Academic literature on the topic 'Goodwill and other intangible assets (Financial Accounting Standards Board)'

<p>This article examines the accounting change effective after December 15, 2015 and illustrates the Goodwill Accounting Alternative available to private companies as introduced by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2014-18 Business Combinations (Topic 805) Accounting for Identifiable Intangible Assets in a Business Combination—a consensus of the Private Company Council (PCC). The measurement and reporting results of private companies are compared with those of public business entities and not-for-profit entities (i.e., non-private companies) for the same in-scope transactions (i.e., acquisitions, assessing fair value under the equity method, and reorganizations). If a private company adopts the FASB ASU 2014-18, then it must also adopt the FASB ASU 2014-02 Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) Accounting for Goodwill—a consensus of the PCC. This results in the private company amortizing goodwill over 10 or fewer years using the straight-line method. Non-private companies use goodwill impairment testing involving fair value measurements. The illustration presented includes a comparison of the initial and subsequent period measurement and reporting requirements and results and indicates that financial accounting choice can result in a significant monetary difference in the total reported owners’ equity.</p>

The recent movement in standards setting toward fair-value-based accounting beyond financial assets and liabilities calls for more empirical evidence on fair-value measurement, especially that of intangible assets. This article studies the initial valuation of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets after acquisitions. We find that the allocation of purchase price to goodwill and identifiable intangible assets is related to the economic determinants of the valuation. However, it is also significantly affected by managerial incentives arising from the differential treatments of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 142. The same managerial discretions are not exhibited in the purchase price allocation prior to SFAS 142, when goodwill and other intangibles are both amortized. These findings suggest that unverifiable fair value measures are associated with the underlying economics but also deviate from the true values in the presence of management reporting incentives. Further analysis suggests that external appraisers constrain managerial discretion in intangible asset valuation to an extent but do not completely eliminate it.

Accounting for goodwill is one of the most controversial issues in financial reporting. It has been on the agenda of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) as well as the Accounting Standards Board of Australia, the UK, and the US. IASB has also identified accounting for intangible assets (including goodwill) as a high priority. The objective of the present paper is to review the developments of accounting standards for goodwill made by the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and the IASB. Reference to accounting and financial regulations is made to explore the effect of standard developments in promoting uniformity of practice in accounting for goodwill. Content analysis approach is adopted in this study. It concludes that the current regulations to account for goodwill provide little and further developments are still ahead.

PurposeFollowing the mandatory IFRS adoption in 2005, the Continental European accounting systems changed. This study investigates if it influenced the value relevance of intangible assets in Italy.Design/methodology/approachTo measure the value relevance of intangible assets of non-financial firms listed on Borsa Italiana from 2000 to 2015, this study isolates the impact of several classes of intangible assets on stock prices and then classifies firms according to intangible asset intensity.FindingsGoodwill, intellectual property and other rights, start-up costs or other intangible assets are significantly correlated with stock prices when Italian accounting standards were applied prior to 2005, whereas research and development expenditures are not associated with stock prices. The mandatory IFRS adoption has exerted positive effects only for goodwill and research and development expenditures, and it is negative for start-up costs. Further, when intangible-intensive firms are considered in the post-IFRS adoption period, declining value relevance exists relative to intellectual property and other rights or research and development expenditures; goodwill and other intangible assets increase in value relevance.Research limitations/implicationsThis study is subject to country-specific determinants and firm-specific characteristics. It treats accounting standards as exogenous, and the classification reflects the concentration of intangible assets in an industry. By relying on investors’ assessments of risk, it does not sufficiently explore the risk conveyed by future abnormal earnings and earnings volatility.Practical implicationsThis study offers insights for measuring and reporting intangible assets, by specifying that their value relevance depends on their level and aggregation.Originality/valueThis study investigates the value relevance of intangible assets in the post-IFRS period, in reference to intangible-intensive firms. It also divides intangible assets into several classes to specify the value relevance of goodwill.

