Goodwill

(...) Rulemakers' attention has recently focused on so-called "identifiable intangibles" - things such as customer lists and brands that can be valued. Acquirers are now required to report "qualitative descriptions" of these. For example, the value of its brands does not appear in Coca-Cola's books but any buyer would have to put a number on them.

The net effect, as more of goodwill is explained, should be its shrinking, but it is proving a tough asset to break up. According to research by the Intangible Business consultancy, almost half the value of deals done by top European and US companies in recent years is still accounted for under goodwill.

Its point is that more could be explained, some intangibles can be reliably valued, and companies should be making the effort to do just that. Mumblings about expected synergies is no longer enough.

But do investors really care? The answer seems to be: "Not that much."

"Acquirers don't look at businesses as a bucket of assets and liabilities," said Peter Elwin of Cazenove. "The value of the deal is about future activity: cash flows from combining what you have with what you're buying, and access to new markets."

Mr Elwin is a member of the Corporate Reporting Users' Forum, a group of accounting analysts. "We're really not that keen on getting goodwill as small as possible if it simply results in new intangible assets that then get amortised."

Analysts usually add back amortisations (gradual write-offs that cover the depreciating value of assets over time) as an accounting adjustment that means nothing in the real world. Adding more of these only complicates that task. (...)

Little value in making goodwill even more intangible.
By JENNIFER HUGHES - 8 May 2008 - Financial Times - Asia Ed1 - Page 20