on SIX Swiss Exchange follow either IFRS or Swiss GAAP FER depending on their chosen framework; unlisted Swiss companies generally apply Swiss GAAP FER or the Code of Obligations (article 960a CO), which enshrines the prudence principle and requires measurement at the lower of acquisition cost and market value.

In the United States, the equivalent standard is the FASB's ASC 350 and ASC 360. Although technically distinct, it shares with IAS 36 the principle of a mandatory annual test on goodwill and on intangible assets with an indefinite life. The differences lie mainly in the calculation approach (one-step test under IFRS, two-step or simplified one-step under US GAAP since 2017).

Why a rigorous impairment test is critical

The impairment test fulfils five economic and legal functions that justify the time and resources devoted to it.

First, it ensures the fair presentation of the accounts. A balance sheet that overstates its assets presents a misleading picture of the company's financial strength. For shareholders, lenders and commercial counterparties, the very integrity of the published financial information is at stake. An unjustified absence of impairment constitutes, in the most serious cases, an offence of presenting misleading accounts, sanctioned in France under article L242-6 of the Commercial Code and in Switzerland under article 152 of the Criminal Code.

Second, it protects directors and governing bodies. A properly conducted and documented impairment test constitutes, for the board of directors and executive management, a demonstration of due diligence. In the event of a subsequent restatement by the auditor or by the AMF, the test's traceability, the quality of the assumptions adopted and the independence of the valuer, where applicable, become the principal defensive elements.

Third, it informs strategic decisions. A rigorous impairment test reveals assets underperforming relative to their carrying amount. It is a valuable operational signal that can lead to decisions on divestment, restructuring or capital reallocation. The test does more than avert an accounting catastrophe: it reveals the real zones of value creation and destruction within the group.

Fourth, it satisfies regulatory and audit requirements. The AMF in France, ESMA at European level and SIX Exchange Regulation in Switzerland exercise particular vigilance over the quality of impairment tests published by listed companies. Auditors (Big Four and others) have tightened their requirements since 2020 on the documentation of business-plan assumptions, the calculation of the discount rate and sensitivity analysis.

Fifth, it anticipates M&A transactions. An impairment test that reveals a weakness in the value of an asset or goodwill can shape a future divestment strategy. Conversely, a credible and documented absence of impairment strengthens valuation during a transaction. Potential acquirers systematically examine, in financial due diligence, the impairment tests of recent years to identify hidden risks.

How an impairment test is built

The methodology of an impairment test under IAS 36 or FER 27 follows a strict five-step sequence, each of which must be documented to meet the external auditor's requirements.

The first step is to identify the scope of the test. For individual assets whose recoverable amount can be determined in isolation, the test is conducted asset by asset. For assets that do not generate independent cash flows — the most frequent case in an industrial or services activity — the test is conducted at the level of the cash-generating unit (CGU), defined as the smallest identifiable group of assets generating independent cash flows. Goodwill, by construction, is always allocated to one or more CGUs at the level at which it is monitored for internal management purposes. The correct definition of CGUs is the most critical step: a CGU that is too broad can mask an impairment, while a CGU that is too narrow can create an artificial one.

The second step is to identify indicators of impairment. The standard lists external indicators (a significant decline in market value, an adverse change in the technological, economic or legal environment, a rise in interest rates affecting the discount rate, a market capitalisation below the carrying amount of equity) and internal ones (obsolescence or physical damage, an adverse change in intended use, economic performance below forecasts). For goodwill and intangible assets with an indefinite life, the annual test is mandatory regardless of the presence of indicators.

The third step is to calculate the recoverable amount. Two alternative approaches coexist. Fair value less costs of disposal relies on observable market data (comparable transactions, sector multiples, recent offer prices) and reflects the value the company would obtain from an immediate sale. Value in use rests on discounting the future cash flows expected from the continuing use of the asset, over a period generally limited to five years plus a terminal value. The discount rate adopted is the pre-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC), adjusted for the CGU's specific risk where this differs from the group's overall risk profile. The recoverable amount retained is the higher of the two.

The fourth step is to compare the recoverable amount with the carrying amount and, where applicable, to recognise the impairment. If the recoverable amount is below the carrying amount, the difference is recognised as an expense in the income statement. The impairment is first charged to the goodwill allocated to the CGU, then to the other assets of the CGU pro rata to their carrying amount. The impairment of goodwill is irreversible under IAS 36; that of other assets may be reversed if the recoverable amount subsequently recovers.

