Intangible investment and the importance of firm-specific factors in the determination of earnings

We examine the effect of intangible investment on earnings noncommonality, defined as the extent to which a firm’s earnings performance is determined by firm-specific factors versus market and industry factors. Such insight is important in determining the appropriate weighting of these factors when forecasting a firm’s earnings. For a sample of US firms over the 1980–2006 period, we find that earnings noncommonality is positively associated with intangible asset intensity. This finding is consistent with the resource-based view of the firm, which posits that intangible investments allow firms to differentiate themselves economically from their rivals. We also find that separable recognized intangibles contribute more to earnings noncommonality than do either goodwill or R&D, perhaps because separable recognized intangibles are more likely to arise from contractual or legal rights and thus are less susceptible to expropriation by rival firms. Finally, we find that the positive impact of R&D on earnings noncommonality is significantly greater for those industries where patents and other legal mechanisms are most effective in protecting R&D. This result suggests that the success of intangible investment as a differentiation strategy depends largely on the effectiveness of mechanisms used to protect intangible investments from expropriation.     

Does oil price uncertainty matter in firm innovation? Evidence from China

Inspired by the prevalence of firm innovation and substantial influence of international oil price uncertainty (OPU) on firm operation and decision-making, we investigate the influence of OPU on firm innovation. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms over the 2007–2019 period, our study reveals that OPU decreases firm innovation. This finding is consistent with the real options theory and the prospect theory. Mediation analysis shows that OPU could decrease firm innovation by increasing firms' financing constraints degree. Moreover, high-tech firms and those in highly competitive industries have fewer options to delay their innovation investments, we find that the adverse effects of OPU on their innovation are weaker. Finally, further analysis shows that government subsidies can help mitigate adverse effects of OPU on firm innovation. This paper reveals that OPU goes beyond the commonly known and understood regular indicator that shapes a firm's innovation activity and enriches firm-level evidence for the effects of OPU by highlighting the effects on long-term investment in intangible assets.     

Should Intangibles Be Measured: What Are the Economic Trade‐Offs?

We investigate whether a firm's intangible investments should be measured and separated from operating expenses. We find that the information extracted from accounting reports of investments and earnings is different when intangibles are measured and identified separately from operating expenses than when intangibles are left commingled with operating expenses. This difference in the market's information causes a change in the behavior of market prices, inducing changes in the firm's investments and cash flows. Thus, from a real effects perspective, measuring intangibles is not unambiguously desirable. We identify the conditions under which providing information on intangibles may be desirable. This study also shows the inadequacy of statistical associations between accounting numbers and prices as a basis for evaluating the desirability of measuring intangible investments. We show that the measurement of intangibles alters the very distribution of cash flows about which the measurement regime is seeking to provide information.     

合作创新如何更有效? ——基于专用性投资与战略信息共享的视角

互联网发展以及数字经济背景下,专用性投资如何影响组织间合作创新,至今结论仍不清晰。基于交易成本理论和社会交换理论,本文将战略信息共享纳入纵向合作研究框架,剖析不同类型专用性投资对组织间合作创新绩效影响的微观机理。研究结果显示：不同类型专用性投资的影响存在差异,其中,人力专用性投资对战略信息共享的正向影响最显著,而品牌专用性投资的影响强于流程专用性投资;战略信息共享显著促进合作创新绩效,且在专用性投资对合作创新绩效的影响过程中具有中介作用;关系信任在专用性投资与战略信息共享的关系中起正向调节作用,但在战略信息共享与合作创新绩效的关系中起负向调节作用;资源互补性正向调节战略信息共享与合作创新绩效的影响。     

Real effects of financial reporting and disclosure on innovation

This paper reviews the literature on the real effects of financial reporting and disclosure on corporate innovation, highlighting both the possible channels of influence and the potential challenges that researchers face when attributing causal effects. We discuss the concept of innovation, emphasising the specific characteristics that make investments in innovation difficult to report. We then provide a review of the nascent work relating disclosure to innovation, which we organise around three channels: financing, compensation and learning. Finally, we discuss recent efforts aimed at increasing the quality of corporate disclosures, including disclosures of firms’ innovative activities. Throughout the paper, we highlight the trade-offs of disclosure (reduced information asymmetry and increased proprietary costs), which are particularly exacerbated in the context of corporate innovation.     

