Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 745–778 | Cite as

Causes and consequences of goodwill impairment losses

  • Zining Li
  • Pervin K. Shroff
  • Ramgopal Venkataraman
  • Ivy Xiying Zhang


The paper examines the reaction of market participants to the announcement of a goodwill impairment loss, the nature of the information conveyed by the loss, and whether a cause of goodwill impairment can be traced back to overpayment for targets at the time of prior acquisitions. Our evidence suggests that both investors and financial analysts revise their expectations downward on the announcement of an impairment loss. We find that the negative impact of the loss is significant under different reporting regimes, that is, pre-SFAS-142, transition period and post-SFAS-142, though it is lower in the post period. We further show that goodwill impairment serves as a leading indicator of a decline in future profitability. Our tests also reveal that proxies for overpayment for targets can predict the subsequent goodwill impairment. Indirect evidence suggests that firms with potentially impaired goodwill that did not report an impairment loss may have used their managerial discretion to avoid taking the loss.


Goodwill write-off SFAS 121 SFAS 142 Acquisitions Managerial discretion 

JEL Classification

G14 G34 M41 M48 


  1. Ali, A., Klein, A., & Rosenfeld, J. (1992). Analysts’ use of information about permanent and transitory earnings components in forecasting annual EPS. The Accounting Review, 67, 183–198.Google Scholar
  2. Amihud, Y., & Lev, B. (1981). Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. The Bell Journal of Economics, 12, 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatty, A., & Weber, J. (2006). Accounting discretion in fair value estimates: An examination of SFAS 142 goodwill impairments. Journal of Accounting Research, 44, 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bens, D., Heltzer, W., & Segal, B. (2007). The information content of goodwill impairments and the adoption of SFAS 142. Working paper, University of Arizona.
  5. Berkovitch, E., & Narayanan, M. (1993). Motives for takeovers: An empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 28, 347–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betton, S., & Eckbo, B. (2000). Toeholds, bid-Jumps, and expected payoffs in takeovers. Review of Financial Studies, 13, 841–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley, M., Desai, A., & Kim, E. (1988). Synergistic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 21, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C., Kohlbeck, M., & Warfield, T. (2004). Goodwill valuation effects of the initial adoption of SFAS 142. Working paper, University of Wisconsin.
  9. Churyk, N. (2005). Reporting goodwill: Are the new accounting standards consistent with market valuations? Journal of Business Research, 58, 1353–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimson, E. (1979). Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading. Journal of Financial Economics, 7, 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliot, J., & Hanna, D. (1996). Repeated accounting write-offs and the information content of earnings. Journal of Accounting Research, 34, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fowler, D., & Rorke, C. H. (1983). Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading: Comment. Journal of Financial Economics, 12, 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Francis, J., Hanna, D., & Vincent, L. (1996). Causes and effects of discretionary asset write-offs. Journal of Accounting Research, 34, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaughan, P. (2002). Mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructurings. Wiley, New York: 3.Google Scholar
  15. Gu, F., & Lev, B. (2008). Overpriced shares, ill-advised acquisitions, and goodwill impairment. Working paper, New York University.
  16. Hayn, C., & Hughes, P. (2006). Leading indicators of goodwill impairment. Journal of Accounting Auditing & Finance, 21, 223–266.Google Scholar
  17. Henning, S., Lewis, B., & Shaw, W. (2000). Valuation of the components of purchased goodwill. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henning, S., & Stock, T. (1997). The value-relevance of goodwill write-offs. Working paper, Southern Methodist University.
  19. Huang, Y., & Walkling, R. (1987). Target abnormal returns associated with acquisition announcements. Journal of Financial Economics, 19, 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moehrle, S., & Moehrle, J. (2001). Say good-bye to pooling and goodwill amortization. Journal of Accountancy, 192, 31–38.Google Scholar
  21. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1990). Do managerial objectives drive bad acquisitions? Journal of Finance, 45, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myers, S., & Majluf, N. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Officer, M. (2003). Termination fees in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 69, 431–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramanna, K. (2008). The implications of unverifiable fair-value accounting: Evidence from the political economy of goodwill accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramanna, K., & Watts, R. (2010). Evidence on the use of unverifiable estimates in required goodwill impairment. Working paper, Harvard Business School.
  26. Rees, L., Gill, S., & Gore, R. (1996). An investigation of asset write-downs and concurrent abnormal accruals. Journal of Accounting Research, 34, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riedl, E. (2004). An examination of long-lived asset impairments. The Accounting Review, 79, 823–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roll, R. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1988). Value maximization and the acquisition process. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 7–20.Google Scholar
  30. Watts, R. (2003). Conservatism in accounting Part I: Explanations and implications. Accounting Horizons, 17, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zining Li
    • 1
  • Pervin K. Shroff
    • 2
  • Ramgopal Venkataraman
    • 1
  • Ivy Xiying Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern Methodist UniversityPO BOX 750333, DallasUSA
  2. 2.University of Minnesota, Carlson School of ManagementMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations