Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Essay

Published:

In November, 1993, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued an Exposure Draft for a proposed Statement of Financial Accounting standards entitled, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets" and asked for comments. The purpose of this article is to discuss the various issues associated with impairment in order to better understand the tentative conclusions reached in the Exposure Draft and thus be in a position to comment or propose any changes, if necessary. (Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. 2009).

An asset is said to be "impaired" when its book value exceeds some measure of its "fair" value. If a firm recognizes this impairment and records it by reducing the book value of the asset and debiting an expense, the firm has recorded a "write-off."

Under GAAP, write-offs are required in various situations, such as marketable securities and inventories that are periodically compared to market and reduced, if necessary. Similarly, long-term equity investments are annually adjusted to lower-of-cost-or-market, although the reduction bypasses the income statement and goes directly to stockholders' equity. Long-term assets are another example. When disposal has been decided upon (such as for the sale of a segment of a business), the assets are adjusted to their net realizable value, as discussed in APB Opinion 30. (Ali Abdul Kadir, 2001).

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Professional

Essay Writers

Lady Using Tablet

Get your grade
or your money back

using our Essay Writing Service!

Essay Writing Service

Most write-offs that firm records would normally fall into the above categories, and there is no lack of guidance in GAAP regarding the proper accounting treatment. The area in which guidance is lacking and where confusion reigns supreme is that of long-lived assets that the firm wishes to retain for use but has concluded are impaired. (Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002)

Paragraph 25 of FASB Concepts Statement No. 6 defines assets as "probable future economic benefits obtained by a particular entity as a result of past transactions." Under current accounting practice, asset amounts recognized in the financial statements are based on historical cost. As conditions change with time, asset values also change; nonetheless, many of these changes are not recorded in the financial statements. (Ali Abdul Kadir, 2001).

Some find historical cost inappropriate when an asset's value has significantly decreased, pointing out that in these cases part of the historical cost does not meet the definition of an asset. An asset is measured by its future economic benefit when that measure drops below depreciated historical cost; the difference between the two will bring no future economic benefit and, thus, no longer satisfies the asset definition. From this perspective, a write-off of this difference is the answer. Others disagree on both the recognition and the measurement of the write-off

So the researcher will discuss in this paper the definition of impairment of assets , and the main justifications as well the main challenges for implementing such this process in business world.

  • Objectives of the Research:
  • 1.1.1. To discuss the definition of impairment of assets.
  • 1.1.2. To create awareness about the process of implementing impairments for a specific asset.
  • 1.1.3. What are the main difficulties facing the implementation of impairment process.
  • 1.1.4. To discuss the economic and accounting rationale and justification for impairment process.
  • Significance of the Research:

The significance of this study approaches from the new accounting thoughts that took the fir value as a base for accounting measurement instead of the historical value, which has been used since a long time as a base for accounting measurement. And since the long-term goal is to value all the assets & liabilities on market value, it makes it essential to study the appropriateness & reliability of applying the impairment process, also, to study the difficulties that will face the companies and the accountants from applying it.

Chapter Two

Literature Review

  • Introduction

Conservatism is a primary characteristic of accounting systems worldwide. It introduces a down ward bias in the value of net assets reported in financial statements. However, the decision usefulness of biased accounting information has recently been under scrutiny by the IASB and FASB, who argue that un biased or neutral accounting information is more useful for decisions-making. As a consequence, the two standards to favor fair value measurement to more conservative measurement approaches such as the measurement at amortized costless impairment. (Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. 2009).

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Comprehensive

Writing Services

Lady Using Tablet

Plagiarism-free
Always on Time

Marked to Standard

Order Now

The writing down of accounting values that are not recoverable, whether due to obsolescence, physical damage or market conditions, is a long-lived convention in historical cost accounting. Since the adoption of the EU Fourth Directive requirements into UK company legislation, there has also been a legal obligation to account for impairment losses on fixed assets. Until recently, however, there was little authoritative guidance on how to detect impairments and to carry out the appropriate accounting. In the absence of authoritative guidance, impairment accounting has been, to a certain degree, at the discretion of each reporting entity. (Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. 2009).

