and be exposed to all of the residual risks. But in more subtle arrangements, some of
the upside and downside (generally outside the range of expected returns) may be
transferred to other parties through puts and calls. These types of structures merit in-
ternational debate because the structures that achieve off-balance-sheet accounting
are commonly replicated around the world. Australia, the United Kingdom, and other
major economies have already moved to tackle some of these problems through
broadening their definition of control.
(j) Impairment. Under the historical cost convention of accounting, assets should
be stated at their respective acquisition cost basis. When it is determined that such as-
sets cannot be recovered fully, all accounting standards allow the write-down for im-
pairment losses. However, there is diversity in practice as to when and how to meas-
ure impairment losses. In the United States, SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies,” and SFAS No. 114, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a
Loan,” provides guidance on impairment on loans, SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for
the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” provides guidance on impairment
of long-lived assets held for use and long-lived assets held for sale, SFAS No. 142,
“Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” provides guidance on impairment of good-
will and other intangible assets, while SFAS No. 115, “Accounting for Certain In-
vestments in Debt and Equity Securities,” and related implementation guides provide
guidance on impairment of investments in marketable securities. Even with the pro-
liferation of rules in the United States, impairment remains an area that requires sig-
nificant management judgment.
Impairment write downs have a significant impact on absolute accounting earn-
ings and earnings per share, but it may not necessarily trigger changes in the prices
of the shares as observed in the open market. This is arguably because the market an-
ticipated the loss and because impairment losses are sometimes perceived to be one-
time noncash charges. This is most evident in the case of goodwill impairment. Al-
most US$200 billion of goodwill was impaired in the 2001/2002 reporting periods
because of the new impairment rules that became effective on January 1, 2002, for
just nine companies in the media and entertainment, telecommunication, and tech-
nology sector. The day after the announcement of the impairment charges, however,
the stock prices of many of those companies actually increased!
U.S. GAAP requires detailed impairment analysis of long-lived assets held for use
if there is a “triggering event.” IAS requires entities to assess assets, without distinc-
tion for long-lived assets or goodwill, at each balance sheet date to determine
whether there is any “indication” that an asset may be impaired. Triggering eventand
indicationhave similar definitions, and both sets of accounting standards provide
similar examples. This approach was mainly adopted to reduce the burden incurred
by preparers that would otherwise need to prepare fair value assessments. Under a
different pronouncement, U.S. GAAP requires impairment of goodwill to be per-
formed at least annually. The FASB considered it necessary to distinguish the timing
of impairment reviews for goodwill and other long-lived assets because of the inher-
ent difference in assets with a definite life and those with an indefinite life. With
SFAS No. 142 disallowing the amortization of goodwill, the FASB believe adequate
and timely reviews for impairment has increased importance. Would the US$200 bil-
lion goodwill impairment loss recognized under U.S. GAAP as mentioned above also
be recognized under different sets of accounting standards?
Under U.S. GAAP, when impairment has occurred, it is measured based on the fair
12 • 24 SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCES