An Empirical Investigation of Accounting Methods for Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets: 1985 to 1989

Accounting for intangible assets represents one of the more controversial accounting standards issues. This study examines the accounting policies adopted for goodwill and for identifiable intangible assets by a sample of 150 Australian Stock Exchange listed companies over the five-year period 1985 to 1989 inclusive. Findings reveal a general decrease in the diversity of goodwill accounting policies over the study period but the converse for identifiable intangible policies. In particular, an increase in the percentage of companies electing not to amortize identifiable intangibles was found. The study provides evidence to support claims that companies have been recognizing identifiable intangibles to reduce the impact on reported operating profits of the requirement of accounting standards for the amortization of goodwill.     

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.     

Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards: Impact on the Value Relevance of Intangible Assets

We examine whether the value relevance of reported intangibles differs between financial reporting regimes pre- and post-adoption of Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS) and Australian Accounting Standards (AGAAP) respectively. Using AIFRS and AGAAP measures of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets for the same financial year and testing their association with share prices, we find evidence that AIFRS generally convey incremental useful information for investors about goodwill. For aggregated identifiable intangible assets there is no evidence that AIFRS conveys information beyond that in AGAAP. In contrast, we find evidence that AGAAP provides incremental information for investors in relation to identifiable intangibles, but not goodwill .     

Intangible assets and value relevance: Evidence from the Portuguese stock exchange

We assess the value relevance of the amounts for identifiable intangible assets and goodwill reported in the financial statements of all non-finance companies listed on the main market of the Portuguese Stock Exchange from 1998 to 2008. Additionally, we use panel data to explore the impact on value relevance of Portugal’s formal adoption of International Accounting Standards [IAS] and International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS] in 2005. A distinctive feature of the accounting by our sample companies is that when they adopted IAS 38 and IFRS 3 in 2005, they were no longer required to recognise some intangible assets (such as start-up costs and research expenditures) and were no longer required to amortise goodwill.We find that net earnings, reported goodwill and other intangible assets are highly significantly associated with stock price. However, whereas earnings are related positively to stock prices when Portuguese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were applied prior to 2005, the value relevance of earnings appears to have declined after the adoption of IAS/IFRS in 2005. Although the change to IAS/IFRS had no impact on the value relevance of identifiable intangibles as a whole, the evidence suggests that there was a positive effect on the value relevance of goodwill. When the subclasses of identifiable intangible assets are considered, we found evidence of an increase in value relevance of goodwill, other intangible assets, and research and development expenditures.     

The association of identifiable intangible assets acquired and recognised in business acquisitions with postacquisition firm performance

This paper extends the literature evaluating accounting practices for identifiable intangible assets and considers whether the application of these accounting practices changed on transition to IFRS. It finds no evidence of identifiable intangible assets acquired and recognised in business acquisitions being associated with postacquisition firm performance or changes in postacquisition firm performance, either before or after transition to IFRS. This is inconsistent with the requirements of regulations such as IFRS 3 Business Combinations and IAS 38 Intangible Assets, and there is no empirical evidence supporting the present regulatory distinction between acquired and internally generated and revalued identifiable intangible assets.     

Accounting for Identifiable Intangibles — An Unfinished Standard-Setting Task

Years of debate have failed to produce an Australian consensus on accounting for identifiable intangible assets. The AASB in 1999 re-affirmed its view that assets such as brand names, mastheads, licences and trademarks have depreciable amounts that are required to be depreciated. Meanwhile, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has increased the pressure on companies to amortise such assets. Following a submission from the Group of 100 and others in May 2000, the AASB resolved to place the topic back on its work program. Current proposals by the FASB to accept non-amortisation of goodwill and other intangibles with indefinite lives has "turned up the heat" for further AASB action.     

The Relevance to Firm Valuation of Capitalising Intangible Assets in Total and by Category

Debate about the appropriate treatment of intangible assets can benefit from knowledge about the relevance of their financial statement capitalisation to valuation of firms. With rules permitting or requiring intangible asset capitalisation, Australia provides an ideal setting to obtain this evidence. This paper reports findings that indicate that capitalisation of intangibles is value-relevant for Australia's largest firms. Results indicate that investors place greater value on capitalised goodwill than on other categories of capitalised balance sheet items. Similarly, capitalisation of identifiable intangible assets adds value to large firms. However, research and development capitalisation does not affect the value of firms in our study.     

Capitalized intangibles and financial analysts

We examine whether firms that capitalize a higher proportion of their underlying intangible assets have higher analyst following, lower dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts and more accurate earnings forecasts relative to firms that capitalize a lower proportion. Under Australian generally accepted accounting principles, capitalization of intangible assets has become increasingly ‘routine’ since the late 1980s. It is predicted that this experience leads Australian analysts to expect firms with relatively more certain intangible investments to signal this fact by capitalizing intangible assets. Our results are consistent with this. We find that capitalization of intangible assets is associated with higher analyst following and lower absolute earnings forecast error for firms with a stock of underlying intangible assets. Our tests suggest a weaker association between capitalization and lower earnings forecast dispersion. We conclude that there are benefits for analysts, for management to have the option to capitalize intangible assets. These findings suggest that IAS 38 Intangible Assets and AASB 138 Intangible Assets reduce the usefulness of financial statements.     

