IMPAIRMENT CHARGES

Pre-tax impact of impairment charges is summarized in the following table.

Other long-lived asset impairments are reported in "Other (income) expense, net."



	Six Months Ended June 30,												Three Months Ended June 30,
	2017						2016						2017						2016
	Goodwill		Other Long-Lived Assets		Total		Goodwill		Other Long-Lived Assets		Total		Goodwill		Other Long-Lived Assets		Total		Goodwill		Other Long-Lived Assets		Total
Furniture Products	$	—	$	.1	$	.1	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	.1	$	.1	$	—	$	—	$	—
Specialized Products-CVP unit	—		—		—		3.7		—		3.7		—		—		—		3.7		—		3.7
Total impairment charges	$	—	$	.1	$	.1	$	3.7	$	—	$	3.7	$	—	$	.1	$	.1	$	3.7	$	—	$	3.7

Other Long-Lived Assets

We test other long-lived assets for recoverability at year-end and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Fair value and the resulting impairment charges noted above were based primarily upon offers from potential buyers or third party estimates of fair value less selling costs.

Goodwill Impairment Reviews

We test goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level (the business groups that are one level below the operating segments) when triggering events occur, or at least annually. We perform our annual goodwill impairment review in the second quarter.

In evaluating goodwill for impairment, we first assess qualitative factors to determine if it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If after such assessment, with regard to each reporting unit, we conclude that the goodwill of a reporting unit is not impaired, then no further testing is required (commonly referred to as the Step Zero Analysis approach). For those reporting units where potential impairment indicators exist (based on the Step Zero Analysis), recoverability of goodwill is then evaluated using a two-step process. The first step involves a comparison of the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying value. If the estimated fair value of the reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, no further analysis is needed.

In our Step Zero Analysis, we consider i) the excess in fair value of the reporting unit over its carrying amount from the most recent quantitative analysis, ii) macroeconomic conditions, iii) industry and market trends, and iv) overall financial performance as well as other matters as appropriate.

2017

The 2017 goodwill impairment review indicated no goodwill impairments.

We performed a Step Zero Analysis for our annual goodwill review for each of our reporting units, and concluded that it was more likely than not that the fair value of all reporting units, except for two, exceeded their carrying values. Because sales and profits for two reporting units were less than expected, we performed a quantitative analysis for our Work Furniture and Aerospace reporting units under the two-step model. These reporting units were determined to have a fair value in excess of their carrying amounts of at least 75%.

2016

Because all reporting units had fair values that exceeded carrying value (fair value over carrying value divided by carrying value) by a range of 115% to 600% during the 2015 testing (performed on a quantitative analysis for all reporting units), we performed a Step Zero Analysis. Based on the Step Zero Analysis we concluded that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting units exceeded their carrying amount, except for our CVP reporting unit. With regard to our CVP reporting unit, in the second quarter of 2016 we sold one of our two remaining businesses. Additionally, real estate associated with the

remaining CVP business reached held for sale status during the second quarter of 2016. As a result of these two events, the fair value of the CVP reporting unit (consisting of one remaining business) had fallen below its carrying amount, and we fully impaired the remaining $3.7 of goodwill for this reporting unit.