Capitalizing R&D expenses versus disclosing intangible information

We study how to improve the value-relevance of financial information for intangible-intensive firms by investigating two alternatives: capitalizing research and development (R&D) expenses and disclosing intangible information. Using patent counts/citations to proxy for intangible intensity, we find that the incremental value-relevance of disclosing patent counts/citations is greater than that of capitalizing R&D expenses for the high-patent group and vice versa for the low- or medium-patent group. Investors favor the disclosure of patent information for firms with more successful innovations. Since disclosing intangible information may lead to appropriation by rivals, we find that, for the high-patent group, the incremental value-relevance of disclosing patent counts/citations is more pronounced for firms in industries with stronger protection of intellectual property. Overall, our results suggest that disclosing R&D outputs can improve the value-relevance of financial statements for firms rich in intangibles and the incremental benefits of such disclosure will be greater in industries with strong protection of intellectual property.     

Changes in the value relevance of research and development expenses after IFRS adoption

We investigate whether the nature of differences between national GAAP and IFRS is associated with differential changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses after the adoption of IFRS across countries. Using a difference-in-differences study on a sample of public companies in nine countries that covers pre-IFRS and post-IFRS periods during 1997–2012, we find that the value relevance of R&D expenses declines after IFRS adoption in countries that previously mandated immediate expensing or allowed optional capitalization of R&D costs. On the contrary, there is no change in the value relevance of R&D expenses for countries that switched from the mandatory capitalization rule to IFRS. We also investigate the moderating effects of national institutions on the changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses after IFRS adoption. We find that in countries with stronger investor protection, the changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses are larger. In addition, changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses are smaller for countries whose national culture is characterized by higher uncertainty avoidance. Our findings highlight the importance of both accounting standards and national institutions in explaining the changes in the value relevance of accounting information after IFRS adoption.     

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.     

Stock market valuation of R&D spending of firms acquiring targets from technologically abundant countries

In this paper, we aim to extend the internalization theory by Buckley and Casson [Buckley, P.J., Casson, M., 1976. The Future of Multinational Enterprise. Holmes & Meier, New York] and Caves [Caves, R.E., 1971. International corporations: the industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica 38, 1–27] in two respects. First, we hypothesize that synergies arising from a technology-oriented cross-border M&A increase the stock market value of an acquirer’s R&D spending. Second, we hypothesize that an acquirer’s access to a country with more favorable R&D environment through the target firm is the main source of synergy arising from intangibles in these M&As. Our empirical results of analyzing data from 10 most R&D active countries in Europe are consistent with these hypotheses and support our extension of the internalization theory. Specifically, we find that multinationality of a firm with intangible assets as such does not add value to R&D, but the combination of its own R&D with that of a firm located in a country with highly favorable R&D environment.     

What Explains the Valuation Difference between Intangible‐intensive Profit and Loss Firms?

Prior research suggests that loss firms are valued based on their abandonment/adaptation option values, while profit firms are valued as going concerns. However, conservative accounting treatment of expensing of R&D leads many R&D‐intensive firms to report losses even though they are not in financial distress. In this paper we investigate the difference in valuation of profit and loss firms that invest in intangibles, either through internal development (R&D) or purchases. The accounting treatment for internally developed intangibles is conservative in that US GAAP requires immediate expensing. Yet, it allows recognition of purchased intangibles. We find that in valuation of firms with high recognized‐intangible assets, book value has more prominence in loss firms than profit firms, while that is not the case for firms with high R&D expenditures. This suggests that their abandonment/adaptation option explains the difference in valuation between profit and loss firms with high recognized‐intangibles, while conservative accounting explains the valuation difference between profit and loss firms with high R&D intensity. This result suggests that recognition of intangibles in financial statements might mitigate the conservative bias in accounting numbers.     

Auditor specialization in R&D and clients’ R&D investment-q sensitivity

While research and development (R&D) activities contribute to economic growth via technological innovations, they impose significant uncertainty and agency costs. In this study, we examine the governance role of R&D specialist auditors in affecting clients’ R&D investment decisions. Using a sample of U.S. firms during 2001–2016, we find that R&D specialist auditors’ clients make more efficient investments in the form of a higher R&D investment-q sensitivity. We also find that the reduction in discretionary adjustments of R&D expenses moderates the results. Further, when clients are audited by R&D specialists, their R&D investments are more closely linked to innovative output in subsequent years. Collectively, our results suggest that an auditor’s specialized knowledge induces clients to make better economic decisions.     

Intangible investment and the importance of firm-specific factors in the determination of earnings

We examine the effect of intangible investment on earnings noncommonality, defined as the extent to which a firm’s earnings performance is determined by firm-specific factors versus market and industry factors. Such insight is important in determining the appropriate weighting of these factors when forecasting a firm’s earnings. For a sample of US firms over the 1980–2006 period, we find that earnings noncommonality is positively associated with intangible asset intensity. This finding is consistent with the resource-based view of the firm, which posits that intangible investments allow firms to differentiate themselves economically from their rivals. We also find that separable recognized intangibles contribute more to earnings noncommonality than do either goodwill or R&D, perhaps because separable recognized intangibles are more likely to arise from contractual or legal rights and thus are less susceptible to expropriation by rival firms. Finally, we find that the positive impact of R&D on earnings noncommonality is significantly greater for those industries where patents and other legal mechanisms are most effective in protecting R&D. This result suggests that the success of intangible investment as a differentiation strategy depends largely on the effectiveness of mechanisms used to protect intangible investments from expropriation.     

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.     

The impact of costly regulation on R&D investment levels and productivity

Prior research finds that risk-taking has declined after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, consistent with the notion that SOX's corporate governance and internal control mandates diverted resources away from corporate risk-taking. We introduce to the accounting literature a new measure of R&D productivity, Research Quotient, to examine whether SOX affects R&D risk-taking and R&D productivity differently and whether the quality of the firm's governance and internal controls, pre-SOX, moderate these relations. While we find the relation between SOX and R&D risk-taking is sensitive to research design choices, we find a consistent positive relation between SOX and Research Quotient. Our evidence indicates that while firms may allocate fewer resources to R&D post-SOX, they concurrently manage their R&D investments more productively. Further, our results are robust to a difference-in-difference design and are stronger for firms with weaker governance pre-SOX.     

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.     

Accounting, Intangible Assets, Stock Market Activity, and Measurement and Disclosure Policy—Views From the U.K.

This paper considers the impact of U.K. practices with respect to the measurement and disclosure of intangible assets, focusing on R&D activities. We first update prior U.K. work relating R&D activities to market prices. Second, given the clearly identified role of disclosure outside of the financial statements in helping market participants value R&D expenditures, we consider whether market forces are generally sufficient to ensure adequate disclosures with respect to intangibles by considering the cases of two biotechnology firms involved in the issuance of misleading disclosures. Within this context, we consider how disclosure regulation and enforcement mechanisms have evolved in recent years, and how this evolution has likely been affected by our 'scandal' cases. Our conclusions are that the case of the U.K. does not give rise to any wide-scale concerns about the economic ill-effects caused by the current state of recognition and disclosure with respect to expenditures on intangibles. Further, market forces are unlikely to be sufficient in ensuring honest and timely disclosures with respect to intangibles, but the combination of official regulation and voluntary self-regulation appears to have stemmed the tide of any such disclosure scandals in the U.K.     

Cash holdings and R&D smoothing

The sharp increase in R&D investment in recent decades has important but unexplored implications for corporate liquidity management. Because R&D has high adjustment costs and is financed with volatile sources, it is very expensive for firms to adjust the flow of R&D in response to transitory finance shocks. The main contribution of this paper is to directly examine whether firms use cash reserves to smooth their R&D expenditures. We estimate dynamic R&D models and find that firms most likely to face financing frictions rely extensively on cash holdings to smooth R&D. In particular, our estimates suggest that young firms used cash holdings to dampen the volatility in R&D by approximately 75% during the 1998–2002 boom and bust in equity issues. Firms less likely to face financing frictions appear to smooth R&D without the use of costly cash holdings. Our findings provide new insights into the value of liquidity and the financing of intangible investment, and suggest that R&D smoothing with cash reserves is now important for understanding cash management for a substantial fraction of publicly traded firms.     

Accounting choice and future performance: The case of R&D accounting in France

We examine whether managers’ decisions to capitalize or expense R&D expenditures convey information about the future performance of the firm. Focusing on a French setting where managers can choose to capitalize R&D expenditures under certain circumstances, we find that, after controlling for industry effects, firms that capitalize R&D expenditures spend less on R&D, have more volatile R&D efforts, and are smaller and more leveraged than firms that expense R&D expenditures. We also find that capitalizers capitalize R&D outlays when they need to meet or beat thresholds. Finally, we show that the decision to capitalize R&D is generally associated with a negative or neutral impact on future performance, even after controlling for self-selection. Our results also show that when firms both capitalize and expense R&D expenditures, the expensed portion exhibits a stronger (and negative) relationship with future performance. Market-based tests corroborate these findings. While we cannot unambiguously establish whether our findings imply that management uses R&D capitalization to manage earnings or because it is unable to estimate the earning power of R&D projects, our results suggest that management is unable to truthfully convey information about future performance through its decision to capitalize R&D. Our findings, based on real data as opposed to simulated data, therefore contrast with previous supportive evidence in favor of capitalization in the literature.     

Analysts’ forecast revisions and firms’ research and development expenses

This study examines whether reported values for firms’ research and development (R&D) affect analysts’ annual earnings forecast revisions following quarterly earnings announcements. Because R&D introduces uncertainty into earnings forecasts, analysts may benefit from additional information searches in an effort to increase forecast accuracy. Also, accounting standards mandate an immediate expensing of R&D, in essence projecting a zero value for the R&D. To the extent that R&D will produce future payoffs, the expense treatment reduces the informativeness of reported earnings for forecasting future earnings. Thus, the marginal benefit of analysts’ efforts to produce more information may increase with the magnitude of the R&D component of earnings announcements and trigger additional forecast revisions. Alternatively, if the cost of information searches exceeds the benefit, analysts’ forecast revisions may decrease. Our results show a positive relation between R&D expenses and analysts’ forecast revision activity. We also find a positive and significant association between the level of R&D expenses and the magnitude of analysts’ forecast revisions following quarterly announcements. These results point to a greater amount of analyst scrutiny when reported earnings are accompanied by high levels of R&D expenses.

The relationship between R&D intensity,conservatism, and management earnings forecast issuance

R&D-intensive firms suffer from high information asymmetry and high proprietary costs and are prone to exhibit bottom-line losses given the unconditional conservative accounting treatment of R&D expenses. We examine how R&D intensity influences the issuance of management earnings forecasts (MEFs) across levels of accounting conservatism, controlling for proprietary costs and other earnings guidance determinants. We provide insights into how managers view the tradeoffs of using MEF disclosures to lower information asymmetry versus the costs of releasing proprietary information to competitors and the loss of reputational capital that could arise from providing inaccurate forecasts. We find that although R&D intensity and conditional conservatism are negatively related to the issuance of MEFs, as shown in prior research, at high levels of research intensity and the accompanying uncertainty about future payoffs, the negative association between conditional conservatism and MEF issuance is mitigated. These findings point to a role for conditional conservatism as a credibility enhancer for managers of R&D intense firms.     

Stock market reactions to R&D cuts used to manage earnings

Prior research shows that stock returns are positive when firms meet or beat analysts' consensus earnings forecasts but negative when they miss. Past studies also show that managers frequently cut research and development (R&D) expenses in order to meet the consensus forecast. This study shows that the stock market penalizes this behavior and exacts a discount to the market reward if beating the forecast requires cutting R&D. However, it is only a partial discount and firms are still better off managing R&D expenditures in the short run. This study also shows that the reductions in R&D are likely temporary, as firms tend to increase R&D spending in the subsequent periods. Investors appear to recognize these short-term cuts and treat them similarly to accruals.     

The value-relevance of R&D and advertising expenditures: Evidence from Korea

This study examines the value-relevance of R&D and advertising expenditures of Korean firms, using a regression model based on the Ohlson [Contemp. Account. Res. (1995) 661] equity-valuation framework. Results indicate that R&D expenditures are positively associated with stock price, suggesting that capitalizing R&D expenditures is appropriate. The association is stronger for the portion of R&D expenditures that is capitalized, rather than expensed, suggesting that investors agree with management that the capitalized expenditures represent greater future economic benefits. Investors also appear to interpret fully expensed R&D expenditures as positive net present-value investments, however, suggesting that these expenditure should also be capitalized. Additional results indicate that advertising expenditures are negatively associated with stock price, and the magnitude of this negative association is similar to the association between other expenses and stock price. These findings suggest that investors believe the economic benefits of advertising expenditures expire in the current period, similar to other expenses.     

The impact of geographic diversification on firm performance

This paper empirically examines the economic effects of both corporate industrial and geographic diversifications. Using a sample of 28,050 firm-year observations from 1990 to 1998, we find that industrial and geographic diversifications are associated with firm value decrease. Consistent with Denis et al. [Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., and Yost, K. (2002). Global diversification, industrial diversification, and firm value. Journal of Finance, 57, 1951-1979], the costs of corporate diversification may outweigh the benefits of diversification. We find that geographically diversified firms have higher R&D expenditures, advertising expenses, operating income, ROE and ROA than industrially diversified firms. In addition, higher R&D expenditures create value for multi-segment global firms, but not for single-segment global firms. This result implies that there exists an interaction effect between industrial and geographic diversification. We also examine the effects of agency cost issues, as characterized by the diversification discount, on both industrial and geographic diversification. Consistent with the agency explanation, firms with high equity-based compensation are associated with higher firm value than firms with low equity-based compensation. Also, we find that firms with a higher insider ownership percentage are associated with higher excess value.     

R&D productivity following first-time CIO appointments

Prior studies find that firms announcing the appointment of a new chief information officer (CIO) are rewarded by stock price increases, suggesting that the market expects new CIOs to add longterm value to the firm. In this paper, we examine whether first-time CIO appointments result in improved R&D productivity. We focus on R&D investments because one role of IT management is to aid in discovery and management of growth opportunities. Successful R&D activities are designed to create the type of knowledge-based, growth-critical assets (new or improved products, better distribution methods, etc.) that effective IT management would be expected to assist. After controlling for industry performance, we find that the productivity of R&D improves significantly after the appointment of a new CIO for appointments before 1999 (1997–1998) but not for appointments in later years (1999–2007), and that productivity improvements over the entire sample period occur for CIO appointments by firms with superior IT capabilities. Our results for R&D investments suggest that new CIOs improve the way IT is managed and improve their firms' approach to knowledge management.     

Intangible Assets and Corporate Signaling

Research and development (R&D) and advertising expenditures often result in patents, technologies and brand names which are difficult to accurately value. Under current generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) these intangible assets are generally not recognized in the financial statements, but instead are expensed in the period that they occur. Prior studies note that the market-to-book ratios of firms with significant levels of R&D and advertising expenditures suggest that investors, at least partially, value these assets. Researchers and practitioners argue that current GAAP, by not recognizing these intangible assets, reduces the usefulness and relevance of accounting reports.We investigate whether companies with significant levels of intangible assets are more likely to emphasize dividend increases and stock repurchases (which are generally perceived as signaling favorable investment opportunities), instead of traditional accounting disclosures, as a means of overcoming adverse selection. Because these assets are difficult to measure, cash distributions may be viewed as a more credible means of signaling firm value to investors. Using analysts' ratings of firms' accounting disclosures, we find that companies with higher levels of R&D and advertising expenditures are less likely to provide extensive accounting disclosures and instead tend to employ dividend and stock repurchase signals. We obtain these results even after controlling for other firm attributes, such as size, stock returns performance, leverage, liquidity and investors' expectations of growth opportunities. We also find that the market reaction to dividend increase and stock repurchase announcements is greater for firms with higher levels of R&D and advertising expenditures, indicating that these announcements are more informative for such firms.