Harmonisering av Goodwill : en studie kring IASBs införandet av impairmenttester och slopandet av poolningsmetoden

Sammanfattning: The problems and the opinions regarding accounting of Goodwill have always been an issue. In the search for a more standardised accounting standard IASB made a series of changes with the implementation of IFRS/IAS, which means that all companies who are listed on any stock exchange in Europe have to follow these new standards. During the process IASB wanted some feedback from the users to get a better understanding of how different participants in the economic market would respond to a number of questions regarding different changes in the accounting. In total IASB got 126 responses for the 'Comment Letters' (CL) they sent out. This paper aims to review these CL and examine how different participants will stand on different questions, mainly regarding the elimination of the pooling method and if goodwill is to be amortised but also any opinions regarding the implementation of the impairment tests. The present study comprises 126 CL, which represent participants from all the corners of the Earth. The ones who have answered are big companies, auditors, and private persons such as a professor in economics but also experts and standard setters from different countries. Initially there will be a short report for the theories and standards that are crucial in the subject of this study so they will be easier to understand. Subsequently the 126 CL are reviewed with all the relevant information presented in the empirical section of the paper. The result of the study shows that a majority supports IASB´s suggestions with elimination of the pooling method, which is proof of a collective struggle for a more transparent and comparable accounting. The study also shows that there is, in fact, a deviation between big companies and auditors, which is also confirmed by the performance of a chi-two test. Finally, the hypothesis regarding differences of opinion depending on what accounting traditions are prevalent was proven to be false since the result showed that there wasn’t any deviations occurring. The conclusion of the paper is that different actors always will act from there own purposes and for personal or corporate gain. What is best for you, is not necessary best for others.