Motivation Research On The Difference Of Goodwill Impairments Of Meson Fintech

M&A have become common methods of enterprise developments,which cause a large amount of goodwill.Because of its illegibility,research on goodwill is complicated.Principle oriented accounting standards give accountants the autonomy,they even use it to earnings management.The result of which is the difference between the opinions of the management and external auditors on the goodwill impairment.In this paper,the author selects a modified audit report of Meson Fintech,the summary: Meson Fintech acquires Heli,and the value of goodwill is 1.19 billion yuan,accounting for 85.5% of the cost.Zhonghui Certified Public Accountants could not judge the performance assumption based on the independent impairment test of Meson Fintech(the conclusion is that impairment don’t occurred).Then,Zhonghui hired third-party assessment agency Wanlong to assess the company for impairment consulting.Wanlong gave a conclusion of interval valuation,and under the optimistic performance growth assumption,the recoverable amount of the asset group including goodwill was RMB 1.91 billion;Under the assumption of conservative performance growth,the recoverable amount of the asset group that includes the goodwill allocated is 1.52 billion yuan.However,Zhonghui believes that it is improper to handle the matter and consider that the range of provision for impairment of goodwill is(0,25 billion yuan].Therefore,it has issued an audit report on the reservation of opinions.Pose questions: Who is right? What causes the difference? Is the accounting standard reasonable? At the same time,according to the 《Decision on Taking a Warning Letter to Bandung(Shanghai)Assets Appraisal Co.,Ltd.》,the China Securities Regulatory Commission pointed out the mistake in the part of the devaluation advisory report on goodwill.This article will first amend these directives and draw more rigorous assessment conclusions.A more rigorous evaluation conclusion was reached,that is,the recoverable amount of asset group including goodwill apportioned was RMB 1.164 billion to RMB 1.468 billion.After sorting out the controversial issues,this article carries out motivation analysis from the perspective of the evaluation results of interval value,the disputes between Meson Fintech and Zhonghui,and accounting standards,finding out the causes of the differences in judgments of goodwill impairment.The conclusions drawn are as follows:(1)Third-party evaluation company Wanlong was in lack of standardization.Interval-valued assessment conclusions give companies greater room for autonomous operation,and it is the interval-valued assessment results that directly led to the dispute between Meson Fintech and Zhonghui.(2)Combining theories of signal transmission theory,stakeholder theory,and self-discipline hypothesis,based on the low cost of goodwill management of earnings;to protect the effectiveness of mergers and acquisitions,to prevent the risk of delisting;confusion of intangible assets and goodwill,so that the high reputation;information asymmetry;For reasons such as overconfidence of managers,Meson Fintech has no incentive to make provision for impairment.However,the firm believes that the decision of Meson Fintech is not appropriate because of the fact that the merged company is still at a loss and its motivation to evade its own risks.(3)The root cause of China’s devaluation judgment of goodwill lies in the low operability of accounting standards-related judgmental norms,the lack of accounting standards for accounting professional judgment theories and professional judgment coordination mechanisms,and the lack of internal and external implementation environments.(4)Provisions for impairment should be made,ranging from RMB 0.72 billion RMB 3.45 billion.At last,this paper puts forward some suggestions from the aspects of information disclosure,internal governance mechanism,valuation criterion and professional judgment difference coordination mechanism.