Search results

This paper aims to critically examine the change in accounting treatment for goodwill pursuant to international financial reporting standards (IFRSs) by reference to the Australian reporting regime.

The paper discusses and compares the former Australian and the new IFRS treatments for goodwill. This comparison focuses on the advantages and potential complexities of the new method, with the aim of identifying the issues and challenges that preparers, independent auditors and those involved in corporate governance face in complying with the new requirements.

The paper highlights that the identification and valuation of cash‐generating units and goodwill require numerous assumptions to be made in estimating fair value, value in use and recoverable amount. Considerable ambiguity and subjectivity are inherent in the IFRS requirements.

Findings suggest that future research should examine how financial report preparers and corporate governance mechanisms are dealing with the complex change required by the new goodwill accounting treatment and how the many critical issues involved in auditing the resulting figures are being addressed.

The research has practical implications for financial report preparers in identifying the issues that must be addressed in complying with the international goodwill accounting treatment. In turn, the paper highlights conceptual issues of relevance to auditors in their role of providing assurance on the resulting accounting numbers. It also has implications for others involved in corporate governance, such as audit committee members, in emphasising the areas in which they should be providing oversight of the accounting judgments. These issues are of relevance in any reporting regime based on IFRSs.

While much has been written about the mechanics of the new goodwill accounting requirements, there has been a lack of critical research highlighting the many problems and ambiguities that will arise in the application of those rules.

This paper aims to investigate the association between International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) effort due to higher levels of material adjustments and audit fees. In addition, this paper tests whether these associations differ between industry specialist auditors and non-specialist auditors.

The authors measure IFRS effort by using differences between local GAAP and IFRS. More specifically, they measure the differences in the balances of accounts that are prepared under IFRS as opposed to the previously used Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) standards. They posit that higher material adjustments and more risk to fair presentation of financial statements require additional accounting and auditing effort (“IFRS effort”).

The authors find that audit fees are higher when accounting standards are more material and complex at an aggregate level. Nevertheless, not all standards are equally complex and/or material and not all individual standards contribute to higher audit fees. In addition, the results show that the positive association between IFRS effort and audit fees is more pronounced when firms are audited by city-level industry specialists than by non-industry specialists.

Overall, the results are consistent with the prediction of increasing audit fees for firms requiring higher levels of IFRS effort compared to firms requiring lower levels of IFRS effort. The results contribute to the understanding that not all IFRS are equally complex and, thereby, the standards require different levels of auditor effort. Isolating specific standards based on materiality/risk levels is informative to standard setters for standard setting, standard implementation and post-implementation review of standards.

This study aims to examine the impact of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC) on Australian firms' compliance with IFRS 36/AASB 136 for goodwill impairment testing. It also examines the factors associated with the cross-sectional variations in the compliance levels.

Based on a survey of disclosure notes in companies' annual reports, firm-level compliance scores were developed and further analysed applying quantitative statistical methods.

The findings suggest that firms' compliance has increased during the GFC compared to the PCP. There was no significant intra-period change in the compliance levels during the PCP. Firms belonging to goodwill intensive industries show greater compliance levels than firms in other industries. Audit quality is also a significant determinant of firms' compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing. Goodwill intensity is a significant determinant of firms' compliance level during the GFC but not during the PCP. Firm size is associated with the compliance levels when the industry effects are not controlled for. When the industry effects are controlled for, the effect of size on firms' compliance levels disappears. Profitability is also associated with firms' compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing. However, firms' leverage ratio is not significantly associated with compliance levels.

This is the first known study to examine the issue of compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing in the context of the GFC and the PCP.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study designed to understand the extent of compliance with the goodwill accounting and reporting disclosure requirements under AASB 136 among a sample of goodwill intensive Australian firms over the first two years of their IFRS adoption.

Examining the goodwill reporting practices adopted by a sample of 50 large Australian listed firms, which disclosed the existence of goodwill in each of the first two years in which they produced financial statements pursuant to IFRS. The quality and technical accuracy of the goodwill disclosures produced by these organisations together with an assessment of evidence of variation in these over time provides an evidentiary basis for analysis.

The paper finds continued high levels of non‐compliance with the goodwill accounting standard suggesting that a viable organisational option in the face of change is to fail to take steps to comply. This organisational response undermines the assumptions of consistency and comparability as key qualitative characteristics under IFRS.

The focal question pondered pertains to the nature of organisational responses to changes such as those brought about by continued development and reform of financial reporting standards. This is a question with potentially significant implications for a range of stakeholders including auditors, financial analysts, regulators and report users.

The purpose of this paper is to catalogue the practice of goodwill impairment testing in Australia and to provide evidence of the extent of compliance with respect to the disclosure requirements of international financial reporting standards (IFRS).

The research question is addressed using an empirical archival approach with an emphasis on note‐form disclosures in the audited financial accounts of 200 goodwill‐intensive firms listed on the Australian Securities Exchange at 2006. The disclosures regarding impairment testing methodologies along with key input variables for the estimation of recoverable amounts are catalogued and an assessment is made of the extent to which such disclosures confirm with the requirement of AASB136.

