How Can Analysts Identify Such Management Behaviour?

Goodwill is considered impaired when the implied fair value of goodwill in a reporting unit of a company is less than its carrying amount, or book value, including any deferred income taxes. By qualitative factors, if the fair value is less than its book value (likelihood more than 50%), two step of the goodwill impairment test is necessary. According to ASC 350-20-35-2 and 3(A&B&D), if the company determines that it is not more likely than not that fair value is less than the book value, it does

Goodwill is not amortised. Instead, goodwill is tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that it might be impaired, and is carried at cost less accumulated impairment losses. Gains and losses on the disposal of an entity include the carrying amount of goodwill relating to the entity sold.For the purposes of impairment testing, goodwill is allocated to each of the Group 's cash-generating units (CGUs), or groups of CGUs, expected to benefit from the synergies of the business combination. CGUs (or groups of CGUs) to which goodwill has been allocated are tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that goodwill might be impaired.If the recoverable amount of the CGU (or groups of CGUs) is less than the carrying amount of the CGU (or groups of CGUs), the impairment loss is allocated first to reduce the carrying amount of any goodwill allocated to the CGU (or groups

If their stock price dropped to ZERO, an impairment would not be required because they are comparing the market price of their stock to their carrying amount of stockholder’s equity, which in a deficit. Also, the Company is anticipating those assets to produce future benefits that exceed its costs.

Where explain the concept of Intangible asset, which represents assets that absence of physical substance. Moreover, Goodwill represents an asset from which is expected future economic benefits, emerge from the acquisition of other assets or business combination. Another important point would be the impartments testing as refers ASC 350-20-35-28 where indicates that Goodwill of reporting unit must be tested for impairment annually. The test can be accomplished at any time in the fiscal year. In the case of different reporting unit, the impairment test could be at different times. This citation in the memorandum was provided incorrect (ASC 305-20-35-1 and 28) this encoding does not exist in FASB.

We will discuss whether the Company’s approach for testing goodwill for impairment after recognizing an impairment charge related to a long-lived asset group classified as held-and-used is appropriate. This issue pertains to whether it is feasible to have a long-lived asset impairment without goodwill impairment.

* Test for recoverability — If indicators are present, perform a recoverability test by comparing the sum of the estimated undiscounted future cash flows attributable to the asset (group) in question to their carrying amounts (as a reminder, entities cannot record an impairment for a held and used asset unless the asset first fails this recoverability test).

Goodwill Impairment is the Goodwill that has become or is considered to be of lower value than at the time or purchase. From an accounting perspective, when the carrying value of the goodwill exceeds the fair value, then it is considered to be impaired. Negative publicity about a firm can create goodwill impairment, as can the reduction of brand-name recognition. Since the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) first introduced its standards update on testing for goodwill impairment (ASU 2011-08), entities with goodwill on their balance sheet have had the option when testing goodwill for impairment to first assess qualitative factors as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the traditional two-step approach described in ASC Topic 350. The optional qualitative assessment is commonly referred to as “step zero.”

Understandably, there are a variety of ways in which a company can manage their earnings, and if accomplished successfully, the results can be highly profitable. Not all techniques are fraudulent, as effective earnings management is considered good for business and shareholders. Income smoothing is a specific example of permissible earnings management that involves controlling fluctuations in net income to make earnings less variable over a given period of time (Goel & Thakor, 2003). Smoothing is acceptable as long as it adheres to the restrictions of U.S. GAAP, which maintains that all revenues and expenses are accounted for in a defined fashion. There are a lot of incentives in figuring how to effectively smooth income, as substantial value can be created through the successful arrangement of financial transactions. Management is able to make more intelligent decisions with regards to the future of the firm if the earnings are able to match the forecasts. One instance this is seen is when management is faced with the decision to smooth total income or

Based on ASC 320-10-35-34 I mentioned above, the other-than-temporary impairment should be recoded as $28 ($100-$72) as of December 31, 20X1. On January 31, 20X2, when the price of the stock went up to $75, the other-than-temporary impairment should be recoded as $25 ($100-$75). If the share price was $95 instead of $75 on January 31, 20X2, I think no other-than-temporary impairment needs to be recorded, because there is no material decrease occurred.

Such an intense focus has been placed on quarterly earnings as an indication of a company’s success by everyone from analysts to executives that ethics have for the most part been thrown out the window, sacrificed to the all important number, i.e. earnings per share. This is the theory in Alex Berenson’s book “The Number: How the Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corporate America.” This number has become part of a game to be played, a figure to be manipulated – beat the number and Wall Street all but throws a parade, miss it and a company’s stock may be abandoned. Take into account the incentives that executives have to beat the number and one can find plenty of reasons to manage earnings.

According to Section 360-10-35-21, examples of events that would cause an asset to be tested for impairment include a significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset, or a asset group, a significant adverse change in the extent or manner in which a long-lived asset or asset group is being used or in its physical condition, a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate that could affect the value of a long-lived asset, or asset group, and a current period operating or cash flow loss combined with a history of operating or cash flow losses or a projection or forecast that demonstrates continuing losses associated with the use of a long-lived asset or asset group.

The authoritative guidance for asset impairment is to ensure that impairment is recorded and dealt with as depreciation. The scope of the standard is writing off of assets and depreciation. According to the guidance of 360-10-35, it address how long-lived assets that are intended to be held and used in an entity’s business shall be reviewed for impairment. The impairment loss can only be recognized if the carrying amount of a long-lived assets is not recoverable and

If these estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying value of the asset, an impairment charge is recognized for the excess, if any, of the asset’s carrying value over its estimated fair value.

In the underlying paper the author re-examines the conservatism principle and its asymmetric effects on earnings. With samples consisting of all firm-year observations from 1963 to 1990 with returns data on the CRSP NYSE/AMEX Monthly files and respective accounting data on the COMPUSTAT Annual Industrial and Research files, he formulates and tests four major hypotheses to find evidence for his predictions. At first he chracterizes “conservatism in accounting as the more timely recognition in earnings of bad news regarding future cash flows than good news”.1 In his first hypothesis he predicts a more sensitive response of earnings towards bad news in comparison to good news, proxied by negative and positve annual stock returns. His second prediction is that earnings are more timely than cash flow, indicating a stronger association of accruals to conservative accounting effects. Hypotheses three and four account for a test on the

Some financial background will be as follows. The definition of impairment is the difference between recoverable amount and carrying amount. The impairment losses would be negative to financial conditions. For example, when the asset was damaged by some uncontrolled accident, a reduction will be occurred in a company’s stated capital. By contrast, impairment gains are deemed as the firm assets maintain worth conditions more than the original thought.