In the original exposure draft, Business Combinations and Intangible Assets, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed that companies be allowed to report a second per share earnings number that excludes goodwill amortization. Subsequently, the FASB has proposed that goodwill not be amortized at all. Instead, it will be written down when impaired. In this study, we assess the information content of earnings excluding amortization of intangibles relative to two traditional performance measures: earnings before extraordinary items and cash flow from operations. We find that the relative informativeness of earnings before amortization and earnings before extraordinary items do not differ significantly. We also find, consistent with prior research, that both earnings before amortization and earnings before extraordinary items are more informative than cash flow from operations. These findings suggest that goodwill amortization disclosures were not decision-useful and, therefore, support the FASB's revised position.

Purpose – The capitalisation of intangible investments is discussed controversially in the financial accounting literature. International accounting standards are concerned with this issue and generally demand more intellectual capital to be recognised on the face of the balance sheet. If investors and analysts already gather monetary information about intangible assets from the financial report and find such information useful, then the necessity to complement such information with voluntary intellectual capital disclosure will diminish. Accordingly, there should be an association between recognised intangible assets and voluntary intellectual capital disclosure. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The authors analyse the voluntary disclosure of 264 investor conference and roadshow presentations of German DAX 30 firms in the year 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007. The authors apply regression models to analyse the association between recognition of intangible assets and voluntary intellectual capital disclosure and control for other determinants of voluntary disclosure. Findings – The authors find that the magnitude of recognised intangible assets is significantly and negatively associated with the quantity and quality of voluntary intellectual capital disclosure. The authors show that this association is mainly driven by goodwill accounting. In more detailed analyses we find different directions (positive, negative and insignificant) of this relationship for different categories of intellectual capital. Research limitations/implications – Future studies on voluntary intellectual capital disclosure need to consider recognised intangible assets as a determinant to avoid omitted variable problems. Practical implications – The authors provide descriptive evidence about voluntary intellectual capital disclosure practice of Germany’s largest firms. Originality/value – The paper provides primary evidence on the association between recognised intangible assets and voluntary intellectual capital disclosure.

ABSTRACT Students gain insight into a unique accounting treatment in acquisition accounting by completing this case—that of a bargain purchase gain (BPG). In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) revised accounting for business combinations when they promulgated Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 141R, Business Combinations. Under the revised standard, acquirers record net assets of the acquiree at their respective fair market values at the time of acquisition and recognize the excess of net assets over the consideration paid as a BPG included in income from continuing operations. This case takes place after the acquisition is negotiated and the consideration is agreed upon. Students are required to estimate fair values of acquired net assets based on the information provided, determine whether goodwill or a bargain purchase gain exists, and evaluate the impact of this transaction on the financial statements. The case also requires students to consider subjectivity within the analysis, as well as to identify potential incentives that may influence certain estimates and judgments that managers make. The case is appropriate for accounting courses where business combinations, goodwill, and fair value estimation are discussed.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the value relevance of intangible assets, including goodwill and other types of intangibles in the pre- and post-adoption periods of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Most importantly, this paper investigates whether the value relevance of reported intangible assets is associated with their value reliability. Furthermore, this paper reports whether the adoption of IFRS improves the value relevance of intangible assets and alters the relationship between value relevance and reliability. Design/methodology/approach – Both price and return models based on Ohlosn theory (1995) are employed to test the value relevance and value reliability of intangibles. Australian-listed firms with capitalised intangibles from 2001 to 2009 are selected in this study. The sample includes 6,650 firm-year observations. Findings – The main result shows that capitalised intangible assets are value relevant in Australia, in both the pre- and post-adoption of IFRS periods. Value relevance is higher in firms with more reliable information on intangible assets. This study finds that the value relevance of intangibles has declined in the post-adoption period of IFRS. However, the positive relationship between the value relevance and the reliability of intangibles has remained unchanged in the post-adoption period. Originality/value – The paper contributes a new measurement of value reliability of accounting information about intangibles. This paper is one of few studies on the relationship between value relevance and reliability of intangible assets. The results show that value relevance is positively associated with value reliability. This suggests that, when accounting standard setters assess whether the existing IFRS of intangibles should be improved in the future, they need to think not only in terms of whether the standard can provide more relevant information of intangibles to investors but also whether the standard can make the information of intangibles more reliable.