This Standard defines "impairment" as a loss in the future economic benefits or service potential of an asset, over and above the systematic recognition of the loss of the asset's future economic benefits or service potential through depreciation (amortization).

Impairment, therefore, reflects a decline in the utility of an asset to the entity that controls it. For example, an entity may have a purpose-built military storage facility that it no longer uses. In addition, because of the specialized nature of the facility and its location, it is unlikely that it can be leased out or sold and therefore the entity is unable to generate cash flows from leasing or disposing of the asset. The asset is regarded as impaired as it is no longer capable of providing the entity with service potential - it has little, or no, utility for the entity in contributing to the achievement of its objectives. (Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002)

  • The Historical Development

Impairment accounting is a concept within the historical cost model. When an object is intended for long-term use, the historical cost convention is to allocate the cost of investment through depreciation. The depreciation method is a system for allocating the investment cost over economic life, reflecting wear and tear. Depreciation does not reflect current value changes of the asset. Impairment accounting is a supplement to depreciation within the historical cost model that may apply if the book value of an asset (net of depreciation) exceeds its recoverable amount. Therefore the development of the write-down concept is in extricable linked with the development of depreciation. (Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. 2009).

The need for special accounting techniques for fixed assets arose with the growth of capital- intensive industries during the industrial revolution. Several accounting methods were applied, of which depreciation was one. The use of depreciation became common in the 19th century, but it was not compulsory in most countries until the first half of the 20th century. An early legal requirement to account for fixed assets by periodic charges was in the German 1884 Company Law, and gradually such requirements were incorporated in company legislation of other countries. However, there is anecdotal evidence that companies also made extraordinary charges for other reasons, for instance in order to account for an unexpected value reduction. These extraordinary charges were part of accepted practice, but unregulated at the start of the 20th century. The German 1937 Company Law clearly permitted write- downs for impairment, and some authors also claim that it required impairment accounting. (Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. 2009).

An explicit impairment rule was introduced into German law only with the German 1965 of the impairment concept and introduced a reversal requirement. IAS 36 was issued in 1998, i.e. five years after the issuance of SFAS 121. It differs from the American standard in not having a write-down test based on nominal cash flows, and by having a reversal requirement.

The development in Scandinavia has been influenced by traditions and currents in the major economies. The Norwegian Company Law of 1910, which was strongly influenced by Continental European traditions, required periodic depreciation charges, but contemporary scholars held different opinions on whether a write-down obligation was part of that. An interesting part of older Norwegian company legislation is the special law for shipping joint stock companies, which more explicitly mandated the current value as an upper limit for measurements. A general impairment write-down obligation for Norwegian companies was introduced with the Company Law of 1957.

  • IAS 36 Impairment of Assets

The objective of this Standard is to prescribe the procedures that an entity applies to ensure that its assets are carried at no more than their recoverable amount. An asset is carried at more than its recoverable amount if its carrying amount exceeds the amount to be recovered through use or sale of the asset. If this is the case, the asset is described as impaired and the Standard requires the entity to recognize an impairment loss. The Standard also specifies when an entity should reverse an impairment loss and prescribes disclosures.

  • Identifying an asset that may be impaired
Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

This Essay is

a Student's Work

Lady Using Tablet

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Examples of our work

An entity shall assess at each reporting date whether there is any indication that an asset may be impaired. If any such indication exists, the entity shall estimate the recoverable amount of the asset. Irrespective of whether there is any indication of impairment, an entity shall also: test an intangible asset with an indefinite useful life or an intangible asset not yet available for use for impairment annually by comparing its carrying amount with its recoverable amount. This impairment test may be performed at any time during an annual period, provided it is performed at the same time every year. Different intangible assets may be tested for impairment at different times. However, if such an intangible asset was initially recognized during the current annual period, that intangible asset shall be tested for impairment before the end of the current annual period.