Measuring Intangible Capital: A Review of Current Practice

This paper examines international practices that measure firm-level investments into intangible capital. The issues motivating the paper are the need for a standardised framework for measuring intangible capital and the possibility for standardised applications of these measures into the future. The paper analyses the differences and problems associated with the properties of the "official" (accounting) and "non-official" measurement approaches. We propose that the way to a standardised, more comparable approach to measuring intangible capital is to employ a back-to-basics "costs" approach which classifies investments in intangible capital as assets based on management intent at the time.     

R&D sensitivity to asset sale proceeds: New evidence on financing constraints and intangible investment

We examine the intersection between corporate divestitures of tangible assets and investment in intangible capital (R&D) to provide new tests for the impact financing constraints have on real activity. A positive R&D sensitivity to asset sale proceeds indicates binding financing constraints since cash inflows from tangible asset sales are negatively correlated with productivity shocks and not otherwise connected to intangible investment via non-financial channels. Using a variety of estimation approaches, we document a strong, positive link between cash inflows from fixed asset sales and corporate R&D investment, but only among firms most likely facing binding financing constraints. These results offer robust evidence that financing frictions impact the increasingly important yet understudied intangible corporate investments that drive innovative activity, and they highlight a previously unexplored but potentially valuable use of proceeds from fixed asset divestitures.     

委托理财导致上市公司脱实向虚吗?——基于企业创新的视角

依据2008-2017年上市公司委托理财与专利数据,本文实证研究了委托理财对企业创新的影响。研究发现随着委托理财规模与理财收益对公司业绩贡献的增加,上市公司总体上创新数量变化不明显,但创新质量却显著下降。对于不同的委托理财而言,上市公司购买银行与非银行委托理财对创新质量的影响均为负面,但对创新数量的影响却正好相反。两种类型委托理财对创新数量的影响可能相互抵消,从而导致总体上委托理财对创新数量的影响不显著。进一步研究发现,购买更多的委托理财导致上市公司更加倾向于进行风险低的开发性创新,减少风险高的探索性创新。购买银行理财的上市公司更倾向于机会主义创新,而购买非银行理财的上市公司更可能消极创新。总之,基于企业创新视角的分析发现大规模和投机性的委托理财会干扰上市公司创新行为,导致其经营"脱实向虚"。     

Accounting for Intangible Investments

The traditional categorisation of expenditures evident in many firms' charts of accounts and financial statements does not identify and measure expenditures on intangible investment separately from tangible investment and operating expenditures. This contrasts with the accounting for tangible investment, which separately accounts for all expenditures as assets unless the future benefits are consumed in a single accounting period. Further, in searching for better ways to account for intangibles, regulators and researchers have focused on the accounting choice problem relating to the existence and recognisability of intangible assets. In this paper, we argue that identifying and separately reporting the expenditures on intangible investment is the logical first step in accounting for intangible investments. Learning about the firm's categories of value driving (and sometimes potentially value destroying) expenditures has important implications for understanding aspects of the value chain, performance measurement, valuation, corporate governance and the external audit.     

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.     

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.     

创新影响了银行风险承担吗?——基于中国上市银行的实证检验

本文将银行内部创新因素和外部创新环境引入银行风险承担研究框架,从理论和实证两个方面分析创新对银行风险承担的影响。研究结果发现,创新与银行风险承担之间呈现"U型"的关系,适度创新能够弱化银行风险承担,过度创新会加剧银行风险承担。进一步研究发现,内部创新对非五大行具有当期和滞后的双重影响,而对五大行仅具有当期效应。外部创新对五大行具有当期和滞后的双重影响,而对非五大行的当期影响不显著。企业还款能力、银行贷款质量和创新资产规模是创新影响银行风险承担的重要中介机制。此外,五大行对创新的敏感性小于非五大行,五大行可接受的创新区间大于非五大行。     

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.     