ABSTRACTThe International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is introducing new International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) which aim to make financial statements more useful. The process has generated considerable debate. This paper is a contribution to the debate, in the particular context of insurance accounting, and attempts to provide a coherent framework for accounting theory which makes a clear distinction between retrospective statements required for administrative accountability, fair value for current market transactions and to measure value creation, and a prospective prudence required to protect policyholders, depositors and other creditors. It is argued that the IASB's founding purpose to provide a single set of accounts is therefore incoherent; different purposes require different numbers. This also implies that fair value accounts should attempt to value intangible assets. In this context, actuarial analyses of surplus would greatly assist in measuring whether model assumptions are appropriate.

Purpose This study aims to examine the impact of the recent regime change in accounting for goodwill, from the systematic periodic amortisation to the impairment testing, on the frequency and the extent of goodwill write-offs in the context of Australia. It also examines the impact of the change from the amortisation approach to the impairment approach on the value relevance of older goodwill. Design/methodology/approach The authors approach the first research question by comparing the actual amount of goodwill impairment charge by the sample firms with the minimum “as if” amortisation charge that would have been required under the amortisation regime. The authors approach the second question using a modified Ohlson model (1995), similar to Bugeja and Gallery (2006). The sample consists of 911 firm-year observations with the number of observations in the particular year being 238, 242, 220 and 211 in 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Findings The findings suggest that the adoption of the impairment approach has decreased the frequency and the amount of goodwill write-off. The goodwill impairment amount is substantially less than the “as if” amortisation amount that would have been required under the amortisation regime. The results also suggest that older goodwill is now value-relevant, whereas goodwill purchased during the current year is not value-relevant. One reason for this may be that AASB 3: Business Combination allows for the provisional allocation of the purchase price to goodwill to be allocated to other identifiable intangible assets latter on. Hence, during the year of business combination, investors do not form a firm view of the amount of goodwill arising out of the business combination. Research limitations/implications This study uses data for the first four years since the inception of the impairment approach. Practical implications The findings of this study have important implications for the fair value accounting debate. The discretions allowed the managers under the impairment approach to improve the information content of goodwill. The relatively low levels of goodwill impairment even during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis contradict to the apprehensions found in the literature that managers will use the goodwill write-off as a tool for downward earnings management. The findings also imply that if managers are allowed with adequate flexibility through accounting standards rather than stipulating some systematic and mechanistic rules, the information value of the accounting measurement may improve. Social implications The findings feed into the debate of “rule-based” versus “principle-based” accounting standards and favours the “principle-based” accounting standards. The findings also contribute to the accounting measurement literature by concluding that if allowed with discretionary choices, managers may not always opt for the conservative accounting measurements (such as, recording goodwill write-offs). Originality/value Adopting an alternative approach, this study shows that the fair value accounting for goodwill has resulted in an optimistic approach to goodwill write-offs. It has also improved the information content of reported goodwill. This is the first known study addressing the research questions in consideration after the adoption of the goodwill impairment approach.

This study examines the impact of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 and No. 142 (hereafter SFAS 141, 142) on the characteristics of financial analysts' earnings forecasts after mergers. Specifically, I predict lower forecast errors for firms that experienced mergers after the enactment of SFAS 141, 142 than for firms that went through business combinations before those accounting changes. Study results present strong evidence that earnings forecast errors for companies involved in merging and acquisition activity decreased after the adoption of SFAS 141, 142. Test results also suggest that lower earnings forecast errors are attributable to factors specific to merging companies such as SFAS 141, 142 but not common to merging and non-merging companies. In addition, evidence implies that information in corporate annual reports of merging companies plays the critical role in this decrease of earnings forecast error. Summarily, I report that SFAS 141, 142 were effective in achieving greater transparency of financial reporting after mergers. In my complementary analysis, I also document the structure of corporate analysts' coverage in "leaders/followers" terms and conduct tests for differences in this structure: (1) across post-SFAS 141,142/pre-SFAS 141, 142 environments, and (2) between merging and non-merging firms. Although I do not identify any significant differences in coverage structure across environments, my findings suggest that lead analysts are not as accurate as followers when predicting earnings for firms actively involved in mergers. I also detect a significant interaction between the SFAS-environment code and leader/follower classification, which indicates greater improvement of lead analyst forecast accuracy in the post-SFAS 141, 142 environment relative to their followers. This interesting discovery demands future investigation and confirms the importance of financial reporting transparency for the accounting treatment of business combinations.