| Abstract: | The recent decision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to eliminate pooling accounting for acquisitions raises several important questions: Does the choice of “purchase” or “pooling” affect firm valuations? How do differences in goodwill and its amortization affect cash flow and price/earnings multiples? How has the market reacted to purchase and pooling acquisition announcements? The authors' new research suggests that the market already judges mergers and acquisitions based on fundamental economics, not on GAAP earnings. In a study of 1,442 large acquisitions in the 1990s, the authors find that, in the first month after the announcement of pooled transactions, the acquirer's stock fell by an average of almost 4%. By contrast, the market reaction to purchase acquisitions was extremely favorable, with a 3% positive abnormal return in the first month. But what about the ongoing effect of goodwill amortization on values? In the second part of their two-part study, the authors report that the P/E multiples of acquirers reporting increases in goodwill amortization increase significantly following the acquisitions, and that the increases in P/E are large enough to offset the negative impact of goodwill amortization on earnings. Moreover, the authors also tested for and were unable to find any evidence of a market bias against balance sheet goodwill as an indicator of future amortization charges. The authors thus conclude that changes in accounting for acquisitions should not be a concern for acquirers, and that the elimination of pooling should have no lasting impact on corporate strategic decisions or M&A activity. Nevertheless, they do suggest that companies with significant goodwill would benefit from making their amortization transparent in their financial statements by, for example, breaking out amortization from depreciation on their income statements. |
