To amortise, or not to amortise, that is the question


Jeremy Stuber


Jeremy Stuber discusses the challenges of accounting for goodwill, a topic which has been debated at the CRUF for many years.

Key points
  • There is a lot of confusion and debate about what goodwill represents and how it should be accounted for. Currently, goodwill is tested annually for impairment, but the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) are considering reintroducing the amortisation of goodwill.
  • Those who think goodwill represents an indefinite-lived asset think the current impairment-only model makes sense. However, for those who think goodwill represents a finite-lived asset, amortisation makes sense.
  • I argue that goodwill should be split into three component parts: an indefinite-lived asset which should be tested for impairment, a finite-lived asset which should be amortised, and the part which is not an asset at all which should be written off immediately. At first glance this might seem challenging for companies to apply, but I think it would provide investors with much better information, justifying the effort.
The question

Prince Hamlet opens his famous soliloquy with “To be, or not to be” before contemplating the difficult choice between the unknowns of death and the unfairness of life. Although arguably less dramatic, the FASB and the IASB are posing another uncomfortable and difficult question: whether to amortise, or not to amortise, goodwill.

What is goodwill?

Accounting standards define goodwill as the difference between the fair value of the consideration paid and the fair value of the net assets acquired. Goodwill is the accounting entry which balances the books, but what exactly does it represent?

Lord Macnaghten offered his definition of goodwill 1901, in a House of Lords Case between The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Muller and Company’s Margarine Limited.

“It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation, and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start …. goodwill is worth nothing unless it has power of attraction sufficient to bring customers home to the source from which it emanates. Goodwill is composed of a variety of elements. It differs in its composition in different trades and in different businesses in the same trade. One element may preponderate here and another element there.”

I propose classifying goodwill into three component parts: an indefinite-lived asset, a finite-lived asset and what’s not an asset at all.

An indefinite-lived asset

The best example is the accumulated know-how in the business. So long as the business continues to prosper, the accumulated know-how should maintain its value. However, if lots of key employees leave or if the market opportunity suddenly declines, the value of this know-how is diminished.

It makes sense to test this type of goodwill for impairment if there are material events which suggest its value is permanently diminished.

A finite-lived asset

The most common example is the amount paid for expected cost synergies. I came across a company which excelled at running industrial plants. It specialised in buying underperforming companies, which it was confident it could run better and, in most cases, it was able to double the margin over a few years.

It makes sense to amortise this type of goodwill over its useful economic life, typically a few years. The balance sheet would reflect a wasting asset and the income statement would reflect both the cost synergies and the premium paid for these synergies.

Not an asset at all

This is the amount management overpaid for the acquisition.

It makes sense for this type of goodwill to be written off immediately. This is the theory, but how would it work in practice? If an auditor were to ask management how much it overspent on an acquisition, it is unlikely to give a reliable answer, even though studies have shown that most acquisitions destroy value. However, if both the acquirer and target are listed on stock markets, the overpayment can be estimated as the amount which the combined market capitalisation of the acquirer and target fell when the deal was announced.

Closing thoughts

The status quo, to test all goodwill for impairment only, flatters the income statement as it reflects cost synergies but not the premium paid for those synergies.

To amortise all goodwill would be nonsensical: why would you amortise an indefinite-lived asset? If the standard setters were to adopt this approach I suspect management, and investors, would ignore the amortisation, excluding it from adjusted profit definitions.

In my opinion, goodwill should be split into three parts, each treated differently. This would help investors understand the premium paid: was it mostly for cost synergies or for the benefits of buying an established business? It would also improve the relevance of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) profitability and net assets because only the appropriate amount of goodwill would be amortised.

Jeremy Stuber is a global equity analyst at Newton Investment Management, leading on valuation and accounting issues across all sectors. His responsibilities include reviewing recommendations, challenging existing holdings and developing the valuation framework. Jeremy has covered various global sectors, including aerospace & defence, automotive, engineering and IT services. Jeremy chairs CRUF UK, co-chairs the Capital Markets Advisory Committee (CMAC), which is one of the advisory groups of the International Financial Report Standards (IFRS) Foundation and is a member of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) Panel on Intangibles. He is a Fellow Chartered Accountant of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, qualifying with Ernst & Young. Jeremy holds MA and MEng degrees from Cambridge University.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of all CRUF participants. To read more about the CRUF’s views on this and other topics, please visit the ‘Our Views’ section of this website.


2 responses to “To amortise, or not to amortise, that is the question”

  1. Hello
    Wise comments from Jeremy and we can move on from Prince Hamlet and invoke perhaps Prince Veolia and say…to bin or not to bin.

    We need to think about how we calculate return on investment. There are many variations so let’s call it ROI for short. There are two basic strategies here…Operating ROI which excludes goodwill measures how well the company is doing its day job, whatever that is. Transaction ROI includes goodwill and measures management’s skill at buying other companies. The market is a particularly keen watcher and predicter of Transaction ROI. If acquisition goodwill is to be written off then analysts should go back to the historical data, collect it and add it to invested capital to hold management accountable for overpaying.

  2. Dear Jerimy
    I appreciate your blog on GW. You are right in your conclusions. The solution about GW is to start with the issue of what it is (you are identifying some, but not all of its components). Having sorted out the measurement errors when defining GW, then the solution is to recognise the assets that can be recognised (they should be more than the intangibles recognised today. You are identifying a few.)(in practice they will all be intangibles). Some of these have indefinite useful life and is to be tested for impairment only, some have finite useful life and should be amortised. The rest is “thin air” (mispricing) and should be taken to profit or loss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This website uses cookies, for more information click here