The financial statement effects of eliminating the pooling-of-interests method of acquisition accounting

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 1-19

  Ayers, Benjamin C ^a   Lefanowicz, Craig E ^b   Robinson, John R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001839221     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2000.14.1.1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Accounting Principles Board (APB). 1970a. Business Combinations. Opinion No. 16. New York, NY: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
2. Accounting Principles Board (APB). 1970b. Intangible Assets. Opinion No. 17. New York, NY: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
3. Accounting Standards Board (AcSB). 1999. Exposure Draft: Business Combination. Toronto, Canada: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
4. Ayers, B. C., C. E. Lefanowicz, and J. R. Robinson. 1999. Do firms purchase the pooling method? Working paper, University of Texas at Austin.
5. Business Wire. 1999. ITAA seeks to preserve pooling of interests accounting for industry M&A: High profile Internet mergers could suffer. (February 12).
6. Committee on Accounting Procedure. 1944. Accounting for Intangible Assets. Accounting Research Bulletin No. 24. New York, NY: American Institute of Accountants.
7. Committee on Accounting Procedure. 1953. Restatement and Revision ofAccounting Research Bulletins. Accounting Research Bulletin No. 43. New York, NY: American Institute of Accountants.
8. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1998. Methods ofAccounting for Business Combinations: Recommendations of the G4+1 for Achieving Convergence. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
9. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1999a. Analysis of Comment Letters-FASB Invitation to Comment on Methods ofAccounting for Business Combinations: Recommendations of the G4+1 for Achieving Convergence. Norwalk. CT: FASB.
10. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1999b. Exposure Draft: Business Combinations and Intangible Assets. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
11. Godwin, N., K. Petroni, and J. Wahlen. 1998. Fair value accounting for property-liability insurers and classification decisions under FAS No.115. Journal ofAccounting, Auditing & FilUUUX 13 (Summer): 207-239.
12. Johnson, L. T., and B. D. Yokley. 1997. Issues Associated with the FASB Project on Business Combinations. Norwalk. CT: FASB.
13. Lys, T., and L. Vincent. 1995. An analysis of value destruction in AT&T's acquisition of NCR. Journal of Financial Economics 39 (October-November): 353-378.
14. MacDonald, E. 1999. Accounting rule makers vote to end popular poolings of interests in mergers. Wall Street Journal (April 22): C23.
15. Rayburn, F. R., and O. S. Powers. 1991. A history of pooling of interests accounting for business combinations in the United States. The Accounting Historians Journal 18 (December): 155-192.
16. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1945. The Propriety of Writing Down Goodwill by Means of Changes to Capital Surplus. Accounting Series Release No. 50. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17. Wahlen, J. M., J. R. Boatsman, R. H. Herz, R. Jennings, G. J. Jonas, K. Palepu, K. R. Petroni, S. G. Ryan, and K. Schipper. 1999. Response to FASB invitation to comment on methods of accounting for business combinations: Recommendations of the G4+ 1 for achieving convergence. Accounting Horizons 13 (September): 299-303.