可辨认无形资产的价值相关性差异

IF 4.8 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Accounting Studies Pub Date : 2023-11-23 DOI:10.1007/s11142-023-09810-8
Zachary King, Thomas J. Linsmeier, Daniel D. Wangerin
{"title":"可辨认无形资产的价值相关性差异","authors":"Zachary King, Thomas J. Linsmeier, Daniel D. Wangerin","doi":"10.1007/s11142-023-09810-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Motivated by investor criticisms of current accounting standards, this study investigates whether differences exist in how acquired identifiable intangible assets relate to investors’ expectations about the entity’s cash flow prospects. Some investors assert that all acquired intangibles should be subsumed within goodwill, while others prefer separate recognition of identifiable intangibles only when they are strategically important sources of future cash flows. Still other investors call for separate recognition from goodwill only when identifiable intangibles are separable from the business, have defined useful lives, and have identifiable revenue streams (i.e., “wasting” intangibles). Consistent with some investor views, we find cross-sectional variation in the value relevance of identifiable intangibles based on differences in underlying asset characteristics. Our primary findings suggest that strategically important and wasting intangibles provide information different from that provided by goodwill. These findings inform standard setters as they evaluate recognition and disclosure alternatives for identifiable intangible assets.</p>","PeriodicalId":48120,"journal":{"name":"Review of Accounting Studies","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in the value relevance of identifiable intangible assets\",\"authors\":\"Zachary King, Thomas J. Linsmeier, Daniel D. Wangerin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11142-023-09810-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Motivated by investor criticisms of current accounting standards, this study investigates whether differences exist in how acquired identifiable intangible assets relate to investors’ expectations about the entity’s cash flow prospects. Some investors assert that all acquired intangibles should be subsumed within goodwill, while others prefer separate recognition of identifiable intangibles only when they are strategically important sources of future cash flows. Still other investors call for separate recognition from goodwill only when identifiable intangibles are separable from the business, have defined useful lives, and have identifiable revenue streams (i.e., “wasting” intangibles). Consistent with some investor views, we find cross-sectional variation in the value relevance of identifiable intangibles based on differences in underlying asset characteristics. Our primary findings suggest that strategically important and wasting intangibles provide information different from that provided by goodwill. These findings inform standard setters as they evaluate recognition and disclosure alternatives for identifiable intangible assets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Accounting Studies\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Accounting Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-023-09810-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Accounting Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-023-09810-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于投资者对现行会计准则的批评,本研究探讨了在获得的可辨认无形资产与投资者对企业现金流前景的预期之间是否存在差异。一些投资者主张,所有获得的无形资产都应纳入商誉,而另一些投资者则倾向于仅当可辨认无形资产是未来现金流的战略重要来源时,才单独确认它们。还有一些投资者要求,只有当可辨认的无形资产可以从企业中分离出来,具有确定的使用寿命,并且具有可辨认的收入流(即“消耗性”无形资产)时,才能从商誉中单独确认。与一些投资者的观点一致,我们发现基于基础资产特征的差异,可辨认无形资产的价值相关性存在横断面变化。我们的主要研究结果表明,具有战略重要性和消耗性的无形资产提供的信息不同于商誉提供的信息。这些发现为准则制定者评估可辨认无形资产的确认和披露替代方案提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in the value relevance of identifiable intangible assets

Motivated by investor criticisms of current accounting standards, this study investigates whether differences exist in how acquired identifiable intangible assets relate to investors’ expectations about the entity’s cash flow prospects. Some investors assert that all acquired intangibles should be subsumed within goodwill, while others prefer separate recognition of identifiable intangibles only when they are strategically important sources of future cash flows. Still other investors call for separate recognition from goodwill only when identifiable intangibles are separable from the business, have defined useful lives, and have identifiable revenue streams (i.e., “wasting” intangibles). Consistent with some investor views, we find cross-sectional variation in the value relevance of identifiable intangibles based on differences in underlying asset characteristics. Our primary findings suggest that strategically important and wasting intangibles provide information different from that provided by goodwill. These findings inform standard setters as they evaluate recognition and disclosure alternatives for identifiable intangible assets.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Accounting Studies
Review of Accounting Studies BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Review of Accounting Studies provides an outlet for significant academic research in accounting including theoretical, empirical, and experimental work. The journal is committed to the principle that distinctive scholarship is rigorous. While the editors encourage all forms of research, it must contribute to the discipline of accounting. The Review of Accounting Studies is committed to prompt turnaround on the manuscripts it receives.  For the majority of manuscripts the journal will make an accept-reject decision on the first round.  Authors will be provided the opportunity to revise accepted manuscripts in response to reviewer and editor comments; however, discretion over such manuscripts resides principally with the authors.  An editorial revise and resubmit decision is reserved for new submissions which are not acceptable in their current version, but for which the editor sees a clear path of changes which would make the manuscript publishable. Officially cited as: Rev Account Stud
期刊最新文献
How do retail investors respond to summary disclosure? Evidence from mutual fund factsheets The effect of the FASB-IASB convergence project on the rules- and principles-based nature of US GAAP and IFRS Unexpected defaults: the role of information opacity The gender effects of COVID: evidence from equity analysts Board bias, information, and investment efficiency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1