Test goodwill acquired in a business combination for impairment annually in accordance with paragraphs 80-99. If there is any indication that an asset may be impaired, recoverable amount shall be estimated for the individual asset. If it is not possible to estimate the recoverable amount of the individual asset, an entity shall determine the recoverable amount of the cash-generating unit to which the asset belongs (the asset's cash-generating unit). (Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. 2009).

A cash-generating unit is the smallest identifiable group of assets that generates cash inflows that are largely independent of the cash inflows from other assets or groups of assets.

  • Measuring Recoverable Amount

The recoverable amount of an asset or a cash-generating unit is the higher of its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. It is not always necessary to determine both an asset's fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. If either of these amounts exceeds the asset's carrying amount, the asset is not impaired and it is not necessary to estimate the other amount. (Ali Abdul Kadir, 2001).

Fair value less costs to sell is the amount obtainable from the sale of an asset or cash generating unit in an arm's length transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties, less the costs of disposal.

Value in use is the present value of the future cash flows expected to be derived from an asset or cash-generating unit. The following elements shall be reflected in the calculation of an asset's value in use:

  1. An estimate of the future cash flows the entity expects to derive from the asset;
  2. Expectations about possible variations in the amount or timing of those future cash Flows;
  3. The time value of money, represented by the current market risk-free rate of Interest;
  4. The price for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the asset; and other factors, such as illiquidity, that market participants would reflect in pricing the future cash flows the entity expects to derive from the asset. (Ali Abdul Kadir, 2001).
  • Estimates Of Future Cash Flows Shall Include:
  1. projections of cash inflows from the continuing use of the asset;
  2. projections of cash outflows that are necessarily incurred to generate the cash inflows from continuing use of the asset (including cash outflows to prepare the asset for use) and can be directly attributed, or allocated on a reasonable and consistent basis, to the asset; and net cash flows, if any, to be received (or paid) for the disposal of the asset at the end of its useful life.
  3. Future cash flows shall be estimated for the asset in its current condition. Estimates of future cash flows shall not include estimated future cash inflows or outflows that are expected to arise from: a future restructuring to which an entity is not yet committed; or improving or enhancing the asset's performance. (Ali Abdul Kadir, 2001).
  • Estimates Of Future Cash Flows Shall Not Include:
  1. Cash inflows or outflows from financing activities; or
  2. Income tax receipts or payments.
  • Recognizing And Measuring An Impairment Loss

If, and only if, the recoverable amount of an asset is less than its carrying amount, the carrying amount of the asset shall be reduced to its recoverable amount. That reduction is an impairment loss.

An impairment loss shall be recognized immediately in profit or loss, unless the asset is carried at revalued amount in accordance with another Standard (for example, in accordance with the revaluation model in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment).

Any impairment loss of a revalued asset shall be treated as a revaluation decrease in accordance with that other Standard. (Anita Dennis, June 1999).

An impairment loss shall be recognized for a cash-generating unit (the smallest group of cash-generating units to which goodwill or a corporate asset has been allocated) if, and only if, the recoverable amount of the unit (group of units) is less than the carrying amount of the unit (group of units). The impairment loss shall be allocated to reduce the carrying amount of the assets of the unit (group of units) in the following order:

first, to reduce the carrying amount of any goodwill allocated to the cash generating unit (group of units); and then, to the other assets of the unit (group of units) prorate a on the basis of the carrying amount of each asset in the unit (group of units) However, an entity shall not reduce the carrying amount of an asset below the highest of: its fair value less costs to sell (if determinable); its value in use (if determinable); and zero. (Anita Dennis, June 1999).

The amount of the impairment loss that would otherwise have been allocated to the asset shall be allocated pro rata to the other assets of the unit (group of units).

  • Goodwill

For the purpose of impairment testing, goodwill acquired in a business combination shall, from the acquisition date, be allocated to each of the acquirer's cash-generating units, or groups of cash-generating units, that is expected to benefit from the synergies of the combination, irrespective of whether other assets or liabilities of the acquiree are assigned to those units or groups of units.

