Determinants of tax haven utilization: evidence from Australian firms

This paper examines the major determinants of tax haven utilization based on a sample of 200 publicly listed Australian firms, over the 2006–2010 period (1,000 firm‐years). Our regression results show that variables relating to transfer pricing, intangible assets, an interaction term between transfer pricing and intangible assets, withholding taxes, performance‐based management remuneration and multinationality are positively associated with tax haven utilization. We also find that corporate governance structures are negatively associated with tax haven utilization. The magnitude and significance of the regression coefficients indicate that transfer pricing, withholding taxes, intangible assets, an interaction term between transfer pricing and intangible assets, corporate governance and multinationality are the most important drivers of tax haven utilization.     

International Corporate Tax Avoidance Practices: Evidence from Australian Firms

This paper examines the international corporate tax avoidance practices of publicly listed Australian firms. Based on a hand-collected sample of 203 publicly listed Australian firms over the 2006–2009 period (812 firm-years), our regression results indicate that there are several practices Australian firms use to aggressively reduce their tax liabilities. Specifically, we find that thin capitalization, transfer pricing, income shifting, multinationality, and tax haven utilization are significantly associated with tax avoidance. In fact, based on the magnitude and significance levels of the regression coefficients in our study, thin capitalization and transfer pricing represent the primary drivers of tax avoidance, whereas income shifting and tax haven utilization are less important. Finally, our additional regression results show that tax havens are likely to be used together with thin capitalization and transfer pricing to maximize international tax avoidance opportunities via the increased complexity of transactions carried out through tax havens.     

外资企业无形资产转让定价与监管研究

我国宽松的外资政策环境、丰富的自然资源和廉价的劳动力吸引了大量投资者来华投资。一些外国投资者为谋求利益最大化,通过关联公司内部技术转让定价转移利润,给我国政府收入带来损失。分析我国外资企业无形资产转让定价行为,将OECD、美国、澳大利亚、日本等组织和国家关于无形资产转让定价监管措施进行梳理,结合我国实际,分析我国外资企业无形资产转让定价监管存在的问题,提出有针对性的政策建议,为监管部门加强外资企业无形资产转让定价监管提供参考。     

Financial sector diversification and MNC valuation

We extend the literature on MNC performance by examining the relationship between market valuation of MNCs and intangibles associated with financial expertise. We identify firms as having financial expertise if they have diversified their business in the financial sector. We argue that financial expertise enhances the ability of MNCs to internalize financial transactions and take advantage of financing and investment opportunities around the world. Therefore, it is a potentially significant source of market power. Our test results demonstrate that as the degree of multinationality increases market valuation is positively related with financial expertise even after we account for several other control factors. Our findings imply that MNCs with financial expertise can be viewed as possessing an additional intangible, which essentially is the financial equivalent of the traditionally examined intangible assets, such as technological “know-how,” goodwill, and managerial expertise.     

The Profitability and Pricing of Major Customers

We examine the profitability and valuation of retail firms identified by suppliers as major customers, using major customer relationships to proxy for unrecorded organizational-capital intangibles. Major customers have higher operating profitability and profitability persistence, with the sources of the higher profitability consistent with purported advantages of supply chain arrangements. The pricing of major customers is consistent with the market recognizing the level and over-time properties of operating profitability. Together, these results suggest that investors understand the profitability effects of unrecorded organizational intangible assets and that financial statement analysis can be used to further examine the valuation effects of such intangibles.     

Capitalized intangibles and financial analysts

We examine whether firms that capitalize a higher proportion of their underlying intangible assets have higher analyst following, lower dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts and more accurate earnings forecasts relative to firms that capitalize a lower proportion. Under Australian generally accepted accounting principles, capitalization of intangible assets has become increasingly ‘routine’ since the late 1980s. It is predicted that this experience leads Australian analysts to expect firms with relatively more certain intangible investments to signal this fact by capitalizing intangible assets. Our results are consistent with this. We find that capitalization of intangible assets is associated with higher analyst following and lower absolute earnings forecast error for firms with a stock of underlying intangible assets. Our tests suggest a weaker association between capitalization and lower earnings forecast dispersion. We conclude that there are benefits for analysts, for management to have the option to capitalize intangible assets. These findings suggest that IAS 38 Intangible Assets and AASB 138 Intangible Assets reduce the usefulness of financial statements.     

