If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

PurposeTo examine whether the provisions of SFAS No. 142 allow for the earnings management technique termed “big bath” and whether firm size plays a role in earnings management.Design/methodology/approachA random selection of companies with December 31, 2002 fiscal year‐ends yielded 120 firms that reported goodwill impairments in 2002 and 82 firms that did not. The firms are then stratified into two groups. Analysis consists of measuring the magnitude of the 2002 goodwill impairment loss, comparing financial metrics of impaired and non‐impaired firms, and calculating the proportion of firms with negative versus positive earnings.FindingsThe results suggest that SFAS No. 142 adoption allowed companies to engage in earnings management. Findings indicate that small firms experienced a significantly greater negative impact and were much more likely than large firms to take big bath charges.Originality/valueThis study provides evidence on the use of newly issued accounting standards to manage earnings.

No abstract

Purpose -This paper seeks to examine whether companies are providing transparent financial disclosures in compiling with the provisions of SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets", and to determine whether the adequacy of these disclosures is impacted by firm size. Design/methodology/approach -The authors conducted a random sample of companies that reported goodwill impairments for the first year of adoption of SFAS No. 142. The firms were then stratified into three groups according to asset size. Subsequent analysis consisted of assessing the financial transparency of companies' goodwill reporting practices in total and by firm size, utilizing an approach suggested in Adams. Findings -The study's findings suggest that many companies are not willing to provide additional voluntary disclosures to improve financial transparency, despite having the necessary information easily accessible. It also found that compliance with the provisions of SFAS 142 was sporadic and unpredictable.Originality/value -This study provides evidence that companies are not providing transparent financial information.

Statement of Financial Standards No. 133 (SFAS No. 133), “Accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities” became effective for all publicly held companies for fiscal periods starting after 15 December 2000. Consequently, 31 December 2001 was the first reporting date for most companies under its provisions. This study examines the annual reports of the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average to determine the extent to which these companies complied with the provisions of SFAS No. 133. A surprising finding was that a large number of the sample companies reported that the effect of their hedging activities was immaterial. The study also found that the information disclosed about the derivatives held by the sample of companies was scattered throughout their annual reports, hard to understand, difficult to follow and lacked uniformity. It was concluded that it would take a great deal of effort for even a reasonably informed reader of the financial statements to gather and analyze the information relating to a company's use of derivatives, and as a result the desired level of financial transparency on the use of derivative financial instruments is not being achieved. It is recommended that a more uniform reporting format be developed and used.