The annual impairment test for a cash-generating unit to which goodwill has bee allocated may be performed at any time during an annual period, provided the test is performed at the same time every year. Different cash-generating units may be tested for impairment at different times. However, if some or all of the goodwill allocated to a cash-generating unit was acquired in a business combination during the current annual period, that unit shall be tested for impairment before the end of the current annual period.

The Standard permits the most recent detailed calculation made in a preceding period of the recoverable amount of a cash-generating unit (group of units) to which goodwill has been allocated to be used in the impairment test for that unit (group of units) in the current period, provided specified criteria are met. (Changling Chen a,1, Mark Kohlbeck b,2, Terry War.eld c,2009)

  • Reversing An Impairment Loss

An entity shall assess at each reporting date whether there is any indication that an impairment loss recognized in prior periods for an asset other than goodwill may no longer exist or may have decreased. If any such indication exists, the entity shall estimate the recoverable amount of that asset. (Hennry, James. 2004)

An impairment loss recognized in prior periods for an asset other than goodwill shall be reversed if, and only if, there has been a change in the estimates used to determine the asset's recoverable amount since the last impairment loss was recognized. A reversal of an impairment loss for a cash-generating unit shall be allocated to the assets of the unit, except for goodwill, pro rata with the carrying amounts of those assets. The increased carrying amount of an asset other than goodwill attributable to a reversal of an impairment loss shall not exceed the carrying amount that would have been determined (net of amortization or depreciation) had no impairment loss been recognized for the asset in prior years. (Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Wan Adibah Wan Ismail and Muhd Kamil Ibrahim 2004).

A reversal of an impairment loss for an asset other than goodwill shall be recognized immediately in profit or loss, unless the asset is carried at revalued amount in accordance with another Standard (for example, the revaluation model in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment). Any reversal of an impairment loss of a revalued asset shall be treated as a revaluation increase in accordance with that other Standard. An impairment loss recognized for goodwill shall not be reversed in a subsequent period.

  • Disclosure

An entity shall disclose the following for each class of assets:

  1. The amount of impairment losses recognized in net surplus/deficit during the period and the line item(s) of the statement of financial performance in which those impairment losses are included.
  2. The amount of reversals of impairment losses recognized in net surplus/ deficit during the period and the line item(s) of the statement of financial performance in which those impairment losses are reversed. (Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Wan Adibah Wan Ismail and Muhd Kamil Ibrahim 2004).

A class of assets is a grouping of assets of similar nature and use in an entity's operations.

The information required in paragraph 68 may be presented with other information disclosed for the class of assets. For example, this information may be included in a reconciliation of the carrying amount of property, plant and equipment, at the beginning and end of the period, as required by IPSAS 17, "Property, Plant and Equipment". An entity that reports segment information in accordance with IPSAS 18, "Segment Reporting" shall disclose the following for each segment reported by the entity: (Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Wan Adibah Wan Ismail and Muhd Kamil Ibrahim 2003a).

  1. The amount of impairment losses recognized in net surplus/deficit during the period.
  2. The amount of reversals of impairment losses recognized in net surplus/deficit during the period.
  3. An entity shall disclose the following for each material impairment loss recognized or reversed during the period:

  4. The events and circumstances that led to the recognition or reversal of the impairment loss.
  5. The amount of the impairment loss recognized or reversed.
  6. The nature of the asset.
  7. The segment to which the asset belongs, if the entity reports segment information in accordance with IPSAS 18.
  8. Whether the recoverable service amount of the asset is its fair value less costs to sell or its value in use.
  9. If the recoverable service amount is fair value less costs to sell,
  10. the basis used to determine fair value less costs to sell (such as whether fair value was determined by reference to an active market).
  11. If the recoverable service amount is value in use, the approach used to determine value in use.
  • Determination of Value in Use

Determining value in use (present value of remaining service potential) of a non-cash-generating asset may be approached in a number of ways. One approach that replicates IAS 36 involves estimating and discounting cash inflows that would have arisen had the entity sold its services or other outputs in the market. However, the IPSASB is of the view that it is unlikely that this approach could be used in practice due to the complexities involved in determining the appropriate prices at which to value the service or other output units and estimating the appropriate discount rate. (L. Todd Johnson, 2005).