The fifth step is to conduct a sensitivity analysis and document the test. The standard requires disclosure, in the notes, of the key assumptions (growth rate, discount rate, terminal operating margin) and their impact on the test's outcome. The sensitivity analysis must show what level of variation in the assumptions would tip the test from "no impairment" to "impairment required". Since 2020, this analysis has become the principal point of vigilance for auditors and regulators.

When to conduct an impairment test

The timing of an impairment test is determined both by the nature of the assets concerned and by the presence of indicators of impairment.

For goodwill and intangible assets with an indefinite useful life (brands, customer files with an indefinite life, perpetual rights), the test is mandatory annually, on the same date each year, regardless of any indicator of impairment. In practice, the vast majority of groups conduct this test at the annual closing date, generally between October and December depending on the consolidation calendar.

For other tangible and intangible assets with a finite useful life, the test is conducted whenever an indicator of impairment is identified. The review of indicators must, for its part, be carried out at each interim close — half-yearly for listed companies, annually for the others — to ensure that no indicator has been overlooked.

Three particular situations warrant specific attention. First, a lasting fall in market capitalisation below the carrying amount of equity constitutes an explicit external indicator cited by IAS 36 and triggers a mandatory test. Second, operational performance significantly below the budget or business plan that underpinned a recent acquisition constitutes a strong internal indicator. Third, a marked rise in interest rates — such as that observed between 2022 and 2024 — may suffice, on its own, to degrade the value in use of many CGUs and to trigger an ad hoc test.

Who to call on

The impairment test is, in principle, carried out under the responsibility of the company's finance department. For groups with a well-staffed financial control team and in-house valuation expertise, the test can be conducted entirely internally, under the external auditor's review. For others, recourse to an independent valuer becomes necessary in several configurations.

The use of an external expert is recommended when the goodwill or intangible assets concerned represent a significant share of the balance sheet, when the CGU corresponds to a recently acquired activity and the acquisition business plan must be reviewed, when the auditor flags a particular methodological complexity, or when the test risks triggering a significant impairment liable to be challenged by shareholders or market authorities.

Three criteria should guide the choice of valuer. First, independence from the company and its stakeholders — a valuer commercially tied to the auditor or to the advisers on the original acquisition cannot be considered independent. Second, sector and methodological expertise on the nature of the CGU being tested — a generalist valuer who does not master the economic drivers of the sector will produce a fragile test. Third, the ability to engage with the external auditor — a well-built test that cannot withstand challenge from the statutory auditor is useless.

Hectelion works on IAS 36 and FER 27 impairment tests for Franco-Swiss SMEs, mid-market companies and listed groups, drawing on its dual expertise in business valuation and financial analysis. The firm's practice covers the definition of CGUs, the critical review of business plans, the calculation of the WACC adjusted for specific risk, the implementation of value-in-use and fair-value methods, the sensitivity analysis and the production of the methodological report to be shared with the external auditor. The valuation methodology deployed is aligned with IVSC, IFRS and Swiss GAAP FER standards.

Advantages: documented integrity and anticipation of market signals

A rigorously conducted impairment test offers four operational advantages that go well beyond mere accounting compliance. The first advantage is the documented integrity of the accounts: a well-conducted test protects management and the board of directors against any subsequent challenge to the true and fair view, and constitutes compelling evidence in the event of a review by the auditor, the statutory auditor or the regulator (AMF, ESMA, SIX Exchange Regulation).

The second advantage is the anticipation of market signals: a rigorous annual test reveals, ahead of a crisis, the CGUs whose profitability diverges from the original acquisition business plan. This early detection makes it possible to act on perimeter, strategy or financial structure before the impairment is forced through in a degraded context.

The third advantage is the quality of the dialogue with the auditor: a test documented to IAS 36 standards and ESMA expectations reduces close iterations, last-minute adjustments and audit qualifications. The fourth advantage is the informational value for investors: a substantial impairment note, with quantified sensitivity analysis, strengthens the credibility of the published financial information and the quality of financial communication.

Limits: temporal asymmetry and sensitivity to assumptions

The impairment test, despite its methodological rigour, has four structural limits. The first limit is temporal asymmetry: the test captures a snapshot at the closing date but does not predict subsequent market developments. A past impairment may prove excessive if markets recover, and vice versa.