Analyst Coverage and Intangible Assets

This study examines the relation between analysts' incentives to cover firms and the extent of their intangible assets. Because intangible assets typically are unrecognized and estimates of their fair values are not disclosed, absent analyst coverage firms with more intangible assets likely have less informative prices. Accordingly, we expect analysts have greater incentives to cover firms with more intangible assets and, thus, predict they have higher analyst coverage. As predicted, we find that analyst coverage is significantly greater for firms with larger research and development and advertising expenses relative to their industry, and for firms in industries with larger research and development expense. We also predict and find that analyst coverage is increasing in firm size, growth, trading volume, equity issuance, and perceived mispricing, and is decreasing in the size of the firm's analysts' brokerage houses and the effort analysts expend to follow the firm. These findings indicate that analyst coverage depends on private benefits and costs of covering a firm. We also test hypotheses related to analyst effort. We predict and find that analysts expend greater effort to follow firms with more intangible assets, after controlling for other factors associated with analyst effort. Our evidence indicates that intangible assets, most of which are not recognized in firms' financial statements, are associated with greater incentives for analysts to cover such firms, and greater costs of coverage. An open question is whether financial statement recognition of intangible assets could more efficiently provide information about such assets to investors.     

High-Technology Intangibles and Analysts' Forecasts

This study examines the association between firms' intangible assets and properties of the information contained in analysts' earnings forecasts. We hypothesize that analysts will supplement firms' financial information by placing greater relative emphasis on their own private (or idiosyncratic) information when deriving their earnings forecasts for firms with significant intangible assets. Our evidence is consistent with this hypothesis. We find that the consensus in analysts' forecasts, measured as the correlation in analysts' forecast errors, is negatively associated with a firm's level of intangible assets. This result is robust to controlling for analyst uncertainty about a firm's future earnings, which we also find to be higher for firms with high levels of internally generated (and expensed) intangibles. Given that analyst uncertainty increases and analyst consensus decreases with the level of a firm's intangible assets, we also expect and find that the degree to which the mean forecast aggregates private information and is more accurate than an individual analyst's forecast increases with a firm's intangible assets. Finally, additional analysis reveals that lower levels of analyst consensus are associated with high-technology manufacturing companies, and that this association is explained by the relatively high R&D expenditures made by these firms. Overall, our results are consistent with financial analysts augmenting the financial reporting systems of firms with higher levels of intangible assets (in terms of contributing to more accurate earnings expectations), particularly R&D-driven high-tech manufacturers.     

Do analysts follow emerging economy firms with higher intangible assets? Empirical evidence from Egypt

This paper tests whether analyst coverage and effort are related to the level of intangible assets reported by Egyptian listed firms. Intangible assets represent increasingly important investments for many firms, but most of these assets are not capitalized under prevailing accounting standards. Analysts reduce the information asymmetry by examining both financial reports and other information. Many Egyptian firms today seek access to foreign capital. I hypothesize that the larger the potential intangible assets of firms the more analysts will cover these firms and pursue private information about these firms. Sample consists of 435 firm-year observations over the period 1999–2007, and intangible assets are measured using eight different firm- and industry-level proxies. Consistent with prior research, results suggest that coverage is significantly associated with firm R&D, industry advertising expenses, firm size, and trading volume. Results also suggest that analyst effort is a function of firm and industry-level R&D expenses and firm size.     

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.     

