IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hbs/wpaper/09-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evidence on the use of unverifiable estimates in required goodwill impairment

Author

Listed:
  • Karthik Ramanna

    (Harvard Business School, Accounting and Management Unit)

  • Ross L. Watts

    (MIT Sloan School of Management)

Abstract

SFAS 142 requires managers to estimate the current fair value of goodwill to determine goodwill write-offs. In promulgating the standard, the FASB predicted managers will, on average, use the fair value estimates to convey private information on future cash flows. The current fair value of goodwill is unverifiable because it depends in part on management's future actions (including managers' conceptualization and implementation of firm strategy). Thus, agency theory predicts managers will, on average, use the discretion in SFAS 142 consistent with private incentives. We test these hypotheses in a sample of firms with market indications of goodwill impairment. Our evidence, while consistent with some agency-theory derived predictions, does not confirm the private information hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Karthik Ramanna & Ross L. Watts, 2009. "Evidence on the use of unverifiable estimates in required goodwill impairment," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-106, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2011.
    • Handle: RePEc:hbs:wpaper:09-106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Demerjian, Peter R., 2011. "Accounting standards and debt covenants: Has the “balance sheet approach” led to a decline in the use of balance sheet covenants?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 178-202.
    2. Henry Jarva, 2014. "Economic consequences of SFAS 142 goodwill write-offs," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(1), pages 211-235, March.
    3. Ajina, Aymen & Laouiti, Mhamed & Msolli, Badreddine, 2016. "Guiding through the Fog: Does annual report readability reveal earnings management?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 509-516.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hbs:wpaper:09-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: HBS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/harbsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.