Intangible assets,IFRS and analysts’ earnings forecasts

We investigate whether the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2005 by Australian firms has been associated with a loss of potentially useful information about intangible assets. We find that the negative association between the accuracy and dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts and aggregate reported intangibles previously documented by Matolcsy and Wyatt (2006 ) becomes stronger subsequent to IFRS adoption, primarily for firms with high levels of underlying intangible assets. Our result is largely attributable to reported goodwill, rather than other intangible assets, suggesting that the impairment approach to goodwill valuation required by IFRS conveys more useful information than does the former straight‐line amortization approach. When we investigate a sub‐sample of firms that report lower intangibles under IFRS than under the prior Australian GAAP, we do find some evidence consistent with a loss of useful information relating to intangibles.     

The relative and incremental value relevance of goodwill before and after SFAS No. 142

We explore the value relevance of goodwill against two benchmarks: other accounting information and long-lived tangible assets. Prior research suggests that fair value estimates for goodwill must be inferred from other available information because of the nature of goodwill, including its intangibility. Such inferences are highly discretionary and may limit the usefulness of reported goodwill estimates. Because Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142 relies exclusively on fair value estimates to subsequently measure goodwill, reported values considering management’s increased discretion may be less reliable and less value relevant when presented in conjunction with other accounting information. However, the subsequent accounting measurement for goodwill is not dissimilar from the subsequent measurement for long-lived tangible assets, which are also subject to impairment. In general, impairment measurement is subjective; management may have greater insight, even in the presence of management incentives and other accounting information, that may help confirm or disconfirm investors’ own goodwill estimates. Using other accounting information and long-lived tangible assets as benchmarks for the value relevance of goodwill, we find that reported goodwill provides greater value relevance relative to other accounting information after SFAS 142 and that the difference between the value relevance of goodwill and other long-lived tangible assets is also significantly greater following SFAS 142.     

Identifiable intangible asset disclosures, stock prices and future earnings

As a consequence of regulatory reforms currently being initiated as part of international convergence, it is likely that the recognition and disclosure of identifiable intangible assets by Australian firms will cease. This study provides empirical evidence on how this will impact financial reports. First, evidence is provided of a positive association between stock prices and voluntarily recognized and disclosed identifiable intangible assets. Second, evidence is provided of a positive association between identifiable intangible assets and realized future period income. This provides insights into the nature of the information provided by intangible assets, and identifies a basis for the association between stock prices and identifiable intangible assets. This leads to the conclusion that identifiable intangible assets disclosures are value relevant, and that with the application of the restrictive recognition rules in AASB138 these disclosures in financial reports will be greatly diminished.     

Mergers and Acquisitions Accounting and the Diversification Discount

q‐based measures of the diversification discount are biased upward by mergers and acquisitions and its accounting implications. Under purchase accounting, acquired assets are reported at their transaction value, which typically exceeds the target's pre‐merger book value. Thus, measured q tends to be lower for the merged firm than for the portfolio of pre‐merger entities. Because conglomerates are more acquisitive than focused firms, their q tends to be lower. To mitigate this bias, I subtract goodwill from the book value of assets and a substantial part of the diversification discount is eliminated. Market‐to‐sales‐based measures do not have this bias.     

Value relevance of customer-related intangible assets

This study examines the stock market's valuation of customer-related intangible assets for a sample of publicly-traded U.S. firms. Customer-related intangible assets are found to be positively associated with equity prices, but valued at a discount relative to goodwill. These results suggest that value-relevant information is lost if customer-related intangible assets are subsumed into goodwill rather than being reported separately. This evidence can be useful to standard setters potentially considering extending to public companies a recent FASB Accounting Standards Update allowing private companies not to recognize separately from goodwill certain customer-related intangible assets.     

The Recognition of Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets in Business Combinations – The Portuguese Case

In this study, we investigate the magnitude of goodwill recognised in business combinations during the years 2005 to 2009 by the Portuguese companies listed on Euronext Lisbon, and characterise the amount of the other intangible assets recognised separately from goodwill. We also analyse the level of compliance of those companies with the main disclosure requirements of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 3 – Business Combinations. Our study, which involves the analysis of 197 business combinations, reveals that the amounts of goodwill continue to be highly material, while conversely, the value of identifiable intangible assets in those acquisitions is very low. The results suggest that Portuguese companies do not undertake sufficient efforts to individually identify and disclose intangibles acquired in business combinations. This fact is reinforced by the reduced level of compliance with the disclosures required by IFRS 3, particularly the factors that contribute to the recognition of goodwill. Our findings provide feedback to standard setters in an effort to improve practice in the application of IFRS 3. Moreover, they reinforce their recent concerns regarding the post‐implementation review of business combinations, as well as the ongoing project of the IASB, whose objective is to improve disclosures in existing standards.     

