ABSTRACT

Under IFRS, an impairment test is the only method applied to reduce goodwill. However, while the IASB have asked for comments about re-introducing the systematic amortisation method, European directives have already adopted its application. In this dual regulatory framework, we examine whether there are significant differences between the two methods that could affect the comparability of financial statements and their ability to faithfully represent the firm performance. Using a sample of 90 Spanish-listed firms over the period 2004–2011, the panel data technique and t-Student test confirm that under the impairment test, firms are likely to maintain higher amounts of goodwill and not recognise any impairment loss. Consequently, ROA and ROE are higher and leverage is lower. In addition, findings suggest that firms do not correctly implement this method to transmit private information about their economic situation. Results show that the better firm performance is the larger goodwill impairment will be.

摘要

根据国际财务报告准则，减值测试是减少商誉的唯一方法。但是，尽管IASB要求就重新引入系统的摊销方法提出意见，但欧洲指令已经采用了该方法。在这种双重监管框架中，我们研究了两种方法之间是否存在显着差异，这些差异可能会影响财务报表的可比性及其忠实地代表公司业绩的能力。面板数据技术和t-Student检验使用2004年至2011年期间在西班牙上市的90家公司的样本进行了验证，证实了在减值测试下，企业可能会保留较高的商誉，而不会确认任何减值损失。因此，ROA和ROE较高，而杠杆较低。此外，研究结果表明，企业没有正确实施这种方法来传递有关其经济状况的私人信息。结果表明，公司业绩越好，商誉减损越大。