Reliability of R&D capitalization: Evidence from ex post impairment in China

Unlike prior studies that investigate research and development (R&D) accounting as a dichotomous choice between capitalizing vs. expensing, this study identifies low-reliability R&D capitalization by the occurrence of ex post impairment of capitalized R&D costs. I find that low-reliability capitalization is associated with higher discretionary accruals but fails to signal future innovation, whereas normal capitalization without subsequent impairment lacks earnings aggressiveness and predicts future innovation positively, compared to expensing firms. Next, this study shows that Big 4 and industry specialist auditors improve reliability by notably decreasing the likelihood of low-reliability R&D capitalization. The results remain robust after controlling for R&D investment intensity and potential endogeneity in the capitalization decision. Additional tests show that managers strategically time the recognition of impairment for big-bath and earnings-smoothing purposes, and that analyst coverage does not help differentiate between low-reliability and normal R&D capitalization. Collectively, this paper increases our understanding of R&D accounting and auditing and contributes to the debate on the reliability of R&D capitalization.     

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.     

R&D capitalization and audit fees: Evidence from China

Our study investigates the association between capitalized R&D costs and audit fees and whether this association reflects the effect of earnings management. By exploring Chinese listed firms, we find that capitalized R&D costs are positively associated with audit fees, where such positive association holds for both the discretionary and nondiscretionary portions of capitalized R&D costs. Moreover, the positive association between the discretionary portion of capitalized R&D costs and audit fees is more pronounced for firms with stronger incentives to manipulate earnings. Overall, our findings imply that firms' reporting incentives affect how auditors react to clients' accounting choices. This in turn suggests that auditors believe some firms capitalize R&D to manipulate earnings, and the resulting earnings-management concerns lead them to charge higher fees.     

International Financial Reporting Standards and the value relevance of R&D expenditures: Pre and post IFRS analysis

This study examines the value relevance of research and development (R&D) expenditures in the pre and post International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) periods in the UK. It also examines firm size and sector-based differences in the value relevance of R&D during the sample period between 2001 and 2011. The results indicate that capitalized R&D has value relevance during the 11 years sample period. However, the value relevance of capitalized R&D does not appear to have improved in the post-IFRS period. Large firms present higher value relevance of capitalized R&D than small firms which suggest that firm size has significantly different valuation effects on the value relevance of R&D expenditures. Sectors, however, do not appear to present valuation differences across manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms. The overall findings of this study report no difference in the value relevance of expensed R&D in the pre and post-IFRS periods; however, the value relevance of capitalized R&D appears to decrease from pre to post-IFRS period. We thus argue that these findings have implications for the regulators and accounting professionals.     

The positive externalities of IFRS R&D capitalization: enhanced voluntary disclosure

Studies comparing IFRS with U.S. GAAP generally focus on differences in the attributes and consequences of the recognized financial items. We, in contrast, focus on voluntary disclosure resulting from arguably the most significant difference between IFRS and GAAP: the capitalization of development costs—the “D” of R&D—required by IFRS but prohibited by GAAP. Using a sample of Israeli high-technology and science-based firms, some using IFRS and others U.S. GAAP, we document a significant externality of IFRS development cost capitalization in the form of extensive voluntary disclosure of forward?looking information on product pipeline development and its expected consequences. We show that this disclosure is value-relevant over and above the mandated financial information, including the capitalized R&D asset. We also show that the capitalized development costs (an asset) is highly significant in relation to stock prices, and enhances the relevance of the voluntary disclosures.     

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.     

The effect of management incentives and cross-listing status on the accounting treatment of R&D spending

This paper investigates the effect of management incentives and cross-listing status on the accounting treatment of research and development (R&D) spending for a sample of Canadian hi-tech and biopharmaceutical firms. U.S. GAAP adopts an immediate expensing rule for all R&D spending except for software development costs for which technological feasibility has been established. Contrary to the U.S., Canadian and international standard setters recommend capitalization if development costs meet certain criteria. Because those criteria are largely based on management judgment, capitalization of R&D spending is an accounting choice that can be used for income manipulation or signaling.Using a logit model, we examine how the decision to capitalize R&D spending is influenced by the cross-listing status and several other key firm characteristics that are well documented in the accounting literature. We find that the probability of capitalizing R&D spending increases for cross-listed and non-cross-listed firms in the software industry. The probability of capitalizing R&D spending also increases for firms that are more leveraged, more mature, and have higher level of cash flows from operations. However, the probability of capitalizing R&D spending decreases for larger corporations, firms with more concentrated ownership and highly profitable firms. Overall our results indicate a preference for Canadian firms in the software industry to emulate U.S. accounting practices for R&D spending. They also suggest that firms use the decision to capitalize or expense R&D spending as an earning management tool to either meet debt covenants or to smooth income.     

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.     

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.     