The Restoration Methodology for Valuing Goodwill

A method is proposed by which the goodwill of a business may be valued whenever the conventional accounting method is not available. This ‘restoration’ methodology involves using a combined cost and income approach to value the benefits a hypothetical purchaser of an operating business obtains, by reference to the costs, delays and risks it avoids, by acquiring the operating business rather than the business's identifiable assets alone. Such a value approximates that of the goodwill of the business. To provide some guidance as to how the restoration methodology might be used in a real situation, the actual sale of an interest in the Gove bauxite and alumina joint venture business is considered, where the existence and value of the business's goodwill was a factor in determining whether land‐rich stamp duty was payable in respect of the transaction. When the benefits gained by the purchaser of the Gove business are identified by reference to the costs, delays and risks it avoided by purchasing the business rather than the assets, it is not difficult to understand why such a sophisticated purchaser paid (and a pre‐empted purchaser was prepared to pay) an amount equal to or greater than the value of the business's identifiable assets in order to obtain those benefits.     

Is older goodwill value relevant?

Although previous research has generally found that goodwill reported in firms’ financial reports is relevant to equity valuation, no known studies have directly examined whether the value‐relevance of purchased goodwill holds as it ages. We examine this issue in the Australian context to determine whether the market attaches different values to the components of Australian firms’ goodwill when it is disaggregated into different ‘ages’. Our results suggest that recently acquired goodwill has information content whereas ‘older’ goodwill does not. Our findings have implications for goodwill accounting practice and recent changes to goodwill accounting standards.     

Bright Pharmaceuticals SE: Accounting for a Business Combination under IFRS 3

This instructional resource familiarizes students with the accounting for business combinations under IFRS 3 and illustrates the uncertainty and professional judgment involved in asset valuation and consolidation. First, students need to assess the quality of information generated under IFRS 3 and fair value accounting. Second, they are asked to account for a business combination by identifying possible input parameters to measure several intangible assets and a contingent liability. Based on their valuation results, they compute the amount of goodwill recognized on the acquisition and assess the effects of their parameter choices on the values of different assets and liabilities. As an optional third task, the case asks students to consolidate the financial statements and evaluate the impact of the acquisition on the financial position of the acquirer.     

The response of Australian firms to AASB 138 disallowing the recognition of internally generated identifiable intangibles

This paper responds to a call by the Australian Accounting Standards Board to investigate how Australian firms responded to a perceived loss of information pursuant to AASB 138 (IAS38) which mandated the de-recognition of previously recognised internally generated identifiable intangibles, from its effective date of 1 January 2005. We find that the sample firms did not choose to provide alternative or substitute disclosure elsewhere in their annual report or financial statements anytime during our sample period (2005–2010). Prima facie, this is surprising given prior evidence from the value relevance literature that disclosures relevant to the value of internally generated intangibles are correlated with firm value and presumably informative for investors. However, we caution against the drawing of simple conclusions that this finding implies alternative disclosure may not be valuable. Rather, it is important to understand the forces or frictions that contribute to this result. Schipper (The Accounting Review, 82, 2007, 301) and Skinner (Accounting and Business Research, 38, 2008, 191) offer valuable insights into the potential issues such as the costs of alternative disclosure including proprietary costs of disclosing competitive information and, the lower credibility of financial disclosures outside of audited financial statements. These are important considerations in the on-going standard-setting debate on recognition versus disclosure of value relevant information on intangible assets.     

Does writing down goodwill imperil a CEO’s job?

We find that accounting charges for goodwill impairment, which imply a deterioration in the capabilities of acquired assets to generate expected cash flows, provide useful indicators of CEO underperformance. The results show that the size and presence of a goodwill impairment charge are positively associated with forced, but not voluntary, CEO turnovers. This implies that goodwill impairment provides information before CEO changes occur. We also find that goodwill impairment has incremental power to predict forced turnover when it is unexpected based on book value relative to market value of equity and when it runs counter to overall firm performance. The association between goodwill impairment and forced CEO turnover varies with audit quality, consistent with the importance of the perceived reliability of accounting information for its effect on CEO retention decisions. Given that the FASB recently considered eliminating annual goodwill impairment testing (FASB, 2022) whereas the IASB not only prefers impairment testing but is considering requiring additional related disclosures (IASB, 2020), our evidence on the informativeness of goodwill impairment charges is timely.     

An Analysis of the Differences between IFRS and Polish Accounting Regulations: Evidence from the Financial Statements of Listed Entities on the Warsaw Stock Exchange for the Calendar Years Ending 2001, 2003 and 2004

Abstract

An analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data on the differences between Polish accounting regulations and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) reported by the preparers of the financial statements of a sample of listed entities on the Warsaw Stock Exchange for the years ending 31 December 2001, 2003 and 2004 revealed that owners' equity and post tax earnings calculated using Polish accounting regulations were materially understated in comparison with their IFRS equivalents. The book value of owners' equity for 2004 calculated using Polish accounting regulations was understated by an average of between 6 and 9% while post tax earnings for 2004 were understated by an average of 35%. The main reasons for the differences were that Polish accounting regulations do not allow regular revaluations of tangible fixed assets, require different accounting treatments of positive and negative goodwill on consolidation and allow in certain circumstances the exclusion of subsidiaries from full consolidation.