商誉会计相关问题探讨

商誉的本质是能为企业带来超额盈利的能力．是不可辨认的,由优秀的人力资源、科学的管理制度、融洽的公共关系、优秀的资信级别和良好的社会形象等要素构成。商誉的确认分为对外购商誉的确认和自创商誉的确认．企业通过并购等行为取得的外购商誉应当确认为资产．而通过自身的长期积累拥有的自创商誉不应当作为资产入账。本文就商誉的本质、构成及确认等问题进行了探讨。     

企业商誉会计研究

由企业合并产生的商誉一直是会计界争论和关注的焦点,尤其是随着知识经济的到来,人们对于合并产生的商誉的关注更甚于从前。本文首先介绍了近年来影响较大的企业并购案例,分析了其中存在的商誉及由此引出来的问题。进而介绍了商誉的基本概念,包括商誉的本质,构成要素,商誉的减值等。商誉分为自创商誉和外购商誉,由于自创商誉成本的难以计量,一般不确认自创商誉,故本文主要讨论外购商誉。由于我国只确认外购正商誉,不确认负商誉,因此本文除非特别提出负商誉,其余所指商誉均为正商誉。本文对外购商誉的初始确认、后续计量等会计处理问题做了详细的介绍,并简单介绍了负商誉及其涉及的问题,使得本文体系趋于完善。最后是笔者对商誉确认和计量中存在问题的看法及个人建议。     

并购方案对商誉确认金额的影响

商誉的产生有两种方式,一是企业内部经营积累自创产生,一是企业合并产生。因为内部自创产生的商誉具有难以确认和计量的属性,一直以来都不允许确认,而企业也只有在并购时才允许确认商誉,这也是网络流传"无并购,不商誉"的根本原因。基于企业账面的商誉都是企业并购形成的基本属性,不同并购方案下或者并购过程的不同对合并报表商誉会有哪些差异?这不只是一个会计问题,也是一个可能涉及企业并购方案甚至更高层次的公司决策问题。了解商誉的确认以及会计处理,可以为并购在财务方面提供更多建设性意见。     

商誉减值相关问题探讨

近年来,很多集团企业采取了并购的战略进行扩张,因并购产生的商誉对集团合并财务报表的影响也愈来愈大.而近年来随着商誉金额的增加,商誉减值问题也受到了企业投资人、监管机构等报表使用者的高度关注.但商誉减值测试工作在实务工作中遇到了一些问题,本文通过商誉减值的五个常见会计问题进行分析探讨.     

自创商誉应予确认

自创商誉是企业在持续经营过程中,由各种不可辨认因素共同作用形成的具有超额盈利能力的无形经济资源。长期以来,会计学界仅确认外购商誉,而对自创商誉不予确认。笔者认为,这种做法值得商榷。随着衍生金融工具计量和不确定性事项处理的最终解决,自创商誉也应该予以确认。本文拟就自创商誉应予确认的原因进行简要的分析。 一、从资产的确认标准看自创商誉的确认 美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)认为,资产的确认要符合四个标准:可定义     

关于商誉问题的探讨

20世纪90年代以来，全球的并购浪潮风起云涌，而一起成功的收购活动往往会导致巨额的收购溢价。从会计处理的角度来讲，其结果表现为巨额商誉资产（仅考虑购买法下的处理）的确认以及以后会计期间巨额摊销费用的发生，这导致许多企业在并购以后要报告巨额亏损。举例来讲；时代华纳的并购案中，140亿美元中的80%是为商誉而支付的，即使选择了长达40年的摊销期限，时代华纳每年所要注销的商誉价值仍要高达2.75亿美元，这导致其在并购以后的第一年报告了2.17亿美元的净损失，于是商誉资产到底要不要确认，如果确认的话要不要摊销，再一次成为争论的焦点。     

浅议企业自创商誉的会计确认与计量

商誉作为企业一项不可辨认的无形资产,尤其是企业自创商誉,在知识经济时代,变得越来越常见和重要,逐渐成为会计界研究的焦点。自创商誉的会计确认和计量,是会计界一个复杂而急需研究的课题,科学地确认和计量自创商誉,以确保所提供会计信息的真实、全面、可靠,是对委托经营的有力保障。本文从正反两个方面分析了自创商誉会计确认和计量的必要性,接着对相关的具体问题进行了探讨,以期能起到抛砖引玉的作用。     

浅议企业自创商誉的会计确认与计量

商誉作为企业一项不可辨认的无形资产,尤其是企业自创商誉,在知识经济时代,变得越来越常见和重要,逐渐成为会计界研究的焦点。自创商誉的会计确认和计量,是会计界一个复杂而急需研究的课题,科学地确认和计量自创商誉,以确保所提供会计信息的真实、全面、可靠,是对委托经营的有力保障。本文从正反两个方面分析了自创商誉会计确认和计量的必要性．接着对相关的具体问题进行了探讨,以期能起到砖引玉的作用。     