The second limit is sensitivity to assumptions: the test's outcome depends heavily on the discount rate adopted, the perpetual growth rate and the terminal margin. A 50-basis-point variation in the WACC may be enough to tip a CGU between impairment and no impairment, which makes the sensitivity analysis as important as the main result.

The third limit relates to the quality of the supporting business plan: an overly optimistic business plan preserved for strategic or commercial reasons mechanically distorts the value in use. The fourth limit is the irreversibility of goodwill impairment: once recognised, it cannot be reversed even if the recoverable amount recovers. This definitive character demands particular rigour in documenting the test and in analysing the triggering indicators.

The 5 mistakes to avoid

Mistake 1: Recycling assumptions from one year to the next

Too many finance departments, for convenience, carry over the assumptions of the previous test without reassessing them in light of the market context. This practice ultimately generates abrupt restatements when a prolonged deterioration in economic conditions makes it impossible to defend the absence of impairment. Each annual test must be the subject of an updated review of macroeconomic, sector and operational assumptions.

Mistake 2: Defining CGUs too broadly to dilute underperformance

A CGU that is too broad can mask a localised impairment by absorbing it into a wider perimeter. This practice, sometimes tolerated in the past, is now closely scrutinised by auditors and ESMA. The definition of CGUs must strictly follow the logic of internal management and the granularity of goodwill monitoring.

Mistake 3: Under-documenting the sensitivity analysis

Since 2020, the sensitivity analysis has become the principal point of vigilance for auditors and regulators. A test that presents a conclusion without demonstrating its robustness against reasonable variations in assumptions will systematically be challenged. Sensitivity must be quantified, presented in the notes and bring out the critical assumptions.

Mistake 4: Ignoring external indicators of impairment

A lasting fall in market capitalisation below the carrying amount of equity, a significant rise in interest rates, a sector downturn — all are external indicators that trigger a mandatory test. Ignoring them exposes the company to a restatement and to a challenge to the fair presentation of the accounts.

Mistake 5: Confusing the valuer's commercial independence with economic independence

An external valuer may be legally independent yet economically dependent on the company (recurring engagement, a majority share of revenue, a commercial link with the auditor or the advisers). Verifiable economic independence is today required by Big Four auditors and constitutes a central criterion of the test's evidential value.

Case 1: Impairment of French industrial goodwill, 18 MCHF loss

A listed French mid-market group (consolidated revenue 320 MCHF, market capitalisation 410 MCHF) acquired a German industrial SME in 2021 for 95 MCHF, generating consolidated goodwill of 42 MCHF allocated to the CGU "Germany — Automotive components". The acquisition business plan assumed average growth of 6% per year, an EBITDA margin of 14% by 2025 and a market share of 8% in the targeted segments.

At the 2025 close, the CGU's actual performance stands at 4% average growth, a 9% EBITDA margin and 5% market share. The downturn in the European automotive market — an accelerated shift towards electric vehicles, pressure from manufacturers on suppliers of thermal components — derailed the original business plan. The finance department appoints an independent valuer to conduct the mandatory annual impairment test on the goodwill.

The carrying amount of the CGU (tangible + intangible fixed assets + goodwill + working capital) comes to 87 MCHF. Two approaches are deployed in parallel. Fair value less costs of disposal, calculated from sector EV/EBITDA multiples (4.5× to 5.5× observed on recent transactions in the automotive components segment), produces a range of 58 to 72 MCHF. Value in use, calculated by DCF on a revised five-year business plan (growth 3%, margin stabilised at 8.5%) discounted at an adjusted WACC of 10.2%, produces a value of 69 MCHF. The recoverable amount retained is 72 MCHF (the higher).

The gap between the carrying amount (87 MCHF) and the recoverable amount (72 MCHF) generates an impairment of 15 MCHF, increased by 3 MCHF of non-recoverable deferred tax assets, i.e. a total charge of 18 MCHF recognised in the 2025 income statement. The impairment is charged first to the goodwill of 42 MCHF, which is reduced to 24 MCHF. The sensitivity analysis shows that a 50-basis-point variation in the WACC would entail a 4.1 MCHF variation in the value in use — a central element of the documentation provided to the auditor.

Case 2: FER 27 test on a Swiss brand, no impairment required

A Swiss high-end watchmaking SME (revenue 38 MCHF, EBITDA 7.2 MCHF) recognised on its balance sheet, in 2018, a historic brand bought from a struggling competitor for 12 MCHF. The brand is treated as an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life under Swiss GAAP FER 27 and must therefore undergo an annual impairment test.

