English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

I examine the use of qualitative versus quantitative impairment testing methods and their differential implications for future impairments and goodwill valuation. Using hand-collected data, I find that the likelihood of reliance on a qualitative assessment is decreasing in both the complexity of goodwill and the risk of an underlying goodwill impairment. I also find that the likelihood of large future goodwill impairments is lower on average for firm-years in which the firm relies on a qualitative assessment. Finally, I investigate investor perceptions of this choice and find evidence that investors place a premium on goodwill when firms rely on a qualitative assessment versus a quantitative test. This finding suggests that investors perceive a firm’s goodwill impairment testing method choice as reflective of management’s private information. Overall, results suggest that managers are not using the discretion in ASU 2011-08 opportunistically, which was a concern in implementing this new standard.

Step Zero: Determinants and Implications of Reliance on the Qualitative Goodwill Impairment Assessment