Intangible Assets and Firms' Disclosures: An Empirical Investigation

This study examines how research and development (R&38;D) and advertising expenditures affect firms' disclosures. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) mandate that these expenditures be immediately expensed in financial reports, despite the fact that they often benefit the firm for longer periods. Prior studies find, however, that investors consider intangible assets in their valuation of firms. These studies argue that current GAAP, by not recognizing the value generated by these assets, severely impairs the usefulness of accounting reports. I investigate if firms with higher levels of R&38;D and advertising expenditures place greater reliance on voluntary, and therefore more flexible, disclosures such as voluntary publications and investor relations. Using analysts' ratings of firms' disclosures, I find that firms with higher levels of intangible assets are more likely to receive significantly higher ratings for their investor relations programs or voluntary publications than for their annual reports. These findings suggest that firms with higher levels of intangible assets emphasize supplemental disclosures because mandated accounting disclosures inadequately present their financial performance. These results have important policy implications for regulators and investors since they indicate that voluntary disclosures, which are unregulated and unaudited, are an important means of disclosure for these firms.     

Should More Internally Generated Intangible Assets Be Recognized? A Commentary

This study analyzes whether financial statements should recognize more internally generated intangible assets with particular reference to China. This issue is significant because of the increasing importance of the ‘new economy’ and R&D investment, including in China. We present the current accounting requirements for intangible assets and illustrate that the failure to recognize internally generated intangible assets leads to a high ratio of unrecognized value to market capitalization, known as the asset light phenomenon among firms. We discuss and compare international and Chinese views supporting and opposing the recognition of more internally generated intangible assets. We identify and analyze the major issues in general, and in China particularly, that standard setters and their stakeholders have to consider if more internally generated intangible assets are recognized. We focus on areas of recognition, initial and subsequent measurement, and user reaction. We find that the most critical issues are the separability and measurability of internally generated intangible assets. Based on the issues identified, we discuss initiatives on non-financial disclosure in relation to unrecognized intangible assets and firms’ value creation. The study elucidates the consequences of current accounting standards on internally generated intangible assets and, by identifying the critical issues, contributes to the debate on whether it is best to adopt recognition of internally generated intangible assets or a disclosure-only approach.     

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.     

Longitudinal value relevance of earnings and intangible assets: Evidence from Australian firms

Recent U.S. studies report that earnings value relevance has declined over time. Some authors suggest non-recognition of intangible assets in the U.S. is a major reason for declining earnings value relevance. However, the evidence is mixed on the effect of non-recognition of intangible assets. To examine this conjecture, this paper examines earnings value relevance for Australian firms since Australian GAAP has not prohibited intangible asset recognition. Using a variety of established models and specifications, our results indicate that for the average firm, there is weak evidence of decline in earnings value relevance. However, firms that capitalize intangibles have increasing earnings value relevance. Further, the magnitude of the difference in earnings value relevance between capitalizing firms and non-capitalizing firms is most pronounced in the latter part of the 1990s and this difference is increasing.     

Eclipse of the Public Corporation or Eclipse of the Public Markets?

The authors look back at Michael Jensen's 1989 article “The Eclipse of the Public Corporation.” They find some of his predictions have been borne out but other important ones, not. Jensen concluded that the publicly held corporation was in decline and had outlived its usefulness in many sectors. He argued that agency costs made public corporations an inefficient form of organization and that new private organizational forms promoted by private equity firms would likely replace the public firm. The number of public firms in the U.S. has declined significantly but there are still many hugely profitable and successful public companies. U.S. public markets are still well‐suited for firms with mostly tangible assets. So, what we are really witnessing is an eclipse not of public corporations, but of the public markets as the place where young firms with mostly intangible capital seek their funding. This is especially true when the usefulness of the intangible assets has yet to be proven. Sometimes the market is extremely optimistic about some intangible assets, but otherwise firms with unproven intangible assets may be better off funding themselves privately. This evolution has a downside: investors limited to public markets are cut off from investing in high intangible‐asset firms. Additionally, as fewer firms remain publicly listed, fewer firms will be transparent to society.     

