Over-investment in corporate R&D,risk, and stock returns

Large-size firms which significantly increase their R&D expenditures experience subsequently three-year-long negative abnormal stock returns on the magnitude of 56 basis-points per month. We find no robust evidence of significant event-induced abnormal returns for small-size sample firms or any systematic risk changes for the small- and large- size firms. We also find that the large-size sample firms generate relatively much larger cash flows (i.e., have significantly greater over-investment discretion) and have significantly larger (over-) valuation multiples than the small-size firms. Moreover, some of their operating performance measures show signs of deterioration instead of improvement following these R&D programs. These findings are consistent with the view that investors initially underestimate the over-investment in R&D by some large-size firms that appear to be overvalued and have high cash flows at the time of the investment, only to be disappointed later.     

Abnormal research and development investments and stock returns

We investigate the relation between abnormal research and development (R&D) investments change and expected stock returns. We provide evidence that firms that abnormally increase their R&D investments (RDI) earn higher returns in comparison to the market portfolio. Specifically, our findings document an economically significant annual positive abnormal RDI returns that ranges from 3.2% to 11.5%. These findings are robust to well-established risk factors in the literature and suggest that the abnormal increases in RDI impacts stock returns.     

The Welfare Effects of the National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) of 1984 and the National Cooperative Production Amendments (NCPA) of 1993

A bstract .   Cooperative R&D and production joint ventures may enable firms to achieve significant cost efficiencies. However, they can also be a means of controlling industry output and raising product prices. A review of the literature on the welfare implications of allowing rival firms to cooperate in the R&D and production stages indicates that the issue is controversial from a theoretical perspective. There is need to examine the motivations of R&D and production joint ventures in order to assess the welfare implications of the National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) of 1984 and National Cooperative Production Amendments (NCPA) of 1993, which relaxed the antitrust treatment of R&D and production joint ventures. Using samples of 127 cooperative R&D joint ventures and 342 cooperative production joint ventures announced by U.S. domestic firms during 1979–1999, this article finds that these endeavors do not meet the criteria for collusive behavior specified by the market power doctrine. We interpret these findings as suggesting that cooperative R&D and production joint ventures are motivated by cost efficiencies and are, therefore, welfare enhancing. Our results pose some challenges to the doctrine that antitrust actions by regulatory authorities are always welfare improving.     

Size and value effects in high-tech industries: The role of R&D investment

We use monthly US stock data over 55 years from 1962 to 2017 to show that the R&D intensity at firms adds another important dimension to the size and value effects in describing stock returns, especially for small high-tech firms. A trading strategy that double sorts on R&D intensity and size or book-to-market ratio outperforms a simple small-minus-big (SMB) or high-minus-low (HML) strategy in producing higher and more significant portfolio returns. The most profitable schemes involve triple sorts by size, BM, and R&D intensity: the payoffs of buying high-BM/R&D-Active portfolio and selling low-BM/R&D-Inactive portfolio in the small-size/high-tech group and that of buying high-tech/high-BM and selling low-tech/low-BM in the small-size/R&D-active group generate a return of more than 2% on a monthly basis. Our results are robust to alternative classification method of assigning stocks in portfolios.     

A micro-econometric analysis of the role of R&D spillovers using a nonlinear translog specification

This paper assesses the impact of Research and Development (R&D) spillovers on production for a panel of 1,203 Italian manufacturing firms over the period 1998–2003.The estimations are based on a nonlinear translog production function augmented by a measure of R&D spillovers which combines the geographical distance between firms, the technological similarity within each pair of firms and the technical efficiency of each firm. The estimation method takes into account the endogeneity of regressors and the potential sample selection issue regarding the decision by firms to invest in R&D. Results show that the translog production function is more suitable than the Cobb-Douglas for modelling firm behaviour and that returns to scale are increasing. Moreover, the internal and external stocks of technology exert a significant impact on firms’ production. Finally, it emerges that, for Italian manufacturing firms, R&D capital and R&D spillovers are highly substitutes.     

External corporate venturing modes as new way to develop dynamic capabilities

Today, firms encounter scarce resources and rapid technology change which render formerly successful business models obsolete. Research shows that some firms perform better than others in continuously discovering, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities in volatile environments and that this is dependent on firm’s dynamic capabilities. Besides obtaining dynamic capabilities through internal R&D activities, firms have open up their innovation process to pursue dynamic capabilities outside their organizational boundaries through external corporate venturing by accessing startup's technological capabilities necessary to innovate. External corporate venturing is a means to develop new distinctive capabilities and businesses by exploring and exploiting business opportunities outside a firm’s existing boundaries. Drawing on the dynamic capability literature, we use a multiple case study approach to examine the contribution of external corporate venturing to firms’ dynamic capabilities. Our results reveal that firms indeed use corporate venturing to identify and exploit startup’s technological knowledge and competencies to increase firm’s dynamic capabilities. But our empirical data also shows that not every firm is fully profiting from all dynamic capability phases as their corporate venturing modes are not linked with each other and cumulative effects are not realized.     