企业商誉的确认

商誉不是因并购而产生的，它一直都存在而且并非一成不变，也不是简单地摊销就完事。商誉既可以外购又可以自创。自创商誉价值的构成要素中，良好的地理位置、独特的生产技术和专营专卖权等，都可以根据需要作为企业的一般无形资产入账；由杰出的管理人员要素构成的部分，不应也不可能作为一般无形资产入账。购并企业在购并被购并企业时所支付的超过被购并企业净资产公允市价部分的价款，应作为递延资产处理，而不应确认为外购商誉。     

新经济形势下确认自创商誉的可行性探究

我国会计准则规定,外购商誉可确认摊销,但对于企业自身经营过程中产生的自创商誉则不允许确认入账。而随着社会经济逐渐步入信息经济时代,品牌、商标等自创商誉在企业总资产中的比例逐渐增大,不予确认自创商誉的规定必将影响到信息使用者决策。本文以新的经济形势下对自创商誉进行确认的可行性为研究课题,结合有关文献,对当前自创商誉的研究现状和新的经济形势下不允许确认自创商誉的弊端,以及其确认的可行性进行分析,说明确认自创商誉的合理性并提出相关建议,希望能够为相关研究提供参考。     

Accounting For Goodwill

This article provides a means of resolving one of accounting's ongoing problems—how to account for goodwill in an era where the unidentifiable intangible asset is often an entity's largest value component. Despite the general recognition that, in practice, the two classes of goodwill are indistinguishable in terms of their ability to generate streams of revenue, a distinction is traditionally drawn between internally generated and purchased goodwill. The former should not be brought to account because it is impossible to do so within the accepted rules of double entry bookkeeping and historical cost based accounting. On the other hand, there is no difficulty in bringing purchased goodwill to account, but controversy has always existed as to how to treat the amount once recognized. It can confidently be expected that, as anomalies and practical difficulties manifest themselves in practice, the current impairment regime will, in its turn, be abandoned.     

Goodwill — An Example of Puzzle-Solving in Accounting

The nature of goodwill continues to be misunderstood by most accountants and confusion surrounding the measurement and reporting of goodwill persists. The rejection of official accounting standards on goodwill is a common occurrence. A dynamic open system perspective is used in this paper to re-examine the nature of goodwill. It is found that a meaningful economic interpretation can be developed for internally generated goodwill but not for 'purchased goodwill'. There is an inability to identify the stream of benefits specifically associated with goodwill arising on acquisition.     

Assessing the Value of Growth Option Synergies from Business Combinations and Testing for Goodwill Impairment: A Real Options Perspective

Goodwill is an intangible asset, and therefore hard to measure and difficult to account for. This article argues that the two‐stage impairment test for acquired goodwill under SFAS 142 has several limitations. Most important, it measures aggregate rather than acquired goodwill, making it very difficult to separate acquisition‐related goodwill from aggregate enterprise goodwill after a business combination. As a consequence, any potential deterioration of acquired goodwill value could be concealed by increases in internally generated goodwill. As an alternative, the authors propose a real options approach to managing a business unit portfolio as a better framework for conducting the goodwill impairment test. A real options approach to testing goodwill for impairment—as opposed to the standard fair value assessment based on DCF analysis—not only accounts for deterioration in the value of goodwill, but also captures upward potential. It enables tracking of the changes in goodwill value from one period to the next, providing a less biased estimate of its real value at each point in time.     

Intangible Assets: Diversity of Practices and Potential Impacts from AIFRS Adoption

The adoption of Australian equivalents of International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS) radically alters Australian accounting practices for intangible assets. Under AIFRS, goodwill amortisation expense is replaced by goodwill impairment loss based on frequent tests of the value of goodwill, and Australian firms are no longer permitted to recognise certain internally generated intangibles. This paper provides statistics regarding intangible asset reporting by 476 firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2002. We find significant diversity in reporting practices relating to both goodwill and identifiable intangible assets. Accordingly, the new accounting rules will potentially reshape ASX-listed firms' financial statements by significant amounts.     