Why do firms disclose and not disclose structural intangibles?

This study conducts 22 interviews with the directors of 11 firms chosen from the top 30 listed firms by market capital on the Colombo Stock Exchange, with each firm representing an industry. The interviews explore senior executives' views about disclosing the structural intangibles in annual reports to attract financial investments. The study identifies 20 intangible resources in 10 intangible classes. It analyzes the interview data using latent thematic analysis and explores them as responses to social, political, and economic interest groups. Corroborating interview data with annual report data, this study identifies five broad reasons for disclosure and non-disclosure. Build empathy, show they are good corporate citizens, win government support, and build confidence are about disclosure, and divert attention from issues at hand is about non-disclosure. This study finds that disclosure results in managing legitimacy of the social and political interest groups, and also in managing impressions of the economic interest group. Non-disclosure results in managing impressions of the social and political interest groups. The findings contribute to building an evidence-led theoretical connection to understand the structural intangibles disclosed and not disclosed to attract financial investment to firms.     

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.     

De-politicization and innovation: Evidence from China

This study analyzes whether the loss of political connections in the Chinese listed firms affects their innovation. Using number of firm patents as a proxy for innovation, we construct a quasi-natural experiment, which focuses on independent directors with political connections were forced to resign due to CPC regulation in 2013 to explore the casual relation between political connections and firm innovation. The baseline results indicate that the innovation output has improved significantly since the promulgation of the Chinese government’s policy in 2013. In addition, we also find two possible underlying channels that firms tend to increase R&D investments and prefer to hire more senior engineers as their independent directors once they lose political ties. The results suggest that de-politicization has been conducive to promoting technological innovation and firms will compensate for their competitiveness weakened by the loss of political connection through two underlying channels in China, which are also confirmed in additional robustness and placebo tests.     

The role of accounting in high-technology investments

We present new qualitative empirical evidence from a series of interviews with representatives of venture capital support organisations, which discusses the role of accounting in high-technology investments. Our discussion is framed around three propositions on: whether or not the stewardship role of accounting still holds; the usefulness, or otherwise, of accounting information in the valuation of high-technology investments; and assessing the value of intangible assets in the investment decision. We find that accounting no longer plays such a strong stewardship role, certainly for the venture capital investor. Further, its role in enabling investors to make decisions on how, when and how much to invest is limited. We propose that standard setters take this on board in revising reporting requirements.     

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.     

客户：我拿什么奉献给你——记2007年中国保险行业信息高层研讨会

“不久的将来,人们会从超市、便利店、网上购买到他们想要的某些保险。”2007年12月12日,IBM中国区保险业总经理罗国兴在IBM举办的“2007年中国保险行业信息高层研讨会”上说,未来保险市场的发展将呈现四大趋势：客户需求多样化;能活下来的保险公司只有两种：规模大的企业与产品和服务个性化明星的企业;     

Leading Indicator Variables, Performance Measurement, and Long-Term Versus Short-Term Contracts

In this article we develop a multiperiod agency model to study the role of leading indicator variables in managerial performance measures. In addition to the familiar moral hazard problem, the principal faces the task of motivating a manager to undertake “soft” investments. These investments are not directly contractible, but the principal can instead rely on leading indicator variables that provide a noisy forecast of the investment returns to be received in future periods. Our analysis relates the role of leading indicator variables to the duration of the manager's incentive contract. With short‐term contracts, leading indicator variables are essential in mitigating a holdup problem resulting from the fact that investments are sunk at the end of the first period. With long‐term contracts, leading indicator variables will be valuable if the manager's compensation schemes are not stationary over time. The leading indicator variables then become an instrument for matching the future investment return with the current investment expenditure. We identify conditions under which the optimal long‐term contract induces larger investments and less reliance on the leading indicator variables as compared with short‐term contracts. Under certain conditions, though, the principal does better with a sequence of one‐period contracts than with a long‐term contract.