US gaap. Equity method: goodwill = purchase price - fair value - premium allocated to identifable assets Consolidation: goodwill = purchase price - fair value IFRS: Consolidation: a) full goodwill: same as US gaap consolidaiton b) partial goodwill: purchase price (only for % acquired) - fair value (% of investment)
Full Goodwill: 100% Fair Value - 100% of Fair Value of Identifiable Net Assets
Partial Goodwill: Purchase Price (Proportionate Share of Fair Value) - Proportionate Share of Identifiable Net Assets at Fair Value
In equity method, the goodwill is included in the one line investment account. Its the portion of the purchase price in excess of book value and fair value of identifiable assets and liabilities.
In acquisition menthod, the goodwill is also the excess over fair value of identifiable assets and liabilities but reported as a separate line item due to the full line-by-line consolidation of each account. If less than 100% is held, the balance is minority interest in equity section.
Q44 2011 AM Mock has a problem with Goodwill for the an Investment in Associates. It takes the Excess paid over Book Value less the amount attributable to tangible assets (which is the the % owned * (fair value - BV of tangible assets). That gets your your goodwill. When calculating the value of your investment going forward, you then amortize that amount attributable to tangible assets.
The very definition of goodwill is having a purchase price in excess of fair value of identifiable assets. I do not think it is EVER book value unless book and fair are the same. If you pay more than the fair value of assets, you are paying for intangibles and those intangibles translate to goodwill.
When you purchase a stake in a company, for say, $100, the fair value of net identifiable assets is 90 and the book value is 50 :
Goodwill is 10 under the equity method, which is technically partial goodwill since you are only reporting your share of the assets. Partial vs full goodwill refers to consolidation.
The difference between 90 and 50 (fair minus book) is allocated to the identifiable assets - you are basically writing up the assets from their old book values - remember assets go on the balance sheet at historical cost and the fair value at the time of acquisition is the ACQUIRER’s historical cost.
Havent read everything you said. But if I understand you correctly, you were making the point that the excess of the purchase price over book value has two components 1) An allocation to the Fair Value of Net Identifiable Assets and 2) Goodwill (remainder that can’t be allocated) - then I 100% agree with you. Thats whats done in the text book.
Just to be sure. Is it correct to say Under the equity method, we would only allocate the excess to our proportionate share of the fair value differences (such as PPE), and we adjust the income by amortizing this excess. In the acquisition method we would have to use either full or partial goodwill method to determine the amount recognized as goodwill.
I think it’s easy to forget that for any year following the acquisition, you must amortize the excess purchase price over original book value (but not over fair value, that is goodwill). You will often see in those questions “at the date of acquisition, the remaining useful life is xx years”… that should be a hint that you need to amortize the excess for any full year.
I honestly think that is wrong for the equity method part… IT IS NOT BOOK VALUE!!
Goodwill is goodwill, regardless of which way you report it. Goodwill is purchase price in excess of fair value of net identifiable assets. No questions.
Nvestn, you are correct. Goodwill under the equity method is: Purchase Price - the Purchaser’s share of Fair Value of Net Identifiable Assets. Another crucial step is that the difference between Fair Value and Book Value is assigned to items whose fair value exceeds book value. If that item is PP&E for example or any other asset subject to depreciation, you must depreciate that excess value over its useful life. This depreciation will reduce your reported income relating to that investment in subsequent years. Make sense?