Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

TO PURCHASE OR TO POOL: DOES IT MATTER?

TO PURCHASE OR TO POOL: DOES IT MATTER? The recent decision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to eliminate pooling accounting for acquisitions raises several important questions: Does the choice of “purchase” or “pooling” affect firm valuations? How do differences in goodwill and its amortization affect cash flow and price/earnings multiples? How has the market reacted to purchase and pooling acquisition announcements? The authors' new research suggests that the market already judges mergers and acquisitions based on fundamental economics, not on GAAP earnings. In a study of 1,442 large acquisitions in the 1990s, the authors find that, in the first month after the announcement of pooled transactions, the acquirer's stock fell by an average of almost 4%. By contrast, the market reaction to purchase acquisitions was extremely favorable, with a 3% positive abnormal return in the first month. But what about the ongoing effect of goodwill amortization on values? In the second part of their two‐part study, the authors report that the P/E multiples of acquirers reporting increases in goodwill amortization increase significantly following the acquisitions, and that the increases in P/E are large enough to offset the negative impact of goodwill amortization on earnings. Moreover, the authors also tested for and were unable to find any evidence of a market bias against balance sheet goodwill as an indicator of future amortization charges. The authors thus conclude that changes in accounting for acquisitions should not be a concern for acquirers, and that the elimination of pooling should have no lasting impact on corporate strategic decisions or M&A activity. Nevertheless, they do suggest that companies with significant goodwill would benefit from making their amortization transparent in their financial statements by, for example, breaking out amortization from depreciation on their income statements. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Corporate Finance Wiley

TO PURCHASE OR TO POOL: DOES IT MATTER?

Download PDF
18 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/to-purchase-or-to-pool-does-it-matter-0IpU23fi0R

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1078-1196
eISSN
1745-6622
DOI
10.1111/j.1745-6622.1999.tb00006.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The recent decision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to eliminate pooling accounting for acquisitions raises several important questions: Does the choice of “purchase” or “pooling” affect firm valuations? How do differences in goodwill and its amortization affect cash flow and price/earnings multiples? How has the market reacted to purchase and pooling acquisition announcements? The authors' new research suggests that the market already judges mergers and acquisitions based on fundamental economics, not on GAAP earnings. In a study of 1,442 large acquisitions in the 1990s, the authors find that, in the first month after the announcement of pooled transactions, the acquirer's stock fell by an average of almost 4%. By contrast, the market reaction to purchase acquisitions was extremely favorable, with a 3% positive abnormal return in the first month. But what about the ongoing effect of goodwill amortization on values? In the second part of their two‐part study, the authors report that the P/E multiples of acquirers reporting increases in goodwill amortization increase significantly following the acquisitions, and that the increases in P/E are large enough to offset the negative impact of goodwill amortization on earnings. Moreover, the authors also tested for and were unable to find any evidence of a market bias against balance sheet goodwill as an indicator of future amortization charges. The authors thus conclude that changes in accounting for acquisitions should not be a concern for acquirers, and that the elimination of pooling should have no lasting impact on corporate strategic decisions or M&A activity. Nevertheless, they do suggest that companies with significant goodwill would benefit from making their amortization transparent in their financial statements by, for example, breaking out amortization from depreciation on their income statements.

Journal

Journal of Applied Corporate Finance – Wiley

Published: Jun 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.