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 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.     

A theory of growth and volatility at the aggregate and firm level

We present an endogenous growth model that explains the evolution of the first and second moments of productivity growth at the aggregate and firm level during the post-war period. Growth is driven by the development of both (i) idiosyncratic R&D innovations and (ii) general innovations that can be freely adopted by many firms. Firm-level volatility is affected primarily by the Schumpeterian dynamics associated with the development of R&D innovations. The variance of aggregate productivity growth is driven by the arrival rate of general innovations. Ceteris paribus, the share of resources spent on development of general innovations increases with the stability of the market share of the industry leader. As market shares become less persistent, the model predicts an endogenous shift in the allocation of resources from the development of general innovations to the development of R&D innovations. This results in an increase in R&D, an increase in firm-level volatility, and a decline in aggregate volatility. The effect on productivity growth is ambiguous.On the empirical side, this paper presents new cross-country evidence that R&D subsidies are not significantly associated with higher growth but are associated with lower aggregate volatility. It also documents an upward trend in the instability of market shares, a positive association between firm volatility and R&D spending, and a negative association across sectors between R&D and how correlated the sector is with the rest of the economy.     

Government R&D spending,fiscal instruments and corporate technological innovation

Using panel data from 242 cities in China, we examine the impact of government research and development (R&D) spending on corporate technological innovation. We find that listed firms located in cities with higher government R&D expenditures are more innovative than firms in other cities. Further, the positive effect of government R&D spending depends on fiscal instruments and factor allocation. Through subsidies and tax incentives, government R&D spending enhances firm innovation by alleviating financing constraints, improving employee creativity and ensuring efficient operations. We demonstrate that subsidies are more effective than taxes in spurring corporate technological innovation. We also show that the impact of government R&D spending is stronger for state-owned and high-tech enterprises than for other enterprises. Overall, our findings suggest that government R&D spending can substantially improve corporate technological innovation through fiscal instruments.     

R&D tax credits,technology spillovers,and firms' product convergence

Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) setting that leverages the staggered adoption of R&D tax credits across the U.S. states, we show that after a firm receives the tax credits, products of its peers become significantly more similar to the recipient firm. Such product convergence is particularly strong when peer firms face greater pressure from market participants to uphold short-term performances. We further show that the effect of R&D tax credits likely works through the increased technology spillovers, which motivate peers to imitate instead of differentiating. Accordingly, we show that peer firms shift their patent composition from breakthrough to incremental innovations following the R&D tax subsidy.     

Capitalizing R&D expenses versus disclosing intangible information

We study how to improve the value-relevance of financial information for intangible-intensive firms by investigating two alternatives: capitalizing research and development (R&D) expenses and disclosing intangible information. Using patent counts/citations to proxy for intangible intensity, we find that the incremental value-relevance of disclosing patent counts/citations is greater than that of capitalizing R&D expenses for the high-patent group and vice versa for the low- or medium-patent group. Investors favor the disclosure of patent information for firms with more successful innovations. Since disclosing intangible information may lead to appropriation by rivals, we find that, for the high-patent group, the incremental value-relevance of disclosing patent counts/citations is more pronounced for firms in industries with stronger protection of intellectual property. Overall, our results suggest that disclosing R&D outputs can improve the value-relevance of financial statements for firms rich in intangibles and the incremental benefits of such disclosure will be greater in industries with strong protection of intellectual property.     

R&D investment and distress risk

This paper proposes that besides volatility, R&D can increase firms' distress risk through another channel. Unlike capital investment, R&D is more inflexible and subject to high adjustment costs. Moreover, R&D intensive firms face severe financial constraints and are more likely to suspend/discontinue R&D projects. Therefore, firms' distress risk increases with their R&D intensity. Using a large panel of US companies over the 1980 to 2011 period, I find a robust empirical relation between R&D and distress risk, primarily among financially constrained firms. Moreover, the effect of R&D on distress risk is magnified during economic downturns. I also find that firms that have been previously successful in R&D or firms with high analyst coverage can mitigate the relationship between R&D and distress risk.     

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.     

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.     

Public entrants,public equity finance and creative destruction

We explore the importance of new public firms and public equity finance for R&D and creative destruction in the US high-tech sector. Over 1900 new public firms enter high-tech manufacturing between 1970 and 2004; they are increasingly R&D intensive and rely extensively on public equity finance in the 1980s and 1990s. We estimate dynamic R&D models and find a strong link between public equity finance and R&D for new entrants, but not established entrants or incumbents. Further, recent cohorts of public entrants have a substantial economic impact: by 2000, recent public entrants account for almost half of high-tech sales and more than half of R&D. Variation in the availability of public equity finance has a marked impact on entrant R&D and the rate at which entrants take market share from incumbents. Our findings identify a key channel through which public equity markets facilitate the process of creative destruction.     

The value relevance of R&D across profit and loss firms

We examine whether the valuation relevance of R&D documented for loss firms extends to profit firms. We use the residual-income valuation model and show that the valuation multiplier on R&D expenditures is likely to be negative (positive) for profit (loss) firms. This occurs because the linear information dynamics assumption of the residual-income model is more appropriate for profit firms than loss firms. Earnings of profit firms are likely to contain information on the future benefits of R&D activity, however, earnings of loss firms do not contain such information. The empirical evidence confirms our predictions for profit and loss firms. An important implication of our findings is that understanding the role of the R&D expense line item in valuation across firms and within firms, across time depends on whether the linear information dynamics assumption of the residual-income model is applicable for the sample of firms under investigation.     

