Journal of Management Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Fudged Accounting Theory and Corporate Leverage


Affiliations
1 University of Windsor, Odette Business School, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This paper is a follow-up of the article 'Fudged Accounting Theory: Evidence from the UK' in the Journal of Management Research (Ong, 2003). In that article, an analysis of the flexibility within the UK regulations, which allowed companies to use different accounting treatments for intangible assets, was illustrated to support fudged accounting theory (Murphy, 1990). This paper extends that earlier work by examining the association between corporate leverage and accounting choice in the UK at a period when the extant accounting standard for goodwill, SSAP22 Accounting for Goodwill (ASC, 1989), permitted two very different accounting treatments. As a result, other intangibles, particularly brands, could avoid the regulatory strictures. For the present study, a series of hypotheses relating to corporate leverage and capitalization of intangible assets were tested. The results of the present study support fudged accounting theory by providing evidence that there is a relationship between the widespread capitalization of goodwill/brands and the relationship with leverage. The results demonstrate that financial managers will tend to adopt accounting practices that result in stronger balance sheets.

Keywords

Leverage, Fudged Accounting, Intangible Assets, Brands/Goodwill, Food/Drink/Media Industries, International Accounting
User
Notifications

  • Accounting Standards Board (1997), FRS 10 Goodwill and Intangible Assets, London.

  • Accounting Standards Board (1998), FRS 11 Impairment of Fixed Assets and Goodwill, London.

  • Accounting Standards Committee (1989), SSAP 22 Accounting for Goodwill, London.

  • Archer, S., Alexander, D., Collins L., and Pham, D. (1995), The Treatment of Goodwill and Other Intangibles: Theory, Standards and Practice in France and the UK, Institute of Chartered Accountants England and Wales (ICAEW,) London.

  • Barwise, P., Higson, C., Likierman, A. and Marsh, P. (1989), Accounting for Brands, ICAEW/London Business School.

  • Citron, D. (1992), Accounting Measurement Rules in UK Bank Loan Contracts, Accounting and Business Research 23(89): 21-30.

  • Coopers and Lybrand (1990), Intangible Assets: A Survey of Businessmen’s Views, London.

  • Cravens, K. and Guilding, C. (2001), Brand Value Accounting: An International Comparison of Perceived Managerial Implications, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 10: 197-221.

  • Damant, D. (1990), Brands, the Balance Sheet and Company Value, Accountancy, October: 29.

  • Day, J. and Taylor, P. (1995), Evidence on Practices of UK Bankers in Contracting for Medium-Term Debt, Journal of International Banking Law 10 (9): 394-401.

  • Egginton, D. (1990), Towards Some Principles for Intangible Asset Accounting, Accounting and Business Research 20 (79): 193-205.

  • Financial Accounting Standards Board (2001) FAS 141 Business Combinations, Connecticut.

  • Financial Accounting Standards Board (2001) FAS 142 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, Connecticut.

  • Haigh, D and Rocha, M. (2004), The Standards Have Landed, Managing Intellectual Property, June 1: 1.

  • Hussey, R., Undervalued Intangibles (London: Touche Ross, (1994)

  • Hussey, R. and Ong, A. (1997), Food, Drinks and the Media: Accounting for Goodwill and Intangible Assets, The Journal of Brand Management 4 (4): 239-247.

  • International Accounting Standards Board (2003) IFRS 3 Business Combinations, London.

  • International Accounting Standards Committee (1998), IAS 22 Business Combinations, London.

  • International Accounting Standards Committee (1998), IAS 38 Intangible Assets, London.

  • Joachim Hoegh-Krohn, N. and Knivsfla, K. (2000), Accounting for Intangible Assets in Scandinavia, the UK, the US and by the IASC: Challenges and a Solution, The International Journal of Accounting 23: 243-265.

  • Mather, P. and Peasnell, K. (1991), An Examination of the Economic Consequences Surrounding Decisions to Capitalize Brands, British Journal of Management 2: 151-164.

  • Muller, K. (1999), An Examination of the Voluntary Recognition of Acquired Brand names in the United Kingdom, Journal of Accounting and Economics 26: 179-191.

  • Murphy, J. (1990), Brand Valuation - Not Just An Accounting Issue, ADMAP (April): 36-41.

  • Napier, C. and Power, M. (1992), Professional Research, Lobbying and Intangibles: A Review Essay, Accounting & Business Research 23(89): 85-95.

  • Oldroyd, D. (1998), Formulating an accounting standard for brands in the ‘market for excuses’, The Journal of Brand Management 5(4): 263-271.

  • Ong, A. (2001), Changes in Brand Accounting for UK Companies, Journal of Brand Management 9(2): 116-126.

  • Ong, A. (2003), Fudged Accounting Theory: Evidence from the UK, Journal of Management Research 3(1), April: 23-30

  • Paterson, R. (2003), Hidden Strengths, 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, N. (2003), Fundamentally impaired, Accountancy, June: 100-101.

  • Tollington, T. (1999), The Brand Accounting Sideshow, The Journal of Product and Brand Management 8(3): 204-218.

  • Tonkin, D. & Robertson, B. (1991), Brands & Other Intangible Fixed Asset in Financial Reporting 1990-91, ICAEW, London: p. 3-28.

  • Zmijewski, M. and Hagerman, R. (1981), An Income Strategy Approach to the Positive Theory of Accounting Standard Setting/Choice, Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 129-149.


Abstract Views: 828

PDF Views: 1




  • Fudged Accounting Theory and Corporate Leverage

Abstract Views: 828  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Audra Ong
University of Windsor, Odette Business School, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada
Roger Hussey
University of Windsor, Odette Business School, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada

Abstract


This paper is a follow-up of the article 'Fudged Accounting Theory: Evidence from the UK' in the Journal of Management Research (Ong, 2003). In that article, an analysis of the flexibility within the UK regulations, which allowed companies to use different accounting treatments for intangible assets, was illustrated to support fudged accounting theory (Murphy, 1990). This paper extends that earlier work by examining the association between corporate leverage and accounting choice in the UK at a period when the extant accounting standard for goodwill, SSAP22 Accounting for Goodwill (ASC, 1989), permitted two very different accounting treatments. As a result, other intangibles, particularly brands, could avoid the regulatory strictures. For the present study, a series of hypotheses relating to corporate leverage and capitalization of intangible assets were tested. The results of the present study support fudged accounting theory by providing evidence that there is a relationship between the widespread capitalization of goodwill/brands and the relationship with leverage. The results demonstrate that financial managers will tend to adopt accounting practices that result in stronger balance sheets.

Keywords


Leverage, Fudged Accounting, Intangible Assets, Brands/Goodwill, Food/Drink/Media Industries, International Accounting

References