Capitalization of R&D costs and earnings management: Evidence from Italian listed companies

The capitalization of research and development (R&D) costs is a controversial accounting issue because of the contention that such capitalization is motivated by incentives to manipulate earnings. Based on a sample of Italian listed companies, this study examines whether companies' decisions to capitalize R&D costs are affected by earnings-management motivations. Italy provides a natural context for testing our hypothesized relationships because Italian GAAP allows for the capitalization of R&D costs. Using a Tobit regression model to test our hypotheses, we show that companies tend to use cost capitalization for earnings-smoothing purposes. The hypothesis that firms capitalize R&D costs to reduce the risk of violating debt covenants is not supported.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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).     

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.     

Accounting for Intangibles: Can Capitalization of R&D Improve Investment Efficiency?

This paper investigates the potential for accounting rules to mitigate under-investment induced by myopic managerial incentives. It exploits the difference within US GAAP requiring the capitalization of some research and development (R&D) costs in software development but proscribing the capitalization of R&D in other industries. We first investigate whether other hi-technology firms with no capitalization of R&D costs suffer higher levels of under-investment in myopic settings relative to software development firms. Second, we investigate whether the capitalization rule assists in mitigating under-investment within the software development industry, and whether this comes at the cost of over-investment in the presence of financial flexibility. Our findings are consistent with the mitigation of under-investment in the software development setting but we find no evidence of over-investment in the presence of high financial flexibility. Other hi-tech firms that cannot capitalize R&D costs suffer higher levels of under-investment relative to software development firms. Finally, we find that the ability to capitalize for the sample of software firms does reduce the probability of cutting R&D investment when managers are under earnings pressure. The findings in this paper are relevant to standard setters seeking to understand the costs imposed by (understandably) conservative accounting rules, and how verification of points of feasibility alongside less conservative accounting can prevent dysfunctional investment outcomes. This is the first study to consider whether the ability to (justifiably) capitalize the costs of internally generated intangibles can improve investment efficiency (the allocation of resources).     

Discretionary Capitalization of R&D: Evidence on the Usefulness in an Australian and Canadian Context

This study addresses the discretionary capitalization of R&D costs in Australia and Canada. We demonstrate, for both samples, that the discretionary capitalization of development costs (hereafter capitalized D) by the manager results in balance sheet and income numbers that are more highly associated with market value, relative to the corresponding “as-if” numbers generated by expensing GAAP. Moreover, we show that a dollar worth of capitalized D is worth more than a dollar worth of expensed R&D, for the same firm. This points to a corroboration role for capitalization. As a caveat, our results hold only when the samples are partitioned on the materiality of capitalized D. Our results point to a potentially useful signalling role for discretionary capitalization, in Australian and Canadian capital markets. However, while the manager’s capitalized D is associated with firm value, it has at best a modest advantage over what the analyst can do, using the researcher-created capitalized R&D. Thus, the regulatory policy debate must consider the small incremental benefits from allowing discretionary capitalization compared to the costs associated with earnings management when discretion is allowed.     

The Determinants and Value Relevance of the Choice of Accounting for Research and Development Expenditures in the United Kingdom

Abstract:  This paper investigates the determinants and value relevance implications of the accounting method choice for development expenditures for firms with research and development (R&D) programs in the United Kingdom (UK). Using a sample of 3,229 UK firm-year observations over the period 1996–2004, I find that the decision to expense versus capitalize development expenditures is influenced by earnings variability, earnings sign, firm size, R&D intensity, leverage, steady-state status of the firm's R&D program, and R&D program success. Additional results indicate that there is little difference in value relevance between reported and adjusted numbers for both the Expensers and the Capitalizers. The evidence in this paper suggests that managers choose the 'correct' method for accounting for R&D in order to best communicate the private information which they hold.     

Determinants of the corporate decision to capitalize interest

Until 1974, firms could choose, within GAAP, to capitalize or expense interest costs associated with capital expenditures. The predominant practice had been to treat interest as a period expense. However, in 1974, the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed a moratorium on further adoption of interest capitalization by non-regulated firms. This study empirically examines economic factors potentially influencing firms' decisions to expense or capitalize interest prior to the SEC moratorium. We hypothesize that the choice may be affected by (1) the existence of management compensation agreements tied to reported earnings, (2) debt covenant constraints, and (3) the political costs (for some firms) of reporting higher earnings.When compared to the control group, our findings are that (1) the frequency of explicit management compensation packages was not greater for the interest capitalization group, (2) firms with financial ratios closer to likely debt agreement constraints (on dividends, interest coverage, and leverage) tended to elect interest capitalization, and (3) other than the largest firms in the ‘politically sensitive’ petroleum refining industry, the larger firms were more likely to capitalize interest.     

