Mispricing and risk of R&D investment in European firms

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

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

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

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.     

Excess Returns to R&D-Intensive Firms

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

The Determinants of Investor Valuation of R&D Expenditure in the Software Industry

This paper examines the cross-sectional variability in the market valuation of R&D expenditures in the pre-packaged computer software industry. Consistent with some prior research, this paper argues that R&D spending is valued heterogeneously by the stock market, and derives hypotheses regarding the determinants of the cross-sectional heterogeneity in the market valuation of R&D. The empirical tests use an extensive database containing product level information of software firms between 1994 and 1998, along with accounting and stock price data of the same period. The test results, consistent with our hypotheses, show that R&D spending is more valuable for firms with larger market shares, higher percentage of technical employees, and those that have diversified into different product categories. The results also indicate that market valuation of R&D spending is a function of product life cycle.     

Stock market reactions to R&D cuts used to manage earnings

Prior research shows that stock returns are positive when firms meet or beat analysts' consensus earnings forecasts but negative when they miss. Past studies also show that managers frequently cut research and development (R&D) expenses in order to meet the consensus forecast. This study shows that the stock market penalizes this behavior and exacts a discount to the market reward if beating the forecast requires cutting R&D. However, it is only a partial discount and firms are still better off managing R&D expenditures in the short run. This study also shows that the reductions in R&D are likely temporary, as firms tend to increase R&D spending in the subsequent periods. Investors appear to recognize these short-term cuts and treat them similarly to accruals.     

How does the financial environment affect the stock market valuation of R&D spending?

This paper investigates the role of the financial environment in the stock market valuation of research and development (R&D) spending by firms. We examine the importance of equity financing relative to bank financing and the importance of both relative to the size of the economy on the stock market valuation of R&D expenditures. Empirical analysis of the Compustat Global Vantage firm-level data indicates that, the more market-based a financial system is, the more R&D expenditures are valued by the stock market. The degree of financial development does not appear to be important. Our results remain materially unchanged after controlling for numerous firm and country differences.     

Using real options theory to explain patterns in the valuation of research and development expenditures

Real options theory posits that the value of the firm is a combination of the value generated by the assets in place and the value of the option to invest in the future. It is based on the idea that many decisions are difficult to reverse, and valuing the outcome of these decisions is more complicated than estimating the present value of future cash flows. R&D activities often generate real options due to the nature of these activities, and examining the valuation of R&D expenditures through the lens of real options theory can help explain differing results documented in both the R&D and value relevance of earnings and book value literatures. Numerous studies have documented that the stock market positively values R&D expenditures; however, recent work has raised questions about whether this positive relation occurs across firms reporting both profits and losses. Consistent with real options theory, I find that the negative coefficient on the R&D expenditures of profitable firms documented by prior studies only exists for low growth firms. In addition, for all R&D firms experiencing high sales growth, the market places a lower value on assets in place and a higher value on R&D expenditures.     

The relationship between R&D intensity,conservatism, and management earnings forecast issuance

R&D-intensive firms suffer from high information asymmetry and high proprietary costs and are prone to exhibit bottom-line losses given the unconditional conservative accounting treatment of R&D expenses. We examine how R&D intensity influences the issuance of management earnings forecasts (MEFs) across levels of accounting conservatism, controlling for proprietary costs and other earnings guidance determinants. We provide insights into how managers view the tradeoffs of using MEF disclosures to lower information asymmetry versus the costs of releasing proprietary information to competitors and the loss of reputational capital that could arise from providing inaccurate forecasts. We find that although R&D intensity and conditional conservatism are negatively related to the issuance of MEFs, as shown in prior research, at high levels of research intensity and the accompanying uncertainty about future payoffs, the negative association between conditional conservatism and MEF issuance is mitigated. These findings point to a role for conditional conservatism as a credibility enhancer for managers of R&D intense firms.     

R&D Intensity and Corporate Financial Policy: Some International Evidence

This paper presents evidence on the financial policies of firms strongly engaged in research and development activities. By referring to the under-investment paradox, the asset substitution problem, the asset specificity proposition and the information asymmetry literature, we postulate that R&D-intensive firms should adopt specific financial policies. In conformity with our hypotheses, empirical results based on a sample of R&D-intensive and non-R&D firms in four major industrialized countries (Europe, the UK, Japan and the US) show that R&D-intensive firms exhibit significant lower debt and dividend payment levels, but shorter debt maturities and higher cash levels than non-R&D ones.     

Conservatism, Growth and the Role of Accounting Numbers in the Fundamental Analysis Process

I evaluate the effects of conservative accounting for research and development (R&D) and past growth in R&D on: (1) the relation between aggregate earnings (deflated by price) and contemporaneous stock return, and (2) the association between estimates of value derived from the residual income valuation model (i.e., RIV estimates) and equity market value. I show that the conservative treatment of R&D affects the earnings/return relation only for firms that experience high growth in R&D during the return interval of interest. I also demonstrate that the effect of conservative accounting for R&D on the association between RIV estimates and equity market values is increasing in past growth in R&D.This revised version was published online in August 2005 with a corrected cover date.     

