Fudged Accounting Theory and Corporate Leverage
Audra Ong and Roger Hussey
Abstract This paper is a follow-up with the article ‘Fudged Accounting Theory: Evidence in the UK' in the Journal of Management Research (Ong, 2003). In that article, an analysis of the flexibility within the UK regulations, which in turn allowed companies to use several accounting therapies for intangible assets, was illustrated to aid fudged accounting theory (Murphy, 1990). This kind of paper stretches that previously work simply by examining the association among corporate leverage and accounting choice in the UK at an interval when the extant accounting regular for goodwill, SSAP22 Accounting for Goodwill (ASC, 1989), permitted two very different accounting treatments. Therefore, other intangibles, particularly brands, could stay away from the regulatory strictures. For the modern day study, a number of hypotheses relating to corporate power and increased of intangible assets were tested. The results in the present analyze support fudged accounting theory by providing data that there is a relationship between widespread capitalization of goodwill/brands and the romantic relationship with leveraging. The effects demonstrate that financial managers will are likely to adopt accounting practices that result in more powerful balance bedding. Keywords: Leveraging, Fudged Accounting, Intangible Possessions, Brands/Goodwill, Food/Drink/Media Industries, Worldwide Accounting
Introduction The importance of Fudged Accounting Theory understand the accounting treatment of intangible assets has been discussed in an earlier daily news by Ong (2003) in the Journal of Management Research. The purpose of the current paper should be to investigate whether there is record evidence that companies capitalize intangible assets for the betterment with their balance bedsheets in a period of lax accounting regulations or ambiguity in regulations. It turned out identified as fudged accounting theory (Murphy, 1990; Tollington, 1999).
Audra Ong Roger Hussey University of Windsor, Odette Business University, 401 Sun Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4 Canada
In this examine, the UK was chosen since accounting intended for goodwill was regulated underneath SSAP twenty-two Accounting intended for Goodwill granted by the Accounting Standards Panel (ASC) in 1984, that has been later revised in 1989. This normal allowed contrary treatments: corporations could both write goodwill directly against reserves in the balance sheet as a result bypassing the profit and loss account; or capitalize that as an asset on the balance sheet subject to amount. To add to the confusion, the conventional did not affect other intangible assets and a few companies chose to distinguish brands from goodwill and treat them because permanent things on the balance sheet with no amortization (Barwise ou al., 1989; Paterson, 2003). This provided a more powerful balance sheet without impact on the income affirmation. To execute the study, the annual studies and makes up about the five-year period 1993-97 for 143 companies on the London Stock market were examined. Using the previous work of Archer ain al. (1995), a series of ideas were founded and analyzed. As the sample is relatively small and is
non-parametric in nature, the chi-squared test using Yates' correction was employed to check the ideas. After a short review of the literature, your research design of this study is definitely explained. The primary part of the newspaper, falling under the heading of Results and Discussion, is concerned with tests a number of ideas. Previous Analysis Consideration of intangible possessions has been centered by concern over the appropriate accounting remedying of goodwill (Egginton, 1990). In the united kingdom, the somewhat acrimonious debate is fuelled by strong opinions rather than facts. The depth and range of opinions has been very well documented in the academic literature (Damant, 1990; Napier & Power, 1992; McCarthy & Schneider, 95; Hussey & Ong, 1997, Ong; 2001; Oldroyd, 1998; Joachim Hoegh-Krohn &...
References: following the usage of FRS 10 and FRS 14. For foreseeable future research, it will also be interesting to see the associated with IFRS several and the use of fudged accounting.