The results provide evidence of systematic non‐compliance with the disclosure requirements of the IFRS goodwill impairment testing regime on the part of large listed Australian firms. Insight is gained into the level of difficulty experienced by large, sophisticated and well‐resourced organisations in confronting the challenges associated with changing their financial reporting practices at the time of mandatory adoption of IFRS in Australia.

While previous goodwill impairment testing studies have examined discount rate selection by reporting entities as one input variable solely under the value in use method, this paper provides empirical insights into all aspects of goodwill impairment testing for value in use, fair value and mixed method firms, cataloguing growth rate and forecast period disclosures. The paper provides a baseline study of compliance quality at the inception of IFRS in Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of audit quality on firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing and disclosure. Differences in the compliance among the clients of Big-4 auditors and between the clients of Big-4 and non-Big-4 auditors are examined. This study also examines the effect of audit committee (AC) members’ accounting and finance backgrounds on firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing and disclosure.

Different univariate tests, multivariate regressions and fixed effect panel regressions have been used to examine the hypotheses. The sample includes 911 firm-year observations for the period of 2006-2009.

A statistically significant difference in compliance levels has been found between the clients of Big-4 and non-Big-4 auditors. The compliance levels of the clients of Big-4 auditors have also been found to be significantly different. The findings also suggest that AC members’ accounting and finance backgrounds are positively associated with firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing and disclosure.

The single country context and the single standard context limit the generalizability of the findings.

The findings of this study have important implications for researches in accounting, finance and corporate governance that usually consider Big-4 auditors vs non-Big-4 auditors as a proxy for audit quality. The results also reinforce the importance of developing institutional mechanisms such as high-quality auditing or corporate governance (AC members’ expertise) to encourage firms’ compliance with IFRS.

Firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing is not essentially the same for the clients of all Big-4 auditors in Australia, suggesting that the quality of services provided by Big-4 auditors significantly differ from one another in enforcing their clients to compliance with IFRS. The lax enforcement on the part of auditors and the regulatory inaction in this regard may point to teething difficulties and systematic deficiencies in the move towards the impairment regime and fair value accounting. The findings also bear an important message for the move towards the harmonization of accounting practices.

With timeliness and measurement of asset impairments as well as management opportunistic behaviour being topical, since the issuance of Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) 136, this study aims to examine whether assumptions about growth and discount rates made about asset recoverable amounts determine asset impairments.

This study uses a sample of 450 firm-year observations representing 133 Australian listed firms from 2015 to 2018. An estimation model is used where asset impairments is the dependent variable, growth and discount rates are the variables of interest and several impairment indicators are included as controls.

The results show that the decrease in growth rate but not the increase in discount rate affects the recognition of large asset impairments, where firms decrease the growth rate in the year of recognition. A change in discount rate affects asset impairments only when it is higher than the industry average. Hence, the growth rate is the management’s tool of choice in the recognition of asset impairments.

This study provides additional insight into how AASB 136 is used in practice. This includes investigating the tools used by firms in the calculation of asset recoverable amount and whether firms provide important information, as a part of disclosure. The results are of interest to investors and policymakers because they highlight the need for more restrictions around growth rate assumptions and less variation in disclosure.

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.

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.

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.

This study uses data for the first four years since the inception of the impairment approach.

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.

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).

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 paper aims to evaluate the relation between acquisition premiums and amounts recognised as identifiable intangible assets (IIAs) in business combination, in periods before and after transition to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

This is an empirical archival research using data from business acquisitions.

In the pre-IFRS period, there is evidence of firms recognising IIAs in business combinations having higher acquisition premiums. This association of acquisition premiums and IIAs ceased with transition to IFRS, notwithstanding the relative latitude provided in accounting standards for the recognition of IIAs.

This paper complements the study by Su and Wells (2015) which founds little association between IIAs and performance subsequent to business acquisitions prior to transition to IFRS. The results here suggest that it is attributable to overpayment. Problematically, the incentives for opportunism remain and an issue requiring address is whether alternative sources of accounting flexibility in relation to business combinations exist, such as goodwill which is no longer subject to mandatory amortisation.

The results are consistent with accounting opportunism and suggest “overpayment” and accounting flexibility having an economic consequence. This would be expected to result in asset impairments in subsequent periods; however, there is little evidence of this occurring.

These results have relevance for regulators concerned with the operation of regulation relating to business acquisitions (AASB 3) and intangible assets (AASB 138).

This paper complements a number of papers concerned with the recognition of IIAs in business combinations and confirms what many researchers in the area typically assume (triangulation).

The forces of globalization and political expediency are forcing an increasing number of countries to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Although numerous countries are adopting IFRS, the approaches used for convergence continue to differ significantly across countries. Using selected countries from the South Pacific region, this chapter investigates the relationship between country-specific characteristics and the selection of the appropriate approach for the adoption of IFRS. The country-specific attributes that have been found to influence convergence are (1) the set of accounting standards that prevailed in the country at the time the selection was made, (2) the availability and experience of professional accountants, (3) the relevant educational and professional training, (4) the presence of the Big 4 accounting firms, and (5) the accounting regulatory framework. The results of this study suggest that complete comparability in financial reporting may be difficult to achieve across all countries in the region even after adopting the IFRS because of differences in country-specific factors. These findings are important because they indicate that attention should be concentrated on theorizing and empirically testing the effects of country-specific attributes on convergence efforts across jurisdictions.