The external auditor flagged, in its 2025 interim review report, particular vigilance over this item, given a slight deterioration in the SME's gross margin and the appreciation of the Swiss franc penalising its exports. Management appoints an independent valuer to produce a rigorously documented impairment test.

Two approaches are implemented. The relief-from-royalty method calculates the brand's value in use as the present value of the royalties the SME would have to pay to a third party if it did not own the brand. A royalty rate of 4.5% of revenue, calibrated on Swiss watchmaking sector benchmarks, is applied to projected sales for 2026-2030. Discounted at a WACC of 8.8%, the value in use comes to 15.3 MCHF. The complementary fair-value method, calculated from transaction multiples on mid-range Swiss watchmaking brands, produces a range of 11 to 14 MCHF.

The recoverable amount retained is 15.3 MCHF (value in use, the higher of the two). It exceeds the carrying amount of 12 MCHF — no impairment is required. The sensitivity analysis, presented in the notes to the accounts, shows that an impairment would become necessary if the royalty rate fell below 3.5% or if the WACC exceeded 11%. The external auditor validates the test without qualification, and the brand is maintained at its carrying amount.

A word from the founder

The impairment test is one of the most misunderstood accounting exercises in SMEs and mid-market companies. Too often it is treated as a closing formality, dispatched in a few days with assumptions recycled from one year to the next. It is precisely this approach that ends up producing the abrupt restatements and the disputes with auditors.

What we have observed in the Franco-Swiss market since 2023: massive impairments of goodwill that has sat on the books for five to seven years, annual tests that collapse at the first macroeconomic shock, and finance departments caught off guard by auditors' growing vigilance over the documentation of assumptions. The rise in interest rates between 2022 and 2024 alone triggered several waves of restatements that the markets still remember.

Our role as an independent valuer is to bring methodological rigour aligned with IAS 36 and FER 27, but also a market perspective that goes beyond pure accounting mechanics. A well-conducted impairment test protects directors, satisfies auditors and reveals valuable operational signals. A rushed test creates risks that are, sadly, always discovered too late.

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D — Founder & CEO, Hectelion SA

FAQ: the 10 essential questions on impairment testing

Introduction: what to keep in mind before the questions

The impairment test generates a high number of operational questions among finance departments, audit committees and boards of directors. This FAQ gathers the ten most frequent queries, from methodological choices (CGUs, discount rate) to practical constraints (cost, calendar, interaction with auditors). The answers below synthesise the IAS 36 and Swiss GAAP FER 27 requirements as at 2026, to be supplemented by a case-by-case analysis.

Q1: What is the difference between IAS 36 and Swiss GAAP FER 27?

The two standards share the same fundamental principle — comparing the carrying amount of an asset with its recoverable amount and recognising the difference as an expense — but FER 27 is appreciably more concise than IAS 36 and leaves more room for judgement to preparers. IAS 36 imposes a very detailed methodological framework on CGUs, business-plan assumptions, the discount rate and note disclosures. FER 27 adopts the principles but without the same level of prescription. In practice, SIX-listed groups that opt for FER often converge voluntarily towards IAS 36 standards to reassure auditors and investors.

Q2: Which assets are concerned by the impairment test?

All assets within the scope of IAS 36 or FER 27, excluding assets governed by specific standards (inventories, financial instruments, deferred taxes, investment property at fair value, construction contracts). Concerned in particular are: property, plant and equipment, intangible assets with finite and indefinite useful lives, goodwill, and investments in associates and joint ventures.

Q3: Is the impairment test mandatory every year?

For goodwill and intangible assets with an indefinite useful life, yes — the test is mandatory annually, on a fixed date, regardless of any indicator of impairment. For other assets, the test is mandatory only when an indicator of impairment is present. A review of indicators must nonetheless be carried out at each annual and interim close.

Q4: Can goodwill impairment be reversed later?

No, never. Goodwill impairment is definitive under IAS 36 and FER 27, even if the CGU's recoverable amount subsequently recovers. This irreversibility is a major difference from the impairment of other assets, which can be reversed up to the carrying amount that would have been obtained without the initial impairment.

Q5: Which discount rate should be used for value in use?

The discount rate is the pre-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC), adjusted to reflect the specific risk of the CGU being tested if it differs from the group's overall risk profile. The WACC is calculated from the cost of equity (CAPM model with sector beta, market risk premium and size premium) and the after-tax cost of debt, weighted according to the group's target capital structure.