Industry evolution and R&D externalities

R&D externalities can imply ranges of aggregate increasing returns to scale in R&D. As a consequence several equilibria can exist involving different numbers of firms and different R&D investment levels. In a theoretical model the equilibrium dynamics are analyzed, showing that cyclical fluctuations of the number of firms and R&D investment may be expected, and that the long-run equilibrium is highly sensitive to investors' initial beliefs. The model is tested empirically using a unique database comprising competing firms in various R&D races.     

The negative impact of R&D capitalization: A value relevance approach

Abstract

Accounting for R&D costs is an open issue. SFAS N°2 mandates that all R&D costs must be immediately expensed. IAS 38 requires capitalization of R&D costs if they meet certain criteria. Recent research papers show the value relevance of capitalized R&D. We test the value relevance of R&D reporting in a sample of 197 French firms between 1993 and 2002. The French context provides an interesting field for R&D value relevance studies because both accounting treatments of R&D costs (expensing and capitalization) are allowed. Unlike previous studies, we find that capitalized R&D is negatively associated with stock prices and returns. This negative coefficient on capitalized R&D implies that investors are concerned with and react negatively to capitalization of R&D. We also find that the firms choosing to capitalize (successful) R&D are smaller, more highly leveraged, less profitable and have less growth opportunities. Taking into account these characteristics, our robustness checks confirm that capitalized R&D is not associated with higher prices and is related to lower returns.     

Do investments in intangible customer assets affect firm value?

This paper develops a simple model of investment by service firms in intangible customer assets, and tests whether the model identifies some critical drivers of firms’ stock returns. Similar to firms with significant research and development (R&D) expenditures, we argue that firms in fast-growing service industries with few tangible assets can increase firm value by investing in customer acquisition and service (A&S) expenditure. Using a unique hand-collected data set, we show that per-customer changes in firms’ revenues, customer acquisition costs, and customer service costs help to explain their abnormal stock returns.     

Home market effects with endogenous costs of production

In a standard imperfect competition model, we endogenize the costs of production of firms in the increasing returns sector (IRS) via process R&D. We show that firms in the larger region in terms of demand invest more in R&D (i.e.: they are bigger in size and have lower marginal costs) than firms in the smaller region, since the former exploit larger economies of scale in production to pay for the costs of R&D. As a result, when the return on R&D is high, the larger region does not employ disproportionately more labor nor attracts a disproportionately larger share of firms in the IRS in relation to share of demand it hosts, i.e.: negative home market effects (HMEs) in employment and in the number of firms. When this occurs, only partial agglomeration of the IRS in the larger region is sustainable in equilibrium. Even so, the larger region always runs trade surplus in the IRS, i.e.: HME in trade patterns.     

Intangible investment in people and productivity

Organizational activity, information and communication technology work, and research and development (R&D) can be classified as work that creates intangible capital. We measure the returns to these three types of labor input by accounting for differences in their productivity compared with other labor inputs using Finnish firm-level data from 1998 to 2008. We apply a novel idea to use hiring as one proxy for productivity and demand shocks. We find that organizational workers increase total factor productivity and improve the profitability of high-productivity firms. R&D workers account for a large share of intangible capital; however, the returns to R&D are low. Investments in organizational competence are more likely to result in more rapid productivity growth. Firms with performance-related pay or domestically owned firms with extensive foreign activities have been among the highest performers with respect to the use of organizational work.     

The differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D: Theory and evidence from multi-country data

This paper aims to evaluate the effects of various forms of public research and development (R&D) support on firms’ incentives to invest in R&D. First, in order to identify potential channels through which public R&D support influences firm R&D, a formal model of firm R&D with public R&D support is developed and analyzed. Four potential channels are identified: the technological-competence-enhancing effect, the demand-creating effect, the R&D-cost-reducing effect and the (project) overlap (or duplication) effect. These multiple channels indicate that it is difficult to evaluate the aggregate effect of public R&D support and that there are differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D, depending on various firm- or industry-specific characteristics. Second, the differential effects of public R&D support are empirically tested using unique firm-level data for nine industries across six countries. Public support tends to have a complementarity effect on private R&D for firms with low technological competence, for firms in industries with high technological opportunities and for firms facing intense market competition. In contrast, firms with high technological competence and firms that have enjoyed fast demand growth in recent years show a crowding-out effect, and firm size and age do not show any discernible differential effect.     

Capitalization of R&D and the Informativeness of Stock Prices

Abstract

This paper presents both a new approach to studying the consequences of accounting choice and a unique sample to examine the effects of accounting choice in the R&D context. We investigate the effect of firms' decision to capitalize R&D expenditures on the amount of information about future earnings reflected in current stock returns, as captured by the association between current-year returns and future earnings (FERC). We use a sample of UK firms, which includes both R&D capitalizers and expensers. An important feature of our tests is our use of a two-equation system to control for the endogeneity of the accounting choice (i.e. self-selection). Proponents of capitalization claim that it enables management to better communicate information about the success of projects and their probable future benefits. Consistent with this, we find that capitalization is associated with higher FERC than expensing.     