  • Market Value Approach

Under this approach, where an active market exists for the asset, the value in use of the non-cash-generating asset is measured at the observable market value of the asset. Where an active market for the asset is not available, the entity uses the best available market evidence of the price at which the asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm's length transaction, having regard to the highest and best use of the asset for which market participants would be prepared to pay in the prevailing circumstances. The IPSASB noted that the use of the observable market value as a proxy for value in use was redundant since market value differed from the fair value less costs to sell (the other arm of the recoverable service amount estimate) of the asset only by the amount of the costs of disposal. Therefore the market value would be effectively captured by the fair value less costs to sell arm of recoverable service amount. (Rong-Ruey Duh a,., Wen-Chih Lee b,1, Ching-Chieh Lin2008)

  • Depreciated Replacement Cost Approach

Under this approach, the value in use of the asset is determined as the lowest cost at which the gross service potential embodied in the asset could be obtained in the normal course of operations less the value of the service potential already consumed. This approach assumes that the entity replaces the remaining service potential of the asset if it is deprived of it. An asset may be replaced either through reproduction (such as specialized assets) or through replacement of its gross service potential. Therefore, value in use is measured as the reproduction or replacement cost of the asset, whichever is lower, less accumulated depreciation calculated on the basis of such cost to reflect the already consumed or expired service potential of the asset. (Tim Reason, Feb 2003).

  • Restoration Cost Approach

This approach is usually used when impairment losses arise from damage. Under this approach, the value in use of the asset is determined by subtracting the estimated restoration cost of the asset from the depreciated replacement or reproduction cost of the asset before impairment.

  • Service Units Approach

This approach determines the value in use of the asset by reducing the depreciated replacement or reproduction cost of the asset before impairment to conform to the reduced number of service units expected from the asset in its impaired state.

  • Approaches Adopted

The IPSASB agreed that the value in use of a non-cash-generating asset will be measured using the depreciated replacement cost, the restoration cost or the service units approaches cited above as appropriate.

  • Process for Assessing Assets for Impairment

At each reporting date an agency shall assess whether there is any indication of each asset or Cash Generating Unit (CGU) being impaired. There are a number of steps that an agency will need to undertake when assessing assets for impairment. These steps are outlined below:

  1. Step 1 Determine impairment indicators
  2. Step 2 Assess impairment indicators once every financial year
  3. Step 3 Measure recoverable amount
  4. Step 4 Recognize and measure impairment losses
  5. Step 5 Reverse an impairment loss (if applicable)
  6. Step 6 Disclose information relating to impairment (Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002).
  • Step 1 - Impairment Indicators

Agencies are required to identify appropriate impairment indicators for each class of asset. These impairment indicators are then used to determine if there is an 'indication of impairment'. Except for certain intangible assets, agencies only have to 'test for impairment' if there is first an 'indication of impairment'.

There are two groups of indicators identified in AASB 136, external and internal indicators.

External indicators which may possibly apply to agencies are:

  1. a significant decline in an asset's market value as a result of the passage of time or normal use (this will impact assets sold in an active market);
  2. significant changes with an adverse effect in the technological, market, economic or legal environment in which the agency operates or in the market to which an asset is dedicated; and an increase in market interest rates or other market rates of return on investments that are likely to increase the discount rate included in the cash.
  3. Flow calculation when determining value in use (this will impact for-profit agencies and not-for-profit agencies. Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002).

