Intangible assets and value relevance: Evidence from the Portuguese stock exchange

We assess the value relevance of the amounts for identifiable intangible assets and goodwill reported in the financial statements of all non-finance companies listed on the main market of the Portuguese Stock Exchange from 1998 to 2008. Additionally, we use panel data to explore the impact on value relevance of Portugal’s formal adoption of International Accounting Standards [IAS] and International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS] in 2005. A distinctive feature of the accounting by our sample companies is that when they adopted IAS 38 and IFRS 3 in 2005, they were no longer required to recognise some intangible assets (such as start-up costs and research expenditures) and were no longer required to amortise goodwill.We find that net earnings, reported goodwill and other intangible assets are highly significantly associated with stock price. However, whereas earnings are related positively to stock prices when Portuguese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were applied prior to 2005, the value relevance of earnings appears to have declined after the adoption of IAS/IFRS in 2005. Although the change to IAS/IFRS had no impact on the value relevance of identifiable intangibles as a whole, the evidence suggests that there was a positive effect on the value relevance of goodwill. When the subclasses of identifiable intangible assets are considered, we found evidence of an increase in value relevance of goodwill, other intangible assets, and research and development expenditures.     

Intangible Assets: Diversity of Practices and Potential Impacts from AIFRS Adoption

The adoption of Australian equivalents of International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS) radically alters Australian accounting practices for intangible assets. Under AIFRS, goodwill amortisation expense is replaced by goodwill impairment loss based on frequent tests of the value of goodwill, and Australian firms are no longer permitted to recognise certain internally generated intangibles. This paper provides statistics regarding intangible asset reporting by 476 firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2002. We find significant diversity in reporting practices relating to both goodwill and identifiable intangible assets. Accordingly, the new accounting rules will potentially reshape ASX-listed firms' financial statements by significant amounts.     

Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards: Impact on the Value Relevance of Intangible Assets

We examine whether the value relevance of reported intangibles differs between financial reporting regimes pre- and post-adoption of Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS) and Australian Accounting Standards (AGAAP) respectively. Using AIFRS and AGAAP measures of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets for the same financial year and testing their association with share prices, we find evidence that AIFRS generally convey incremental useful information for investors about goodwill. For aggregated identifiable intangible assets there is no evidence that AIFRS conveys information beyond that in AGAAP. In contrast, we find evidence that AGAAP provides incremental information for investors in relation to identifiable intangibles, but not goodwill .     

The Recognition of Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets in Business Combinations – The Portuguese Case

In this study, we investigate the magnitude of goodwill recognised in business combinations during the years 2005 to 2009 by the Portuguese companies listed on Euronext Lisbon, and characterise the amount of the other intangible assets recognised separately from goodwill. We also analyse the level of compliance of those companies with the main disclosure requirements of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 3 – Business Combinations. Our study, which involves the analysis of 197 business combinations, reveals that the amounts of goodwill continue to be highly material, while conversely, the value of identifiable intangible assets in those acquisitions is very low. The results suggest that Portuguese companies do not undertake sufficient efforts to individually identify and disclose intangibles acquired in business combinations. This fact is reinforced by the reduced level of compliance with the disclosures required by IFRS 3, particularly the factors that contribute to the recognition of goodwill. Our findings provide feedback to standard setters in an effort to improve practice in the application of IFRS 3. Moreover, they reinforce their recent concerns regarding the post‐implementation review of business combinations, as well as the ongoing project of the IASB, whose objective is to improve disclosures in existing standards.     

The value relevance and reliability of reported goodwill and identifiable intangible assets

We examine the value relevance and reliability of reported goodwill and identifiable intangible assets under Australian GAAP from 1994 to 2003; a period characterised by relatively restrictive accounting treatment for goodwill and relatively flexible accounting treatment for identifiable intangible assets. Our findings, using an adaptation of Feltham and Ohlson (1995), suggest that for the average Australian company the information presented with respect to both goodwill and identifiable intangible assets is value relevant but not reliable. In particular, goodwill tends to be reported conservatively while identifiable intangible assets are reported aggressively.     

Accounting for Identifiable Intangibles — An Unfinished Standard-Setting Task

Years of debate have failed to produce an Australian consensus on accounting for identifiable intangible assets. The AASB in 1999 re-affirmed its view that assets such as brand names, mastheads, licences and trademarks have depreciable amounts that are required to be depreciated. Meanwhile, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has increased the pressure on companies to amortise such assets. Following a submission from the Group of 100 and others in May 2000, the AASB resolved to place the topic back on its work program. Current proposals by the FASB to accept non-amortisation of goodwill and other intangibles with indefinite lives has "turned up the heat" for further AASB action.     

The Relevance to Firm Valuation of Capitalising Intangible Assets in Total and by Category

Debate about the appropriate treatment of intangible assets can benefit from knowledge about the relevance of their financial statement capitalisation to valuation of firms. With rules permitting or requiring intangible asset capitalisation, Australia provides an ideal setting to obtain this evidence. This paper reports findings that indicate that capitalisation of intangibles is value-relevant for Australia's largest firms. Results indicate that investors place greater value on capitalised goodwill than on other categories of capitalised balance sheet items. Similarly, capitalisation of identifiable intangible assets adds value to large firms. However, research and development capitalisation does not affect the value of firms in our study.     