Accounting Standards Table (1997), FRS 10 Goodwill and Intangible Assets, Greater london. Accounting Requirements Board (1998), FRS eleven Impairment of Fixed Resources and Goodwill, London. Accounting Standards Committee (1989), SSAP 22 Accounting for Goodwill, London. Archer, S., Alexander, D., Collins L., and Pham, Deb. (1995), Treating Goodwill and also other Intangibles: Theory, Standards and Practice in France plus the UK, Commence of Chartered Accountants England and Wales (ICAEW, ) London. Barwise, P., Higson, C., Likierman, A. and Marsh, G. (1989), Accounting for Brands, ICAEW/London Organization School. Citron, D. (1992), Accounting Dimension Rules in UK Financial loan Contracts, Accounting and Organization Research 23(89): 21-30. Coopers and Lybrand (1990), Intangible Assets: A Survey of Businessmen's Sights, London. Cravens, K. and Guilding, C. (2001), Company Value Accounting: An International Comparison of Perceived Managerial Implications, Diary of Worldwide Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 10: 197-221. Damant, D. (1990), Brands, the Balance Piece and Firm Value, Accountancy, October: 30. Day, L. and The singer, P. (1995), Evidence upon Practices of UK Brokers in Contracting for Medium-Term Debt, Journal of Foreign Banking Regulation 10 (9): 394-401. Egginton, D. (1990), Towards Some Principles pertaining to Intangible Asset Accounting, Accounting and Organization Research 20 (79): 193-205. Financial Accounting Standards Plank (2001) FAS 141 Business Combinations, Connecticut. Financial Accounting Standards Panel (2001) FAS 142 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, Connecticut. Haigh, D and Rocha, M. (2004), The Standards Possess Landed, Managing Intellectual House, June one particular: 1 . Hussey, R., Undervalued Intangibles (London: Touche Ross, 1994) Hussey, R. and Ong, A. (1997), Meals, Drinks and the Media: Accounting for Goodwill and Intangible Assets, The Journal of Brand Management 5 (4): 239-247. International Accounting Standards Panel (2003) IFRS 3 Business Combinations, London, uk. International Accounting Standards Committee (1998), IAS 22 Organization Combinations, Greater london. International Accounting Standards Committee (1998), IAS 38 Intangible Assets, London. Joachim Hoegh-Krohn, N. and Knivsfla, E. (2000), Accounting for Intangible Assets in Scandinavia, the united kingdom, the US through the IASC: Challenges and a Solution, The International Record of Accounting 23: 243-265. Mather, S. and Peasnell, K. (1991), An Examination of the Financial Consequences Around Decisions to Capitalize Brands, British Record of Supervision 2: 151-164. Muller, K. (1999), A great Examination of the Voluntary Recognition of Bought Brand names in the uk, Journal of Accounting and Economics twenty six: 179-191. Murphy, J. (1990), Brand Value – Not simply An Accounting Issue, ADMAP (April): 36-41. Napier, C. and Electricity, M. (1992), Professional Exploration, Lobbying and Intangibles: An assessment Essay, Accounting & Business Research 23(89): 85-95. Oldroyd, D. (1998), Formulating a great accounting common for brands in the ‘market for excuses', The Journal of Brand Management 5(4): 263-271.
Record of Administration Research
Ong, A. (2001), Changes in Manufacturer Accounting for UK Businesses, Journal of brand name Management 9(2): 116-126. Ong, A. (2003), Fudged Accounting Theory: Data from the UK, Journal of Management Research 3(1), The spring: 23-30 Paterson, R. (2003), Hidden Advantages, Accountancy, June: 98-99. Reid, W. and Myddelton, D. R. (1998), The Meaning of Company Accounts, Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK. Simmonds, A. and Sleigh-Johnson, In. (2003), Fundamentally impaired, Accountancy, June: 100-101. Tollington, T. (1999), The Brand Accounting Sideshow, The Diary of Merchandise and Manufacturer Management 8(3): 204-218. Tonkin, D. & Robertson, W. (1991), Brands & Various other Intangible Set Asset economic Reporting 1990-91, ICAEW, Greater london: p. 328. Zmijewski, M. and Hagerman, R. (1981), An Income Approach Approach to the Positive Theory of Accounting Standard Setting/ Decision, Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 129-149.
Quantity 4, Amount 3
• December 2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Additional reproduction prohibited without authorization.