1. Internal indicators which may possibly apply to agencies are:

  1. Evidence of obsolescence or physical damage to an asset;
  2. Significant changes regarding the way an asset is used or is expected to be used; and
  3. Evidence from internal reporting that indicates that the economic performance of an asset is, or will be, worse than expected (this will impact for-profit agencies and not-for-profit agencies with CGUs).
  • Step 2 - Assessment of Impairment

At the end of every financial year, agencies must determine whether there is any known evidence that an asset or group of assets is impaired based on the impairment indicators. It is not expected that agencies would examine each asset every year to determine if there is an indication of impairment. For example, an agency will not need to assess each building held by that agency but where the agency knows a building was affected by fire during the financial year then that building would need to be tested for impairment. An indicator is only relevant if the recoverable amount of the asset or group of assets is sensitive to the indicator indicating impairment. If there is no evidence of impairment the agency does not have to make a formal estimate of recoverable amount. Departments and Territory authorities are required to test intangible assets that are not yet available for use or have an indefinite useful life regardless of whether or not there is evidence of impairment. This requirement will be particularly relevant where an agency is developing software and as at balance date the software has been completed but is not ready for use.

Where an intangible asset is recognized throughout a financial year it has to be tested for impairment before the end of that year. For example, where a piece of software is completed and recognized in the accounts in May, it must be tested for impairment before the end of that financial year that is before 30 June. Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002).

2. Step 3 - Measuring Recoverable Amount

Where there is an indication of impairment, an agency will have to determine the recoverable amount. However, the concept of materiality applies in identifying whether the recoverable amount needs to be estimated. For example, if previous calculations show that an asset's recoverable amount is significantly greater than its carrying amount, the entity need not re-estimate the asset's recoverable amount if no events have occurred that would eliminate that difference.

3. Step 4 - Recognizing and Measuring Impairment Losses

1. Individual Asset

An impairment loss for an individual asset is recognized when the recoverable amount is less than the carrying amount. The amount of the impairment loss is the difference between the recoverable amount and the carrying amount.

Cash-Generating Unit (CGU)

An impairment loss is recognized for a CGU when the recoverable amount of the unit is less than the unit's combined carrying amount, the difference between the two being the amount of the impairment loss. Agencies need to reduce the carrying amount of each asset in a CGU on a pro rata basis, based on the carrying amount of each asset in the unit. However assets in the unit cannot be reduced below the higher of the asset's 'fair value less cost to sell' (where determinable), 'value in use' (where determinable) or zero.

Accounting Treatment of an Impairment Loss

An impairment loss for an individual asset and for each asset in a CGU is accounted for as follows:

  1. where an asset is measured at cost, the impairment loss is recognized in the profit and loss in the year in which the loss occurs; or
  2. Where an asset is carried at revalued amount in accordance with another standard (e.g. in accordance with the revaluation model in AASB 116), the impairment loss is treated as a revaluation decrease in accordance with that other standard. After the recognition of the impairment loss an agency must also adjust the depreciation relating to the asset, by reallocating the new carrying amount in a systematic manner over the remaining useful life of the asset. Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002).

4. Step 5 - Reversing an Impairment Loss

At the end of every reporting period, agencies are required to assess whether impairment losses previously recognized need to be reversed. Agencies must first determine the indicators to be used in assessing whether a reversal of impairment has occurred. There are a number of indicators outlined in the standard that an agency should use when determining whether a reversal of an impairment loss is required (see AASB 136 Paragraph 111). These are similar to the impairment indicators mentioned

5. Step 6 - Disclosure

  1. A significant decline in an asset's market value as a result of the passage of time or normal use (this will impact assets sold in an active market).
  2. Example: an oversupply of second-hand buses resulting in a decline in the market price.

  3. Significant changes with an adverse effect in the technological, market, economic or legal environment in which the entity operates or in the market to which an asset is dedicated.
  4. Examples:

    • Software no longer being supported by the external supplier due to technological advances; and
    • Computer hardware that has become obsolete due to technological development.
  5. An increase in market interest rates or other market rates of return on investments that are likely to increase the discount rate included in the cash flow calculation when determining value in use (this will impact for-profit agencies and not-for profit agencies with cash generating units). Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002).
  6. Example:

    • The discount rate of a water pumping asset valued using discounted cash flows needs to be reviewed where there is an increase in official interest rates set by the Reserve Bank of Australia.
  7. Evidence of obsolescence or physical damage to an asset.

