Capitalisation of Intangibles — A Review of Current Practice and the Regulatory Framework

This paper reports on capitalisation practices of Australian managers for a large sample of firms in the 1993–97 period, and on accounting regulatory issues in relation to intangibles during and after this period. The data show diversity in capitalisation practices in 1993–97, which we suggest is a consequence of abstract conceptual bases for capitalisation decisions under the Australian regulatory framework. The analysis indicates the framework retains traditional emphasis on conservatism and reliable measurement while providing managers with substantial accounting discretion to capitalise intangible assets. We conclude there is an imperative for research investigating capitalisation decisions for intangibles to guide any further regulation.     

The impact of constructive operating lease capitalisation on key accounting ratios

Current UK lease accounting regulation does not require operating leases to be capitalised in the accounts of lessees, although this is likely to change with the publication of FRS 5. This study conducts a prospective analysis of the effects of such a change. The potential magnitude of the impact of lease capitalisation upon individual users' decisions, market valuations, company cash flows, and managers' behaviour can be indicated by the effect on key accounting ratios, which are employed in decision-making and in financial contracts. The capitalised value of operating leases is estimated using a method similar to that suggested by Imhoff, Lipe and Wright (1991), adapted for the UK accounting and tax environment, and developed to incorporate company-specific assumptions. Results for 1994 for a random sample of 300 listed UK companies show that, on average, the unrecorded long-term liability represented 39% of reported long-term debt, while the unrecorded asset represented 6% of total assets. Capitalisation had a significant impact (at the 1% level) on six of the nine selected ratios (profit margin, return on assets, asset turnover, and three measures of gearing). Moreover, the Spearman rank correlation between each ratio before and after capitalisation revealed that the ranking of companies changed markedly for gearing measures in particular. There were significant inter-industry variations, with the services sector experiencing the greatest impact. An analysis of the impact of capitalisation over the five-year period from 1990 to 1994 showed that capitalisation had the greatest impact during the trough of the recession. Results were shown to be robust with respect to key assumptions of the capitalisation method. These findings contribute to the assessment of the economic consequences of a policy change requiring operating lease capitalisation. Significant changes in the magnitude of key accounting ratios and a major shift in company performance rankings suggest that interested parties' decisions and company cash flows are likely to be affected.     

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.     

Capitalisation of R&D and the informativeness of stock prices: Pre- and post-IFRS evidence

We examine whether requiring (IFRS) versus allowing (UK GAAP) conditional capitalisation of development expenditure affects the extent to which capitalisation conveys more information about future earnings, relative to expensing. We show that capitalisation results in current returns incorporating more future earnings information than expensing under UK GAAP but not under IFRS. i.e., the amount of information incorporated into market prices of capitalisers is the same as that from firms expensing R&D under IFRS. This result holds irrespective of a firm’s earnings management incentives or strength of corporate governance for the period under IFRS. We argue that this is because investors experience greater uncertainty regarding the realisation of future economic benefits associated with the development costs capitalised in the post-IFRS period. Consistent with this, we do find a positive association between capitalised R&D and future earnings variability in the post-IFRS period only, as well as short-term positive abnormal returns for capitalisers relative to expensers in the pre-IFRS period only. Overall, these findings suggest that when moving away from a standard that offers an overt option to capitalise or expense, capitalisation comes with greater uncertainty, which is resolved only in the long term.     

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.     

The Relevance to Firm Valuation of Capitalised Research and Development Expenditures

Although the relevance of research and development to firm value has been extensively documented, some apparently contrary results were recently reported using Australian data. Godfrey and Koh (2001) reported that capitalised R&D costs do not seem to contain information relevant to the valuation of Australian companies. As the Godfrey and Koh study was designed to test the value-relevance of intangible assets in general, it is likely that the sample did not include sufficient research-intensive companies to test the relevance of R&D to firm value. This research note confirms results from other previous studies indicating that capitalised R&D is relevant to firm value.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Determinants of transfer pricing aggressiveness: Empirical evidence from Australian firms

This study examines the major determinants of transfer pricing aggressiveness. Based on a hand-collected sample of 183 publicly-listed Australian firms for the 2009 year, our regression results show that firm size, profitability, leverage, intangible assets, and multinationality are significantly positively associated with transfer pricing aggressiveness after controlling for industry-sector effects. Our additional regression results also indicate that firms augment their transfer pricing aggressiveness through the joint effects of intangible assets and multinationality.     

Identifiable intangible asset disclosures, stock prices and future earnings

As a consequence of regulatory reforms currently being initiated as part of international convergence, it is likely that the recognition and disclosure of identifiable intangible assets by Australian firms will cease. This study provides empirical evidence on how this will impact financial reports. First, evidence is provided of a positive association between stock prices and voluntarily recognized and disclosed identifiable intangible assets. Second, evidence is provided of a positive association between identifiable intangible assets and realized future period income. This provides insights into the nature of the information provided by intangible assets, and identifies a basis for the association between stock prices and identifiable intangible assets. This leads to the conclusion that identifiable intangible assets disclosures are value relevant, and that with the application of the restrictive recognition rules in AASB138 these disclosures in financial reports will be greatly diminished.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Intangible Assets: Diversity of Practices and Potential Impacts from AIFRS Adoption

The adoption of Australian equivalents of International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS) radically alters Australian accounting practices for intangible assets. Under AIFRS, goodwill amortisation expense is replaced by goodwill impairment loss based on frequent tests of the value of goodwill, and Australian firms are no longer permitted to recognise certain internally generated intangibles. This paper provides statistics regarding intangible asset reporting by 476 firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2002. We find significant diversity in reporting practices relating to both goodwill and identifiable intangible assets. Accordingly, the new accounting rules will potentially reshape ASX-listed firms' financial statements by significant amounts.     

Dynamic performance measurement with intangible assets

The increasing importance of intangible assets in modern economies is driving companies to include measures of intangible assets in managerial performance evaluations. For the multiperiod principal-agent model analyzed in this paper, a manager must be motivated to invest in intangible assets like customer satisfaction or product quality. The intangible asset is not verifiable for contracting purposes, but the parties can rely on a noisy indicator of the current asset value. I derive a class of value added performance measures, which effectively aggregate the current cash flow and consecutive realizations of the noisy indicator of the intangible asset. This class of performance measures is shown to be optimal for different scenarios regarding contract commitment and observability of the actual investment decisions. Long-term contracts are examined as a baseline. However, in practice firms usually adopt shorter medium-term contracts that are periodically renegotiated. I show that this more realistic contracting scenario yields the same investment patterns and efficiency levels as those obtained under long-term commitment.     

How do firms finance their investments?: The relative importance of equity issuance and debt contracting costs

This paper examines the financing decisions of firms in response to changes in investments and profits. We find that information frictions play important roles in firms' financing decisions. However, we find no evidence that asymmetric information about the value of a firm's assets causes equity to be used only as a last resort. Indeed equity is the predominant source of finance in situations, such as profit shortfalls, investment in intangible assets, and internally generated growth opportunities, where informational asymmetries and agency costs are likely to be high. We also find that firms respond asymmetrically to positive and negative profit shocks. In financing fixed assets, high asymmetric information firms use more short-term debt and less long-term debt, whereas firms with high potential agency problems use significantly more equity and less long-term debt and cash.