- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
We review 42 studies from 2008 to early 2017 about IFRS goodwill accounting choices for recognition, impairment, and disclosure of goodwill, focusing on cross-country evidence of implementation effects. We develop a model of application of goodwill accounting based on IFRS 3, IAS 36, and country- and firm-level influences to analyze the research and to summarize existing evidence about goodwill accounting choices. We report evidence in support of IFRS accounting for goodwill recognition, impairment, and disclosure from many countries. However, evidence regarding value relevance is mixed. Overall, there is a lack of cross-country evidence regarding factors affecting goodwill accounting. Many studies show goodwill recognition, impairment, and disclosure are associated with economic and firm factors, and there is some evidence about the impact of managerial incentives and a lack of timeliness in impairment recognition. There is scope for more cross-country studies showing how institutional factors affect the application of IFRS 3 and IAS 36.
We provide a review of academic literature about goodwill accounting for firms using IFRS. Accounting for goodwill has been a contentious topic for practitioners and has generated considerable interest for researchers (IASB, 2015; Wersborg et al., 2014). There is well-established literature based on US GAAP and US listed firms (Boennen & Glaum, 2014; Wen & Moehrle, 2016). Studies of IFRS adopting firms have expanded this literature by considering similar research questions and using the same (or similar) research designs to provide evidence for a different set of firms. This evidence adds to the literature but there are some specific matters that should be recognized by researchers as they expand this area of research. The first matter to consider is that the evidence derived from the US setting is not necessarily transferable into the IFRS world. A striking difference between studies with US data and IFRS studies is that the former usually provide a one-country setting with a largely homogeneous regulatory setting at any one particular time, which is not the case for the cross-country studies. A one-country setting permits researchers to concentrate on differences between firms as explanatory factors for financial reporting while holding country (and whatever is represented by “country”) constant. In contrast, researchers considering a number of IFRS adopting countries are challenged to first understand the variations in institutional settings among the countries in their study and then to identify suitable ways to accommodate these differences in their research designs and models. Future research will be enhanced as researchers develop a more informed understanding of country frameworks and differences in them as well as changes in countries' institutional frameworks over time.