Peer effect in the initial recognition of goodwill

This study investigates the peer effect in the initial recognition of goodwill. We find that firms imitate their peers in the initial recognition of goodwill. The higher the tendency for imitation, the higher the proportion of goodwill recognized. Imitation behavior in the initial recognition of goodwill cannot be explained by information acquisition or rivalry motivations. Instead, we find evidence that managers’ opportunistic motivations explain the peer effect in the initial recognition of goodwill and the overestimation of goodwill arising from imitation tendencies. Executive overconfidence weakens the peer effect but exacerbates the overestimation of goodwill caused by imitation tendencies. Finally, the higher the imitation tendency, the greater the probability and amount of goodwill impairment in the future. This further confirms that the peer effect leads to overestimation of goodwill. The findings of this study enrich the literature on goodwill and provide insightful empirical evidence for regulating goodwill accounting. The results show that the conservatism principle should be reinforced in the initial recognition of goodwill.     

The potential harms of goodwill impairment avoidance: Evidence based on future performance and stock prices

The rapidly increasing volume of goodwill assets in the capital market generates potential risks due to the possibility of an untimely recognition of goodwill impairment. In this paper, we investigate the financial consequences of goodwill impairment avoidance based on firms’ future performance and stock prices. Using Chinese A-share listed firms with goodwill balances, we find that avoiding goodwill impairments negatively affects a firm’s performance growth and increases its risk of a future stock price crash. These adverse effects continue for the three years following the goodwill impairment avoidance. Our results indicate that goodwill impairment avoidance has detrimental impacts on a firm’s future performance and stock price and that these impacts are persistent. Our conclusions are helpful for regulators on how to prevent the risks hidden in goodwill impairment recognition and maintain the stable development of the financial market.     

Should More Internally Generated Intangible Assets Be Recognized? A Commentary

This study analyzes whether financial statements should recognize more internally generated intangible assets with particular reference to China. This issue is significant because of the increasing importance of the ‘new economy’ and R&D investment, including in China. We present the current accounting requirements for intangible assets and illustrate that the failure to recognize internally generated intangible assets leads to a high ratio of unrecognized value to market capitalization, known as the asset light phenomenon among firms. We discuss and compare international and Chinese views supporting and opposing the recognition of more internally generated intangible assets. We identify and analyze the major issues in general, and in China particularly, that standard setters and their stakeholders have to consider if more internally generated intangible assets are recognized. We focus on areas of recognition, initial and subsequent measurement, and user reaction. We find that the most critical issues are the separability and measurability of internally generated intangible assets. Based on the issues identified, we discuss initiatives on non-financial disclosure in relation to unrecognized intangible assets and firms’ value creation. The study elucidates the consequences of current accounting standards on internally generated intangible assets and, by identifying the critical issues, contributes to the debate on whether it is best to adopt recognition of internally generated intangible assets or a disclosure-only approach.     

Using Real Activities to Avoid Goodwill Impairment Losses: Evidence and Effect on Future Performance

We examine whether managers postpone the recognition of goodwill impairment by manipulating cash flows and the consequences of such a strategy on future performance. According to SFAS 142, an impairment loss must be recognized if the reporting unit's total fair value to which goodwill has been allocated is less than its book value. A growing body of empirical evidence shows that managers delay the recognition of goodwill impairment in accounting books. However, past literature is silent on how managers convince various gatekeepers (e.g., auditors, financial analysts) that recognizing an impairment loss is unnecessary although it seems economically justified. SFAS 142 requires managers to forecast future cash flows to justify the decision to recognize, or not, an impairment loss. Therefore, we predict that managers manipulate upward current cash flows to support their choice to avoid reporting an impairment loss. We also test whether or not this real earnings management is detrimental to future performance. Based on a sample of US firms over the period 2003–2011, we document that firms suspected of postponing goodwill impairment losses exhibit significantly positive discretionary cash flows compared to various control groups. We also find that this real activities manipulation is detrimental to future performance.     

Goodwill impairments and chief executive officer tenure

The purpose of this paper is to examine the tenure of the chief executive officers of publicly held companies and their corresponding goodwill impairment decisions. An opportunity for managers to manage earnings exists via the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) goodwill accounting rules. It is hypothesized that CEOs will recognize this impairment in the early years of their tenure because blame can be placed on prior management's acquisition decisions, expensing goodwill early will make future earnings look better, or an objective evaluation of the reporting unit increases impairments.     

Goodwill Accounting in Selected Countries and the Harmonization of International Accounting Standards

Economic and financial markets interpenetrate and national economies are increasingly interdependent. This results in a growing need for comparability of accounting procedures internationally. Accounting for goodwill illustrates this phenomenon. By specifying the recommended asset treatment for purchased, positive goodwill, and the five-year amortization period, IASC has taken a significant step towards harmonization of goodwill accounting. As noted in the article, however, the implications for consolidated income may be quite drastic. This is especially so with respect to the implications of the revised IAS 22 (following IAS ED 32) for potential leveraged corporate buy-outs.