Price Discovery and Dissemination of Private Information by Loan Syndicate Participants

We delineate key channels through which flows of confidential information to loan syndicate participants impact the dynamics of information arrival in prices. We isolate the timing of private information flows by estimating the speed of price discovery over quarterly earnings cycles in both secondary syndicated loan and equity markets. We identify borrowers disseminating private information to lenders relatively early in the cycle with firms exhibiting relatively early price discovery in the secondary loan market, documenting that price discovery is faster for loans subject to financial covenants, particularly earnings‐based covenants; for borrowers who experience covenant violations; for borrowers with high credit risk; and for loans syndicated by relationship‐based lenders or highly reputable lead arrangers. We then ask whether early access to private information in the loan market accelerates the speed of information arrival in stock prices. We document that the stock returns of firms identified with earlier private information dissemination to lenders indeed exhibit faster price discovery in the stock market, but only when institutional investors are involved in the firm's syndicated loans. Further, the positive relation between institutional lending and the speed of stock price discovery is more pronounced in relatively weak public disclosure environments. These results are consistent with institutional lenders systematically exploiting confidential syndicate information via trading in the equity market.     

The Choice of Debt Source by UK Firms

We examine the choice of borrowing source among public debt, syndicated bank loans, bilateral bank loans and non‐bank private debt. Using a sample of 400 non‐financial firms over the period 2000–2012, we find strong support for the reputational theory of borrowing source. Larger firms are more likely to borrow in public debt markets. Bank dependent firms are less likely to borrow in public debt markets and choose between bank and non‐bank private debt based on maturity, collateral available to lenders and other firm characteristics. These results are consistent with the role of borrower reputation being the primary determinant of borrowing source for UK listed firms.     

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 financial reporting quality on debt maturity: the case of private firms

We examine whether the debt maturity structure of privately held firms is associated with the quality of their earnings numbers. We argue that earnings numbers that are better able to predict future cash flows lower information asymmetry between privately held firms and their creditors, improving privately held firms’ access to long-term debt. Furthermore, we examine whether the relationship between privately held firms’ earnings quality and their debt maturity differs between small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and larger privately held firms. Using detailed financial statement information from a sample of privately held Belgian firms, we find that earnings quality is positively associated with the likelihood of having long-term debt and with the proportion of long-term debt in total debt. Further, we report evidence that these associations are more pronounced for SMEs than for larger privately held firms, which is consistent with smaller firms entailing more fundamental risk for creditors.     

Global equity offerings and access to domestic loan market: U.S. evidence

This study examines whether and to what extend global equity offerings at the IPO stage may affect issuing firms' ability to borrow in the domestic debt market. Tracking bank loans taken by U.S. IPO firms in the domestic syndicated loan market, we observe that global equity offering firms experience more favorable loan price than that offered to their domestic counterparts. This finding holds for a set of robustness tests of endogeneity issues. We also find that, compared with their domestic counterparts, global equity offering firms are less likely to have financial distress, engage more in international diversification, and are more likely to wait a longer time to apply for syndicated loans.     

The relation between R&;D intensity and future market returns: does expensing versus capitalization matter?

The Australian accounting environment provides an ideal setting for examining the impact of different accounting treatments of firms’ R&D activities on their subsequent returns. Unlike US firms, which can only expense R&D, Australian GAAP permits firms to either expense or capitalize their R&D expenditure. We examine separately the market impact of the R&D intensity of all R&D active firms, ‘capitalizers’ and ‘expensers’. Our results suggest that firms with higher R&D intensity perform better, regardless of the accounting method used, consistent with the resource-based view of the firm. We also find some evidence that firms which expense R&D outperform those which capitalize R&D after controlling for R&D intensity.

Country-level corruption and accounting choice: Research & development capitalization under IFRS

International Accounting Standard 38 Intangible Assets mandates that development costs must be capitalized if certain conditions specified in the standard are met. However, this requires managerial judgement and hence may be subject to opportunism. Corruption is a permeable informal country characteristic that penetrates firms’ behaviour, influencing corporate misconduct. We conjecture that an environment with high corruption facilitates management in their justification of meeting the capitalization criteria of assets that should have been expensed, either partly or entirely. These capitalized assets will not generate the future economic benefits implicitly conveyed by their recognition. This recognition, however, sends positive (albeit distorted) market signals for future earnings and increases current year reported earnings. We find that there is a positive relation between country-level corruption and the amount of development costs capitalized in a given year. Moreover, the higher the levels of country corruption, the lower the contribution of capitalized development costs in a given year to future profitability. Finally, this association is moderated by companies’ levels of internationalization.