Dividends,research and development expenditures,and the value relevance of book value for UK loss-making firms

We extend prior research on the value relevance of accounting information for loss-making firms by allowing the coefficient of book value to vary across three distinct set of loss-making firm observations in our valuation model. Our key findings are, first, that book value is a less important determinant of equity value for either high R&D-intensive firms or dividend-paying firms, relative to firms with low R&D-intensity and zero dividends. Prior literature suggests that book value is a strong indicator of firm value for loss-making firms. This reasoning stems from book value's role as: (i) a proxy for the value of the possibility of abandoning or adapting the firms' net assets; and/or (ii) a proxy for expected future normal earnings. Our work suggests that this prior literature does not fully capture the valuation role of book value for loss-making firms. Second, we also find that dividends are value relevant, but generally only when the valuation role of book value is contextualised by allowing its coefficient to vary across high R&D-intensive firms, and dividend-paying, loss-making firms.     

Absorptive capacity,technology spillovers,and the cross-section of stock returns

In the presence of potential technology spillovers, I demonstrate that a firm's absorptive capacity (AC), as proxied by R&D investments, is crucial to benefit from spillovers. I find that higher AC firms, when exposed to large potential spillovers, exhibit stronger future real outcomes (cite-weighted patents and operating performance) and market value. Importantly, however, this value-relevant information does not appear to be immediately incorporated into stock prices, leading to high future abnormal stock returns for firms with high AC and spillover exposure. Furthermore, the undervaluation is most pronounced among low investor attention stocks, suggesting that limited attention contributes to the undervaluation.     

Innovative intensity and its impact on the performance of firms in Brazil

This article evaluates whether firms that invest in research and development (R&D) have better future performance and if stock market fully value such intangible investment. The results of annual cross-sectional regressions indicate a strong association between the intensity of R&D and future performance, even after controlling for other variables that affect future performance. However, after controlling for firm characteristics and risk factors, the innovative intensity was not significant in predicting future returns. In general, the results suggest that the R&D intensity is not useful for firm valuation in Brazil.     

Why Are U.S. Stocks More Volatile?

U.S. stocks are more volatile than stocks of similar foreign firms. A firm's stock return volatility can be higher for reasons that contribute positively (good volatility) or negatively (bad volatility) to shareholder wealth and economic growth. We find that the volatility of U.S. firms is higher mostly because of good volatility. Specifically, stock volatility is higher in the United States because it increases with investor protection, stock market development, new patents, and firm‐level investment in R&D. Each of these factors is related to better growth opportunities for firms and better ability to take advantage of these opportunities.     

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.     

CEO risk incentives and firm performance following R&D increases

In this study we analyze how CEO risk incentives affect the efficiency of research and development (R&D) investments. We examine a sample of 843 cases in which firms increase their R&D investments by an economically significant amount over the period of 1995–2006. We find that firms with higher sensitivity of CEO compensation portfolio value to stock volatility (vega) are more likely to have large increases in R&D investments. More importantly, we find that high-vega firms experience lower abnormal stock returns and lower operating performance compared to their low-vega counterparts following the R&D increases. Our main results hold in a variety of robustness tests. The results are consistent with the conjecture that high-vega compensation portfolios may induce managers to overinvest in inefficient R&D projects and therefore hurt firm performance.     

Intangible Assets and Corporate Signaling

Research and development (R&D) and advertising expenditures often result in patents, technologies and brand names which are difficult to accurately value. Under current generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) these intangible assets are generally not recognized in the financial statements, but instead are expensed in the period that they occur. Prior studies note that the market-to-book ratios of firms with significant levels of R&D and advertising expenditures suggest that investors, at least partially, value these assets. Researchers and practitioners argue that current GAAP, by not recognizing these intangible assets, reduces the usefulness and relevance of accounting reports.We investigate whether companies with significant levels of intangible assets are more likely to emphasize dividend increases and stock repurchases (which are generally perceived as signaling favorable investment opportunities), instead of traditional accounting disclosures, as a means of overcoming adverse selection. Because these assets are difficult to measure, cash distributions may be viewed as a more credible means of signaling firm value to investors. Using analysts' ratings of firms' accounting disclosures, we find that companies with higher levels of R&D and advertising expenditures are less likely to provide extensive accounting disclosures and instead tend to employ dividend and stock repurchase signals. We obtain these results even after controlling for other firm attributes, such as size, stock returns performance, leverage, liquidity and investors' expectations of growth opportunities. We also find that the market reaction to dividend increase and stock repurchase announcements is greater for firms with higher levels of R&D and advertising expenditures, indicating that these announcements are more informative for such firms.     

Vertical merger,R&D collaboration and innovation

This paper studies the effects of vertical merger and R&D collaboration activities on firms' innovation decisions and stock returns based on a continuous-time real option model under market and technological uncertainties. Our analysis confirms vertical merger's benefit in amplifying the potential gain from innovation through eliminating inefficiencies. We show that vertical merger boosts innovation incentives in two ways: it reduces the optimal innovation threshold when firms suspend the project and increases R&D investment when firms launch the project. If vertical merger is not possible, R&D collaboration can improve firms' innovation levels as an alternative decision, but inefficiencies still exist which implies less pronounced stimulation effects. Both vertical merger and R&D collaboration can reduce firms' risk when conducting innovation project and weaken the positive R&D-returns relation and financial constraints-returns relation, while these effects of vertical merger are stronger than those of R&D collaboration.