CEO ownership, external governance, and risk-taking

This paper shows the relation between CEO ownership and firm valuation hinges critically on the strength of external governance (EG). The relation is hump-shaped when EG is weak, but is insignificant when EG is strong. The results imply that CEO ownership and EG are substitutes for mitigating agency problems when ownership is low. However, very high levels of share ownership can reduce firm value by entrenching the CEO and discouraging him from taking risk, unless mitigated by strong EG. We identify channels through which CEO ownership affects firm value by examining R&D, which is discretionary and risky. We find CEO ownership similarly exhibits a hump-shaped relation with R&D when EG is weak, but no relation when EG is strong. Our results are robust to endogeneity issues concerning CEO ownership and EG.     

Market Valuation of Research and Development Spending under Canadian GAAP*

Section 3450 of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook requires Canadian firms to capitalize development costs that meet certain criteria and to expense those that relate to research. International Accounting Standard (IAS) No. 38 favours a similar approach. In the United States, Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 2 recommends the immediate expensing of all research and development (R&D) spending. The only exception is SFAS No. 86, which requires software development costs to be capitalized when a product successfully passes a technological feasibility test. Consequently, the Canadian financial disclosure regime provides a rich setting for testing the market valuation of capitalized R&D. Our primary research question asks whether capitalized R&D provides useful information to market participants investing in Canadian firms. We use price‐level and return models to assess the value relevance of capitalized R&D disclosed in the financial statements under Canadian GAAP. In line with expectations, using a price‐level model, we find that capitalized R&D and R&D expense as disclosed in the financial statements provide information that is value relevant to market participants. However, we find that R&D capitalized during the year helps explain returns while R&D expense does not. Thus we conclude that the application of section 3450 of the CICA Handbook produces value‐relevant information.     

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.     

Measuring the value of intangibles

We propose a new earnings-based measure for the value of intangibles. To validate this measure, we compare it to commonly used proxies for intangible intensity, such as R&D expenses. While R&D expenses measure the investment in new intangibles, our new measure gauges the productivity of already existing intangibles. We show that our new measure serves as an additional factor to explain firm value, measured either as market capitalization or acquisition prices in M&A transactions. Moreover, it captures the increasing importance of intangibles over time. Finally, we present a specific application of our intangible-intensity measure in the context of capital structure. We find that more intangible-intensive firms have lower leverage.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Investment Opportunity Set and Capitalization versus Expensing Methods of Accounting Choice

This paper examines the effects of the investment opportunity set (IOS) on management's decision to capitalize or expense significant costs in two diverse settings: (1) in accounting for exploration and development (E&D) costs by firms in the oil-and-gas industry, and (2) in accounting for research and development (R&D) costs by firms (across industries) prior to 1974. We argue that the relation between the IOS and the decision to capitalize versus to expense is based upon managerial incentives to reduce the variance of accounting earnings. High-growth firms are more likely to have more variable earnings, which therefore creates greater incentives to reduce earnings variability. Because the capitalization method generally results in a lower variance of reported earnings than does the expensing method, high-growth firms are more likely to select capitalization. Our results show that, after controlling for firm size and for the indirect effects of the IOS mediated by debt contracts, high-growth firms (firms with fewer assets-in-place) are more likely than low-growth firms to select the capitalization method of accounting for E&D and R&D expenses.
JEL classification: M41; G31     

The valuation relevance of R&D expenditures: Time series evidence

The literature on the valuation relevance of R&D investments is based primarily on cross-sectional regressions or panel data regressions with time and firm (or industry) fixed effects such that the parameters relating R&D to market value are cross-sectionally constant. In an alternative approach, this paper investigates the value relevance of R&D investment using an earnings-based time series valuation model. Model parameters are estimated for each firm separately. In contradistinction to the results obtained from cross-sectional and fixed effects panel models, this study finds weak empirical support at best for the value relevance of R&D expenditures at the firm level.     

The effect of R&D on future returns and earnings forecasts

Prior studies attribute the future excess returns of research and development activity (R&D) firms to either compensation for increased risk or to mispricing. We suggest a third explanation and show that neither the level of R&D investment nor the change in R&D investment explains future returns. Rather, the positive future returns that prior studies attribute to R&D investment are actually due to the component of the R&D firm??s realized return that is unrelated to R&D investment but present in R&D firms. Our results suggest that the excess returns of R&D firms are part of the larger value/growth anomaly. In addition, we show that while future earnings are positively associated with current R&D, errors in earnings expectations by investors and analysts are not related to R&D investment.     

Investment policy in family controlled firms

We explore the relation between family ownership and corporate investment policy. Our analysis centers on two incentives, risk aversion and extended investment horizons, which potentially influence the level and type of investments that family firms undertake. We find that family firms devote less capital to long-term investments than firms with diffuse ownership structures. When dividing long-term investment into its two components of R&D and capital expenditures, we note that family firms, relative to nonfamily firms, prefer investing in physical assets relative to riskier R&D projects. Additional tests indicate that family firms receive fewer patent citations per dollar of R&D investment relative to nonfamily firms. Overall, all empirical results indicate that family preferences for lower firm risk, across all family sub-types, affects corporate R&D spending and capital expenditures.