The accounting treatment of intangibles – A critical review of the literature

Intangible investments have become the main value creators for many companies and economic sectors. However, these investments are rarely recognized as assets by current accounting standards. We provide a critical review of the literature on the consequences of this lack of accounting recognition of intangibles for the value-relevance of financial information, resource allocation in the capital market, growth of intangible investments, and the firm's market value. We then review recent empirical research on voluntary disclosure of information on intangibles. Our survey concludes that disclosure can considered as a solution to the negative consequences of non-recognition of intangibles in financial statements.     

Towards Some Principles for Intangible Asset Accounting

This paper examines the conceptual issues of intangible asset accounting in the context of recent controversies over the treatment of brand names and goodwill in company accounts. Issues of definition and recognition and the rationale for balance sheet disclosure are considered for goodwill and other intangibles. The implications of capitalising intangibles under accounting models based on present value, net realisable value, current cost and historical cost are examined, and certain principles are proposed. The problem of testing the validity of asset valuation is explored, and a test is developed on the basis of the ‘recoverable amount’ rule of historical cost. This test is demonstrated for two major UK companies.     

Intangible assets,IFRS and analysts’ earnings forecasts

We investigate whether the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2005 by Australian firms has been associated with a loss of potentially useful information about intangible assets. We find that the negative association between the accuracy and dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts and aggregate reported intangibles previously documented by Matolcsy and Wyatt (2006 ) becomes stronger subsequent to IFRS adoption, primarily for firms with high levels of underlying intangible assets. Our result is largely attributable to reported goodwill, rather than other intangible assets, suggesting that the impairment approach to goodwill valuation required by IFRS conveys more useful information than does the former straight‐line amortization approach. When we investigate a sub‐sample of firms that report lower intangibles under IFRS than under the prior Australian GAAP, we do find some evidence consistent with a loss of useful information relating to intangibles.     

Value relevance of customer-related intangible assets

This study examines the stock market's valuation of customer-related intangible assets for a sample of publicly-traded U.S. firms. Customer-related intangible assets are found to be positively associated with equity prices, but valued at a discount relative to goodwill. These results suggest that value-relevant information is lost if customer-related intangible assets are subsumed into goodwill rather than being reported separately. This evidence can be useful to standard setters potentially considering extending to public companies a recent FASB Accounting Standards Update allowing private companies not to recognize separately from goodwill certain customer-related intangible assets.     

How to improve IFRS for intangible assets? A milestone approach

This study focuses on the decreasing relevance of financial information associated with current financial reporting standards for intangible assets. We summarize and compare three approaches to improving financial reporting standards for internally generated intangibles—the recognition approach, the fair value approach and the disclosure approach, among which we focus on the recognition approach. We investigate the impact of current International Accounting Standard 38 on the R&D capitalization policies of the high-tech industry, particularly among medical device firms in China. We conclude that the current recognition criteria are so stringent that they disincentivize firms from capitalizing their R&D investments. A large variation exists in capitalization timing within the medical device industry. Accordingly, we propose the milestone approach to revising financial reporting standards for intangible assets. We suggest that determining the capitalization criteria for intangibles based on the R&D cycle and capitalization timing should be moved forward.     

Recognized intangibles and the present value of growth options

We investigate the relation of recognized intangibles, defined as acquired intangibles net of goodwill, and the market’s perception of firm growth options (PVGO). We find that: (a) on average recognized intangibles are positively associated with PVGO after controlling for intangible expenditures immediately expensed, firm specific characteristics, industry membership and systematic risk (b) the said relation is highly non-linear (negatively skewed) and more strongly pronounced in companies with lower accumulation of R&D Capital; recognized intangibles are not that significant at higher levels of PVGO and whereas firms have committed to in-house technological development, and (c) while adjusted levels of recognized intangibles increase approximately tenfold over the last 35 years their explanatory power to PVGO over the period generally wanes. Our results are informative for the interpretation of recognized intangibles as a summary balance sheet item and therefore useful to users of financial statements forming investment and credit decisions, to policy makers aiming at stimulating firm growth and to standard setters aiming at improving value relevance.     

Accounting for Intangible Investments

The traditional categorisation of expenditures evident in many firms' charts of accounts and financial statements does not identify and measure expenditures on intangible investment separately from tangible investment and operating expenditures. This contrasts with the accounting for tangible investment, which separately accounts for all expenditures as assets unless the future benefits are consumed in a single accounting period. Further, in searching for better ways to account for intangibles, regulators and researchers have focused on the accounting choice problem relating to the existence and recognisability of intangible assets. In this paper, we argue that identifying and separately reporting the expenditures on intangible investment is the logical first step in accounting for intangible investments. Learning about the firm's categories of value driving (and sometimes potentially value destroying) expenditures has important implications for understanding aspects of the value chain, performance measurement, valuation, corporate governance and the external audit.     

