Mispricing of Research and Development Investments in a Rapidly Emerging and Electronics-Dominated Market

This paper documents prevailing mispricing of research and development (R&D) investments in the Taiwan stock market, a rapidly emerging and electronics-dominated market. Applying stock return data from July 1988 to June 2005, we observe that R&D-intensive stocks tend to outperform stocks with little or no R&D. The R&D-intensity effect cannot be attributed fully to firm size and seasonal effects. The R&D-associated anomaly not only exists but also persists for up to three years. The market apparently undervalues R&D-intensive firms and overvalues non-R&D-intensive firms. Finally, the R&D anomaly is clearer for firms in the electronics industry after 1996.     

Cash holdings and the bargaining power of R&D-intensive targets

Prior literature suggests that R&D-intensive firms hold large amounts of cash due to financing constraints. This paper examines whether such firms could also use cash holdings as a strategic bargaining tool in M&A transactions. Using a large sample of takeover bids announced between 1980 and 2012, we demonstrate that cash holdings positively impact R&D-intensive targets’ takeover premiums and announcement-period abnormal returns. These effects disappear in non-R&D-intensive firms. Controlling for various endogeneity and financing concerns, we also find that R&D-intensive firms build up cash holdings in anticipation of becoming a takeover target. Further analysis indicates that in R&D-intensive firms, such cash holdings are valued highly by the market. Taken together, our findings shed new light on the strategic bargaining role of corporate cash holdings in the outcomes of acquisitions targeting R&D-intensive firms.     

Mispricing and risk of R&D investment in European firms

We study whether R&D-intensive firms earn superior stock returns compared to matched size and book-to-market portfolios across several financial markets in Europe. Mispricing can arise if investors are not able to correctly estimate the long-term benefits of R&D investment or whether R&D firms are more risky than others. The results confirm that more innovative firms can earn future excess returns. Stocks listed on continental Europe markets and operating in high-tech sectors are more prone to undervaluation. This can be caused in the first case by information asymmetries that are more severe in bank-based countries. No evidence is found for a different risk pattern of R&D-intensive stocks.     

Information Asymmetry, R&D, and Insider Gains

Although researchers have documented gains from insider trading, the sources of private information leading to information asymmetry and insider gains have not been comprehensively investigated. We focus on research and development (R&D)—an increasingly important yet poorly disclosed productive input—as a potential source of insider gains. Our findings, for the period from 1985 to 1997 indicate that insider gains in R&D-intensive firms are substantially larger than insider gains in firms without R&D. Insiders also take advantage of information on planned changes in R&D budgets. R&D is thus a major contributor to information asymmetry and insider gains, raising issues concerning management compensation, incentives, and disclosure policies.     

The Silent Majority: Private U.S. Firms and Financial Reporting Choices

This study uses a comprehensive panel of tax returns to examine the financial reporting choices of medium-to-large private U.S. firms, a setting that controls over $9 trillion in capital, vastly outnumbers public U.S. firms across all industries, yet has no financial reporting mandates. We find that nearly two-thirds of these firms do not produce audited GAAP financial statements. Guided by an agency theory framework, we find that size, ownership dispersion, external debt, and trade credit are positively associated with the choice to produce audited GAAP financial statements, while asset tangibility, age, and internal debt are generally negatively related to this choice. Our findings reveal that (1) equity capital and trade credit exhibit significant explanatory power, suggesting that the primary focus in the literature on debt is too narrow; (2) firm youth, growth, and R&D are positively associated with audited GAAP reporting, reflecting important monitoring roles of financial reporting; and (3) many firms violate standard explanations for financial reporting choices and substantial unexplained heterogeneity in financial reporting remains. We conclude by identifying opportunities for future research.     

Seeking safety: The relation between CEO inside debt holdings and the riskiness of firm investment and financial policies

CEO inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) are generally unsecured and unfunded liabilities of the firm. Because these characteristics of inside debt expose the CEO to default risk similar to that faced by outside creditors, theory predicts that CEOs with large inside debt holdings will display lower levels of risk-seeking behavior (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). Consistent with the theoretical predictions, we find a negative association between CEO inside debt holdings and the volatility of future firm stock returns, R&D expenditures, and financial leverage, and a positive association between CEO inside debt holdings and the extent of diversification and asset liquidity. Collectively, our results provide empirical evidence suggesting that CEOs with large inside debt holdings prefer investment and financial policies that are less risky.     

The Stock Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures

We examine whether stock prices fully value firms' intangible assets, specifically research and development (R&D). Under current U.S. accounting standards, financial statements do not report intangible assets and R&D spending is expensed. Nonetheless, the average historical stock returns of firms doing R&D matches the returns of firms without R&D. However, the market is apparently too pessimistic about beaten-down R&D-intensive technology stocks' prospects. Companies with high R&D to equity market value (which tend to have poor past returns) earn large excess returns. A similar relation exists between advertising and stock returns. R&D intensity is positively associated with return volatility.     

Innovation under debtor-friendly institutional policy: Strategic patenting perspective of Chinese listed firms

Drawing on insights from the strategic patenting perspective, we examine the impact of debtor-friendly institutional policy on the innovation behavior of firms. We argue that while conventional wisdom indicates the negative impact of debt on patent counts, debt financing based on a set of weak creditor rights may lead firms to apply for more patents at the expense of the innovativeness of those patents. By analyzing financial data and patenting information of the Chinese listed firms, we show that debt financing motivates firms to apply for more patents while both R&D intensity and the portion of innovative patent applications diminish. These effects are more pronounced among firms more adversely exposed to China's debtor-friendly institutional policy. Our paper extends the scope of innovation financing studies by demonstrating that firms behave strategically in the context of state policies, in this case by privileging patent quantity over quality.     

Development costs capitalization and debt financing

This study investigates debt market effects of research and development (R&D) costs capitalization, using a global sample of public bonds and private syndicated loans issued by public non‐financial firms. Firstly, we show that firms capitalize larger amounts of R&D in a year when they exhibit a propensity for issuing bonds, rather than borrowing funds privately from the syndicated loan market, in the subsequent year. Secondly, we provide evidence that capitalized R&D investments reduce the cost of debt. We infer that debt market participants are able to identify firms’ motives for R&D capitalization, as we find a reduction in the cost of debt only for those firms that do not show indications of employing R&D capitalization for earnings management reasons. Indeed, only for this sub‐sample of firms, the amount of capitalized R&D contributes positively to future earnings. We confirm that R&D capitalization is positively associated with audit fees and thus can be deemed to be a signaling device. Lastly, we find that it is the amount of R&D a firm is expected to capitalize and not the discretionary counterparts, which facilitates a firm's access to public debt markets, reduces bond and syndicated loan prices, and contributes to future benefits.     

The Association of R&D and Capital Expenditures with Subsequent Earnings Variability

Abstract:  We estimate the association of investments in R&D and in physical assets (CAPEX) with subsequent earnings variability. We estimate these relations in different time periods and across industries. We find that R&D contributes to subsequent earnings variability more than CAPEX only in relative R&D-intensive industries – industries in which R&D is relatively more intensive than physical capital. In physical assets-intensive industries, we do not find similar relations. The findings suggest that with respect to subsequent earnings variability, fundamental differences between investment information about R&D and CAPEX exist. However, they are mainly noticeable in firms that operate in relatively R&D-intensive industries. The evidence also suggests there was a shift in the relations between R&D and CAPEX over time. Our findings contribute to the debate on accounting for R&D expenditures.     

Did financing constraints cause investment stagnation in Japan after the 1990s?

Has investment by Japanese firms been affected by financing constraints since the collapse of the asset price bubble? This study answers the question while improving on the weaknesses of the models used in previous studies. It employs panel data for Japanese listed firms in four R&D-intensive industries. We divide our sample by firm size and examine three periods with different economic environments: the first half of the “two lost decades” from 1991 to 2000, the second half of the ‘two lost decades’ from 2001 to 2009, and the period following the ‘two lost decades’ from 2010 to 2016. We construct new investment functions based on the Euler equation by considering both physical and R&D investment factors to remove estimator bias, thus enabling us to determine whether firms face financing constraints accurately. The estimation results indicate that there were financing constraints on both R&D and physical investments by large listed firms from 1991 to 2000 and from 2010 to 2016. Conversely, the weak growth of both R&D and physical investments by small listed firms from 2010 to 2016 was not attributed to financing constraints but the lack of productive investment opportunities. Different policy measures are needed depending on whether the investment is stagnant due to financing constraints or the lack of investment opportunities.     

Excess Returns to R&D-Intensive Firms

Recent studies indicate that both current R&D investment levels and current or recent changes in R&D investment are positively associated with subsequent excess (risk-adjusted) stock returns. The tentative explanation offered for these results is that shares of R&D-intensive firms are mispriced because investors fail to see through earnings distortions caused by conservative accounting for R&D costs. However, an alternative explanation is that conventional controls for risk do not completely capture the riskiness of R&D-intensive firms, causing measured excess returns for these firms to be biased upward. This study provides evidence useful for distinguishing between the mispricing and risk explanations for R&D-related excess returns. Overall, our empirical results suggest that the positive association between R&D investment levels and excess returns is more likely to result from failure to control adequately for risk than from mispricing. On the other hand, our results do not rule out the possibility of a second source of excess returns that are due to mispricing and that are associated with changes in the level of R&D investment.     

R&D investments,capital expenditures,and earnings thresholds

Prior studies find that firms cut research and development (R&D) expense in response to earnings considerations. We extend this stream of research by documenting that firms narrowly achieving an earnings threshold also report unusually high capital expenditures. In addition, these firms’ total investments (R&D expense plus capital expenditures) do not vary in response to earnings thresholds, which suggests that, on average, reductions in R&D expense are offset by concurrent increases in capital expenditures. Lastly, our research design allows us to infer that the increased capital expenditures are largely R&D investments that are capitalized instead of non-R&D capital expenditures, suggesting that overall investments in R&D are relatively unchanged.     

Does the Riskiness of R&D Outweigh Its Benefits? The Perspective of US Private Lenders

We investigate the relationship between R&D investments and loan spread. Prior research documents that R&D is associated with greater future benefits and risks, suggesting that the valuation of R&D depends on a tradeoff between the two. Some research finds that bondholders consider that the benefits of R&D outweigh its risks: R&D is negatively associated with bond yields. This is surprising given that debt holders are more concerned about downside risk due to asymmetric payoffs. Using data on private debt from the US, we find an overall positive association between loan spread and R&D intensity, suggesting that the riskiness of R&D appears to outweigh its benefits for private lenders. Furthermore, an asymmetric payoff structure implies that the risks of R&D for lenders increase with default risk. Consistent with this argument, we find a positive association between R&D and loan spread for firms that are smaller, with high default‐risk ratings, unrated (no public debt), or in industries with weaker legal protection. Unrated firms are in the most R&D‐intensive group and make up nearly 60% of the firms with private debt. Consequently, studies that exclude unrated firms are likely to present an incomplete picture of the perspective of debt holders on R&D.     

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.     

Explaining dividend gap between R&D and non-R&D Indian companies in the post-reform period

Short-termism or market myopia hypothesis, which posits a negative trade-off between dividend payments and research and development (R&D) investments of corporate firms, forms the basis of our paper. Factors influencing the dividend gap between R&D and non-R&D companies in India are explored and a semi-parametric decomposition (developed by Dinardo, Fortin and Lemieux (DFL, 1996)) conducted on cross-section data of listed companies for the years 2001 and 2010 to investigate the issue. The results reveal that profitability and market to book ratio are the factors which have played some roles to reduce the dividend gap in 2001. However, in 2010, all the characteristics have some role to play. In other words, if the R& D companies enjoyed characteristics similar to the non-R&D ones, then dividend gap between the two groups would have been less. However, the results are found to be sensitive to the ordering of the variables in the weighting function. Refuting the short-termism theory, our findings corroborate that decisions regarding dividend payments and investment in R&D are made simultaneously, which is in agreement with the simultaneous dividend theory.     

Small Firm Capital Structure and the Syndicated Loan Market

We show that small firms using syndicated loans for their mid- and long-term financial needs have significantly higher leverage than firms that do not borrow in this market. This difference cannot be attributed to firm characteristics like the availability of growth opportunities, asset tangibility, R&D spending, profitability and net sales that are known to influence capital structure. We also find that the capital structure of other firms that borrow in the syndicated loan market is not different from those that do not. We show that already highly leveraged small firms are more likely to borrow in the syndicated loan market than other firms. The higher debt in the capital structure of small firms that rely on syndicated loans consequently can be attributed to the availability of capital rather than demand for capital, as shown more generally by Faulkender and Petersen (Rev Financ Stud 19(1):45?C79, 2006).     

Law,Stock Markets,and Innovation

We study a broad sample of firms across 32 countries and find that strong shareholder protections and better access to stock market financing lead to substantially higher long‐run rates of R&D investment, particularly in small firms, but are unimportant for fixed capital investment. Credit market development has a modest impact on fixed investment but no impact on R&D. These findings connect law and stock markets with innovative activities key to economic growth, and show that legal rules and financial developments affecting the availability of external equity financing are particularly important for risky, intangible investments not easily financed with debt.     

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.