The value of multinationality and business group for Japanese firms

We provide evidence for the combined value impacts of corporate multinationality and business group affiliation, incorporating the effect of endogeneity of diversification decisions. The results for Japanese industrial firms indicate that multinational firms have a statistically significant 2.3% value premium during FY1995–2011 relative to comparable domestic firms; however, the multinationality premium is moderated by the nature of business group as well as the characteristics of the host country. Specifically, the multinationality premium is negatively associated with both keiretsu membership and main bank ownership of group firms. Main bank ownership as well as vertical keiretsu affiliation positively impact the value of multinationality for firms operating in developing countries. These results hold even during the later part of the sample period, when the keiretsu and main bank systems have been under pressure. The implication is that corporate multinationality is a substitute for business group and for inadequate indigenous institutional infrastructure.     

Corporate Multinationality and Acquirer Returns

This paper provides evidence on how corporate multinationality from the perspective of acquiring firms relates to M&A returns. Using multivariate regressions and a large dataset of over 6,000 M&As (both cross-border and domestic) by UK firms during 1987 to 2014, the paper finds multinationality to be associated with significantly higher short-run announcement returns and long-run operating performance. While the multinationality premium (higher M&A returns for multinationals) persists over time, it seems to be restricted to firms with superior resource/managerial capabilities and minimal agency problems. Finally, the multinationality premium appears to be driven by foreign acquisitions into advanced economies. The results are robust to correcting for sample selection bias and controlling for several firm and deal characteristics, as well as accounting for firm-, industry-, and year-fixed effects. Collectively, the findings imply that multinationality could be a source of value creation for acquiring firms, particularly in foreign acquisitions, which tend to be complex, and, thereby, require superior managerial capabilities to succeed.     

Value of Multinationality: Internalization, Managerial Self-interest, and Managerial Compensation

In this paper, we examine the impact of managerial self-interest on the value of multinationality. Since agency theory also suggests that a divergence between the interests of managers and shareholders can be aligned by effective managerial incentive, we also examine the effect of managerial compensation on the value of multinationality. Our results show that for high- Q (Tobin's Q > 1 ) firms, investors do not associate the spending of free cash flow on multinationality with the problem of overinvestments. For high- Q firms, it is also found that the value of multinationality can be enhanced by effective managerial incentives. For low- Q firms (Tobin's Q < 1 ), it is found that the concern of managerial self-interest overwhelms the benefits of internalization, making multinationality a value-decreasing event. For low- Q firms, managerial compensation is also ineffective in promoting value-enhancing foreign direct investments.     

Intangible Assets and Firm Asset Risk Taking: An Analysis of Property and Liability Insurance Firms

Intangible assets facilitate insurers' capacity to retain existing business and attract new clients. In this study we analyze how the incentives to protect intangible assets affect asset risk-taking behavior of property and liability insurers. The result supports the view that insurers' incentives to protect their intangible assets lead to an inverse relation between intangible assets and asset risk. Consistent with the view that highly levered firms may go for broke, asset risk of highly levered insurers is less elastic to intangible assets than that of lower-levered insurers. An additional notable finding of our article is that tangible factors like firm size and capitalization increase insurers' appetites for asset risk taking.     

Intangible Assets, Information Complexity, and Analysts' Earnings Forecasts

Abstract:   We examine the relation between analysts' earnings forecasts and firms' intangible assets, including technology‐based intangibles, brand names, and recognized intangibles. We predict that high information complexity of intangible assets increases the difficulty for analysts to assimilate information and increases analysts' forecast error of intangibles‐intensive firms. We find a positive association between analysts' forecast error and the firm's intangible intensity that deviates from the industry norm. We also find that analysts' forecast errors are greater for firms with diverse and innovative technologies. In contrast, analysts' forecast errors are smaller for biotech/pharmaceutical and medical equipment firms that are subject to intangibles‐related regulation.