Capitalisation of Intangibles — A Review of Current Practice and the Regulatory Framework

This paper reports on capitalisation practices of Australian managers for a large sample of firms in the 1993–97 period, and on accounting regulatory issues in relation to intangibles during and after this period. The data show diversity in capitalisation practices in 1993–97, which we suggest is a consequence of abstract conceptual bases for capitalisation decisions under the Australian regulatory framework. The analysis indicates the framework retains traditional emphasis on conservatism and reliable measurement while providing managers with substantial accounting discretion to capitalise intangible assets. We conclude there is an imperative for research investigating capitalisation decisions for intangibles to guide any further regulation.     

THE APPLICATION OF INTANGIBLE ASSET ACCOUNTING AND DISCRETIONARY POLICY CHOICES IN THE UK FOOTBALL INDUSTRY

This paper investigates the use of intangible asset accounting and the selection of accounting policies in the football industry, an environment where discretionary choices were available concerning accounting for transfer fees. Additionally, companies in this dynamic and socially influential industry are unique in recognising investments in human resources on the balance sheet. Proxies representing the level of tax costs, equity depletion, underwriter pressure and auditors used are found to have significant associations with policy selection. This contributes to the debate over the role of discretionary choices, particularly regarding the accounting treatment available for intangible assets, in financial reporting.     

The impact of intangibles on firms’ financial and market performance: UK evidence

This study provides empirical evidence about the effect of intangible assets on firms’ current and future financial and market performance by utilizing a sample the UK FTSE 150 nonfinancial companies. Generally, the findings of this examination reported a strong evidence on the role of intangibles in boosting firms’ performance. In particular, the results indicate that while goodwill (GW) does have a statistically positive effect on firms’ current and future performance, research and development (R&D) is only associated with firms’ future performance. The results of the current research is consistent with the market-based and resources-based theories which posits that intangible investments are the main driving factors of wealth creation in the long-run; Specifically, R&D operations can create new technologies and products that would enhance firms’ performance and value. In addition, the results reveal that both GW and R&D can explain variations in firms’ financial performance measures suggesting that such investments can enhance firms’ earning leading to capitalization such earnings in the market value. Finally, the results of this research provide practical implication for policy makers and managers.     

Sharpening the intangibles edge

Intangible assets--patents and know-how, brands, a skilled workforce, strong customer relationships, software, unique processes and organizational designs, and the like--generate most of a company's growth and shareholder value. Yet extensive research indicates that investors systematically misprice the shares of intangibles-intensive enterprises. Clearly, overpricing wastes capital. But underpricing raises the cost of capital, hamstringing executives in their efforts to take advantage of further growth opportunities. How do you break this vicious cycle? By generating better information about your investments in intangibles, and by disclosing at least some of that data to the capital markets. Getting at that information is easier said than done, however. There are no markets generating visible prices for intellectual capital, brands, or human capital to assist investors in correctly valuing intangibles-intensive companies. And current accounting practices lump funds spent on intangibles with general expenses, so that investors and executives don't even know how much is being invested in them, let alone what a return on those investments might be. At the very least, companies should break out the amounts spent on intangibles and disclose them to the markets. More fundamentally, executives should start thinking of intangibles not as costs but as assets, so that they are recognized as investments whose returns are identified and monitored. The proposals laid down in this article are only a beginning, the author stresses. Corporations and accounting bodies should make systematic efforts to develop information that can reliably reflect the unique attributes of intangible assets. The current serious misallocations of resources should be incentive enough for businesses to join--and even lead--such developments.     

The association of identifiable intangible assets acquired and recognised in business acquisitions with postacquisition firm performance

This paper extends the literature evaluating accounting practices for identifiable intangible assets and considers whether the application of these accounting practices changed on transition to IFRS. It finds no evidence of identifiable intangible assets acquired and recognised in business acquisitions being associated with postacquisition firm performance or changes in postacquisition firm performance, either before or after transition to IFRS. This is inconsistent with the requirements of regulations such as IFRS 3 Business Combinations and IAS 38 Intangible Assets, and there is no empirical evidence supporting the present regulatory distinction between acquired and internally generated and revalued identifiable intangible assets.     

Identifiable intangible asset disclosures, stock prices and future earnings

As a consequence of regulatory reforms currently being initiated as part of international convergence, it is likely that the recognition and disclosure of identifiable intangible assets by Australian firms will cease. This study provides empirical evidence on how this will impact financial reports. First, evidence is provided of a positive association between stock prices and voluntarily recognized and disclosed identifiable intangible assets. Second, evidence is provided of a positive association between identifiable intangible assets and realized future period income. This provides insights into the nature of the information provided by intangible assets, and identifies a basis for the association between stock prices and identifiable intangible assets. This leads to the conclusion that identifiable intangible assets disclosures are value relevant, and that with the application of the restrictive recognition rules in AASB138 these disclosures in financial reports will be greatly diminished.