Fostering product innovation: Differences between new ventures and established firms

This study combines insights from the entrepreneurship, competency-based view and innovation policy literature to analyze the relationships among different types of public incentives designed to foster innovation and product innovation at both new ventures and incumbent firms. To test our hypotheses, we ran a system of regression models on a cross-national sample comprised of 5238 firms from 29 European countries and found a different pattern for new ventures and incumbents. Our results suggest that support for attendance or participation in trade fairs and networking with other companies are the most effective methods of promoting product innovation for new ventures. However, for incumbent firms, we found that the most effective policies consisted of tax reduction for R&D expenditures and subsidies for acquiring buildings or other infrastructure(s) for innovation activities. This distinction prompts interesting insights related to theory development in research on entrepreneurship and innovation policy.     

Research collaboration and R&D outsourcing: Different R&D personnel requirements in SMEs

The literature on ‘open’ innovation emphasises the need to engage in external knowledge relations in order to innovate. Particularly for SMEs, research cooperation and R&D outsourcing can offer possibilities to complement the often limited internal research resources. However, they also bring in their wake requirements in terms of absorptive capacity and managerial skills of the internal R&D personnel.The paper focuses on the different requirements in terms of availability and training of research managers and R&D experts for research cooperation versus R&D outsourcing in SMEs. An empirical analysis of micro-level data provided by the OECD business R&D survey for Belgium reveals that the relation between R&D personnel requirements and research collaboration and R&D outsourcing depends upon the SME size. Therefore, to study this subject appropriately a distinction between very small, small, and medium-sized firms is relevant. Very small firms engage significantly less in research cooperation than medium-sized firms and the propensity to engage in research cooperation is positively associated with the share of PhD holders among the research managers and R&D experts. For R&D outsourcing a lower involvement is noted in medium-sized firms, and the propensity to outsource increases with the formal qualification level of the R&D personnel and with R&D training. Among the SME, small firms are most engaged in research cooperation and in R&D outsourcing. In the case of research cooperation they rely on highly qualified experts. For R&D outsourcing activities both the presence of research managers and R&D experts is important.     

Knowledge combination in networks: evidence from the international venturing of four small biotech firms

Although international forms of venturing are critical for the sustained economic growth of small firms, this phenomenon remains surprisingly unexplored in international small business research. This study aims to contribute to this field by shedding light on the underlying factors of the international venturing of these firms. In this endeavor, the study rests on the assumption that knowledge combination in networks is a critical requisite for seizing business opportunities in foreign markets. Hence, the specific purpose of this study is to investigate how knowledge combination in networks underlies the international venturing of four small biotech firms. The findings demonstrate that international venturings are strongly shaped by proactive strategies of identifying and implementing knowledge combinations that span across internationally dispersed network relationships. The findings also reveal that different strategies of knowledge combination in networks are pursued depending on the nature of the venture (namely, international product ventures and international market ventures).     

An analysis of firm-level innovation strategies in the US biotechnology industry

This study examines factors that may affect innovation strategies and performance of firms in the biotechnology industry. Specifically, differences between factors common to firms with high R&D intensity and those to firms with low R&D intensity are investigated. Biotechnology firms with relatively higher levels of R&D intensity attribute their innovation performance to research-based innovation factors and strategies such as strengthening their own research capabilities, entering into research collaborations with universities, industry leaders and other biotech firms, and licensing their technology. These strategies can be summarized as alignment within the industry. Firms with relatively lower R&D intensity have a hybrid focus—they invest in R&D but may also have products on the market. These firms attribute their innovation performance more so to production-based innovation factors and strategies such as gaining market access and maintaining connections with customers. Their strategy focuses on competitiveness, marketing, and distribution channels, while not ignoring the importance of a strong research base and the need to advance technologically. In a sense, strategies employed to achieve successful innovation reflect the stage of innovation in which a firm is operating for a particular product or process.     

Credit constraints and R&D over the boom and bust: Firm-level evidence from Central and Eastern Europe

This paper studies the effect of credit constraints on R&D over the recent boom and bust episode in Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs). Given that financial and venture capital markets in CEECs are thin in comparison to those in high-income economies, it is proposed that credit constraints have a significant adverse effect on R&D activity in these countries. The paper uses three waves of Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) data between 2005 and 2013 on manufacturing firms from ten CEECs. We find that credit constraints have a substantial effect on R&D engagement, as the probability of credit constrained firms undertaking R&D activities is around 30 % lower than for other firms. The adverse effect of credit constraints for R&D emerges during the years of fast economic growth.     

The Productivity Effects of Internal and External R&D: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model*

We examine the impact of internal and external R&D on labour productivity in a 6‐year panel of Dutch manufacturing firms. We apply a dynamic panel data model that allows for decreasing or increasing returns to scale in internal and external R&D and for economies of scope. We find complementarity between internal and external R&D, with a positive impact of external R&D only evident in case of sufficient internal R&D. These findings confirm the role of internal R&D in enhancing absorptive capacity. The scope economies are accompanied by decreasing returns to scale at high levels of internal and external R&D. The analysis indicates that productivity grows by increasing the share of external R&D in total R&D.