Examples:

Building damaged by fire or flood. Or a building that is closed due to identification of structural deficiencies; or a section of an elevated roadway that has dipped resulting in the need to replace it in 10 years rather than 20 years; and a bridge that is weight-restricted due to the identification of structural deficiencies. (Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002).

Chapter Three

Conclusion & Recommendations

Conclusion

Based what the researcher has conducted for the literature review she can stand on the following conclusions:

  • There are many advantages for implementing impairment of assets the most important is "impairment of assets is useful for issuing valid financial statement", moreover, preparing financial statements based on fair value lets the opportunity for investors to get it at the suitable time" and "Preparing financial statements based on fair value increase the chance to affect on the decision making process that deals with future expectations".
  • The main challenge facing implementation of Impairment of assets is "there is conflict between historical cost and impairment process", besides, impairment of assets may make the investment decision more risky". and there is inefficiency of the stock market in developing countries, and the "Vague of financial accounting standards about impairment topic and Lack of financial information based on fair market value for subjectivity and the ease to play with it".

Recommendations

Based upon the conclusions of the study the researcher can suggest some suggestions that may assist Palestinian firms to implement impairment value since its high validity in generating valid financial statements:

  • Educating the top management about the importance of dealing with implement since it offers a valid indication for the investors and preparing rich financial statements to make the appropriate decisions for the enterprise.
  • Conducting continuous training sessions about implementing impairment assets in Palestinian firms.
  • It's important to argue and activate the financial market in Palestine in order to be a replacement price for every asset.
  • The researcher recommends in conducting other studies about impairment assets and the issues that is attributed to.

References

  • Alan ReinsteinM Gerald H. (2009).Lander Implementing the impairment of assets requirements of SFAS No. 144 An empirical analysis, School of Business Administration, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
  • Ali Abdul Kadir, Chairman, Securities Commission, 13 August 2001, "Seminar on Fair Value Accounting and Its Implications on Financial Reporting Framework in Malaysia", Nikko Hotel, Kuala Lumpur
  • Anita Dennis, June 1999, Translating the Standards - Accounting Standards, Journal of Accountancy
  • Changling Chen a,1, Mark Kohlbeck b,2, Terry War.eld c,. Timeliness of impairment recognition: Evidence from the initial adoption of SFAS 142.a School of Accounting and Finance, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Hennry, James. (2004) International Public Sector Accounting Standard. Impairment of Non- Cash-Generating Assets, prenticehall.com
  • IFRS - Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, paragraph 100, IASC.
  • Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Wan Adibah Wan Ismail and Muhd Kamil Ibrahim (2004), Value Relevance of Accounting Numbers in Predicting Financial Health Evidence from Distressed Firms in Malaysia, Seminar CSSR, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Wan Adibah Wan Ismail and Muhd Kamil Ibrahim (2003a), Market Perception of Income Smoothing Practices: Malaysian Evidence, International Conference of the Asian Academy of Applied Business, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia
  • L. Todd Johnson, February 28, 2005, Relevance and Reliability, Article from the FASB Report. David E. Hardesty, September 2005, Fair Value Era, California CPA Winter 2005, Fair Value Accounting, Federal Reserve Bulletin
  • Lyn Brewer, October 2005, Enron's Lessons, Accountants Today Vol. 18 No. 9, 13-17.
  • Rong-Ruey Duh a,., Wen-Chih Lee b,1, Ching-Chieh Lin a,2 management: The role of corporate governance a Department of Accounting, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 106, Taiwan,
  • Susan Campbell, March 2004, Fair Value Accounting and the FASB, Association of Investment Management and Research (AIMR), http://retailindustry.about.com
  • Tim Reason, Feb 2003, Questions of Value: Is Fair-Value Accounting the Best Way to Measure a Company? The Debate heats up - The Future of Accounting - Robert H. Herz, Chairman of Financial Accounting Standards Board, CFO: Magazine for Senior Financial Executives
  • Wallace, Marsha, Jan 2002, Performance Reporting under Fair Value Accounting, North American Actuarial Journal