Q6: How do you define a CGU correctly?

The CGU is the smallest identifiable group of assets generating cash flows largely independent of the cash flows from other assets or groups of assets. In practice, the definition follows the logic of the group's internal management (business segments, business units, product lines). For goodwill, the CGU is defined at the level at which goodwill is monitored for internal management purposes, without exceeding an operating segment within the meaning of IFRS 8.

Q7: How much does an independent impairment test cost?

The cost depends on the complexity of the CGU, the number of CGUs to test, the quality of the available business plan and the test's criticality for the auditor. For an SME with one CGU and simple goodwill, the cost ranges between 15,000 CHF and 40,000 CHF. For a mid-market or listed company with several CGUs, between 40,000 CHF and 150,000 CHF. The value of the test is not measured only by its direct cost: a well-conducted test avoids restatements, conflicts with the auditor and unanticipated exceptional charges.

Q8: What happens if market capitalisation falls below the carrying amount of equity?

This situation constitutes, under IAS 36, an explicit external indicator of impairment that triggers a mandatory test on all the assets concerned, including goodwill. The test may conclude that no impairment is required — market capitalisation sometimes reflects short-term factors disconnected from the recoverable amount of the assets — but it must be conducted and documented.

Q9: Can the impairment test be used in the context of a sale?

Indirectly, yes. A recent and documented impairment test is a useful anchor point in a negotiation, notably to defend a value range on a specific CGU. It does not, however, replace a business valuation dedicated to the transaction, which draws on different methodologies and sources of assumptions.

Q10: Does Hectelion work under both IAS 36 and FER 27?

Yes. Hectelion conducts impairment tests under IAS 36 for groups applying IFRS (listed or not) and under FER 27 for groups applying Swiss GAAP FER. Our practice covers the definition of CGUs, the calculation of the WACC, the implementation of value-in-use and fair-value methods, the sensitivity analysis and the documentation intended for the external auditor. Let's talk for 30 minutes in confidence to frame your next test.

Conclusion: impairment testing in the service of accounting integrity

The asset impairment test is not a closing formality. It is a structuring accounting procedure that engages the fair presentation of the accounts, the responsibility of directors, the quality of the published financial information and, ultimately, the confidence of shareholders, lenders and markets. Poorly conducted, it generates abrupt restatements, conflicts with the auditor and disputes with stakeholders. Well conducted, it protects governing bodies, satisfies regulatory requirements and reveals operational signals that inform strategic decisions.

The 2026 environment — high interest rates, a slowdown in several cyclical sectors, a wave of M&A to digest, heightened auditor vigilance — makes the rigour of the impairment test more critical than ever. For Franco-Swiss SMEs, mid-market companies and listed groups, recourse to an independent valuer with the required methodological and sector expertise has become a reasonable insurance at a marginal cost. Hectelion SA works on this perimeter in France and Switzerland, under IAS 36 and FER 27, with a methodology aligned with IVSC standards and economic independence from traditional financial intermediaries and audit firms.

Article summary

The impairment test is the accounting procedure that forces a company to compare the carrying amount of its assets with their recoverable amount and to recognise any underlying loss in value. Codified internationally by IAS 36 (IFRS) and in Switzerland by Swiss GAAP FER 27, it applies to the majority of tangible and intangible assets on the balance sheet, excluding those governed by specific standards.

The test is mandatory annually for goodwill and intangible assets with an indefinite useful life, and whenever an indicator of impairment is identified for other assets. The methodology comprises five steps: identification of the scope and the CGUs, review of indicators, calculation of the recoverable amount (the higher of fair value less costs of disposal and value in use), comparison with the carrying amount and recognition of the impairment, sensitivity analysis and documentation for the auditor.

The stakes are not only accounting. A poorly conducted test exposes directors to restatements, to conflicts with the auditor, and potentially to a challenge to the fair presentation of the accounts. A well-conducted test protects governing bodies, satisfies regulators and reveals valuable operational signals. The cost of an independent test — between 15,000 CHF and 150,000 CHF depending on complexity — is marginal relative to the risks covered.

Hectelion SA works on IAS 36 and FER 27 impairment tests for Franco-Swiss SMEs, mid-market companies and listed groups, with a methodology aligned with IVSC standards and economic independence from traditional audit firms. The firm covers the definition of CGUs, the calculation of the WACC, the value-in-use and fair-value methods, the sensitivity analysis and the production of the methodological report intended for the external auditor.