Debt contracting and the goodwill debate

Abstract

Extant literature offers mixed evidence on the quality of goodwill after the promulgation of SFAS 141/2 (Li and Sloan, 2017; Lee, 2011; Chen et al., 2008). We reconcile these conflicting findings by examining the role of managerial incentives in determining the efficacy of SFAS 141/2 in improving the quality of goodwill reporting. Using the context of debt contracting, we find that the value-relevance of goodwill is higher for firms that include goodwill in debt covenants in the post-SFAS 141/2 period. We also find that in the post-period, firms that include goodwill in their debt contracts appear to take timelier impairments. In addition, debt contracts in these firms also have tighter covenant thresholds, further corroborating the increased value-relevance of goodwill under the current impairment regime. We also document a relatively higher frequency of covenant violation for firms that use goodwill in their debt contract in the post-SFAS 141/2 period. Taken together, our results inform ongoing discussions regarding the accounting for goodwill and provide new insight into understanding of debt contracting and the role of accounting standards therein.