Going public to acquire? The acquisition motive in IPOs

Newly public firms make acquisitions at a torrid pace. Their large acquisition appetites reflect the concentration of initial public offerings (IPOs) in mergers and acquisitions-(M&A-) intensive industries, but acquisitions by IPO firms also outpace those by mature firms in the same industry. IPO firms’ acquisition activity is fueled by the initial capital infusion at the IPO and through the creation of an acquisition currency used to raise capital for both cash- and stock-financed acquisitions along with debt issuance subsequent to the IPO. IPO firms play a bigger role in the M&A process by participating as acquirers than they do as takeover targets, and acquisitions are as important to their growth as research and development (R&D) and capital expenditures (CAPEX). The pattern of acquisitions following an IPO shapes the evolution of ownership structure of newly public firms.     

Equity financing and innovation: Is Europe different from the United States?

During the mid and late 1990s young, high-tech firms in the US experienced a supply shift in both internal and external equity fueling a finance-driven boom in corporate R&D. This paper examines whether R&D spending in Europe in a similar way was sensitive to fluctuations in the supply of internal and external equity during the late 1990s and early 2000s. I conjecture that UK and Continental Europe, due to their different financial systems, differ in terms of equity supply. I estimate dynamic R&D regression models for UK and Continental European high-tech firms separately and find significant joint cash-flow effects for newly listed firms in both samples. However, only new firms in the UK experienced a joint external equity effect as well. The findings of this paper suggest a channel through which market-based financial systems outperform the bank-based economies of Continental Europe.     

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.     

Equity compensation and the sensitivity of research and development to financial market frictions

When financial market frictions exist, executives may have to decide which investment activities to reduce when internal funds decrease. Expenditures on research and development (R&D) may be particularly vulnerable because of the long-term nature of innovative activity. We find that equity compensation is associated with lower levels of firm R&D expenditures. Rewarding executives to incur more risk has little effect on R&D expenditures, but rewarding executives for higher returns reduces R&D expenditures and makes R&D expenditures more sensitive to financial market frictions. In contrast, cash compensation reduces the sensitivity of R&D expenditures to financial market frictions.     

Voluntary disclosure and its impact on share prices: Evidence from the UK biotechnology sector

In the UK, SSAP 13 requires that firms immediately expense most of their R&D expenditures. The reported earnings of high-R&D expenditure firms are therefore likely to convey less value-relevant information to investors than those of less research-intensive firms. Using a sample of firms from the high-R&D UK biotechnology/pharmaceutical sector, we find that earnings announcements have a much lower price impact than drug development announcements. We also find that there are significantly more ‘good news’ voluntary announcements than ‘bad news’ announcements. Furthermore, our findings indicate that these firms are more likely to announce late than early stage developments, and that the pattern of disclosures, and the market’s reaction to them, varies between larger, dominant firms and their smaller counterparts.     

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.     

Does insiders share pledging stifle innovation? Evidence from China

We examine the relation between insiders share pledging activities for personal loans and firm innovation. Firstly, we find a negative effect of both the existence of pledging and the intensity of pledging activities on firm innovation, measured by R&D and patent application. Pledging by insiders with decision rights is associated with a 4.6% decline in R&D activities and 0.5% decline in patent applications, respectively, which accounts for 4.0% and 10.6% of the mean of each variable. This result holds using a propensity-score matched sample. In addition, we instrument pledging activities by financing constraints faced by other firms controlled by the same controlling insiders who pledge shares. IV estimation yield similar results. Secondly, we find share pledge activities have more pronounced effect on firm innovations when firms are located in areas with strong property rights protection, when firms are non-SOEs, or when pledging insiders serve on corporate boards. Lastly, we also find a negative effect of share pledging of other firms with common shareholders on firm innovations of interest. Overall, our findings suggest that pledging shares by insiders stifle firm innovation because share pledging reduce insiders' preference for risk taking.     

INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REPORTING PRACTICES: A FRENCH AND CANADIAN COMPARISON

This paper compares the research and development (R&D) disclosure practices in France and Canada, as evidenced in the annual reports of 76 French and 110 Canadian listed companies. It finds that Canadian high-tech companies (hardware, software, and biotechnology) disclose significantly more information on their R&D activities than their French counterparts. It also finds a strong link between R&D intensity and R&D disclosure among Canadian high-tech companies. Canadian companies overall are also found to be more likely to use non-financial disclosure as a means to resolve any R&D information asymmetry, while French firms disclose more traditional financial and accounting information. Canadian companies are also more willing than French firms to provide information concerning their future R&D expenditures. These results are consistent with inherent cultural and capital market differences between France and Canada. In contrast, the study does not find any significant difference in R&D expenditure capitalization policies between French and Canadian firms.     

Peer R&D disclosure and corporate innovation: Evidence from American depositary receipt firms

In this paper, we examine the effect of peer research and development (R&D) disclosures on corporate innovation. R&D disclosures can generate externalities for related firms, enabling those firms to better infer a project's likely payoffs and thus prioritize projects with higher net present values. We use a sample of foreign firms cross-listed on U.S. exchanges to investigate whether U.S. peer firms experience externalities from the cross-listing firm's R&D disclosures. We find that R&D disclosures by cross-listing firms are associated with greater innovation for industry peers in the U.S. market, especially when product market competition is high. The effect also varies with the home country's legal protection systems, disclosure environments, and accounting reporting rules. Cross-sectional analyses indicate that the externalities are more pronounced in industries or firms that rely more on external financing and firms subject to higher financial constraints; disclosures of higher quality appear to promote innovation by ameliorating financing frictions. Overall, this study provides evidence of R&D disclosure as an industry-wide determinant of innovation, thereby contributing to literature on the real effects of peer disclosures.