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.     

Legal shareholder protection and corporate R&D investment

This paper investigates the effects of shareholder protection law on corporate R&D investment. I find that the institutional protection of shareholder benefits reduces both underinvestment and overinvestment in R&D projects. Legal shareholder rights significantly increase R&D investment for firms that may underinvest, but reduce R&D for firms that may overinvest. Shareholder protection further enhances the growth of firms in R&D intensive industries, and promotes the economic growth of innovative countries. The results consistently show that enforcing stronger legal shareholder protection can help firms achieve an overall more efficient capital allocation to productive R&D investment.     

The size,concentration and evolution of corporate R&D spending in U.S. firms from 1976 to 2010: Evidence and implications

The use of research and development (R&D) spending as an empirical proxy for managerial discretion, information asymmetry and growth opportunities, is pervasive in empirical corporate finance research. Underlying this is the implicit assumption that firms choose levels of R&D to maximize value, given firm and industry characteristics. An alternative framework views the level of R&D spending as subject to idiosyncratic behavior as managers myopically manipulate R&D expenditures to meet short-term earnings goals. Using aggregate firm and industry level data, we find evidence consistent with the view that R&D is determined by firm and industry characteristics. Time invariant firm and industry fixed effects explain most of the cross-sectional variation in observed R&D spending, while time-varying factors like size, profitability, or market-to-book explain little of the cross-sectional variation. We find that R&D spending continues to grow faster than advertising and capital expenditures. We also find no evidence of managerial myopia as corporate aggregate R&D expenditures are growing faster than aggregate profitability and the number of firms that undertake R&D has increased over the period from 1976 to 2010.     

Misvaluation and the corporate propensity to hold cash

This study adopts a new perspective, misvaluation, to explain corporate propensity to hold cash. We find a strong cross-sectional relationship between misvaluation and the propensity to hold cash, which can be attributed to firms' investment, cash dividends, and equity raising activities. We further show that the equity issuance channel is driven by both firm-initiated issuance activities and the exercise of employee stock options. The results are robust after controlling for endogeneity issues. Several additional robustness tests reject alternative explanations, such as precautionary motives, agency conflicts, near-term cash needs, and tax motives.     

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.     

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.     

Stock market valuation of R&D spending of firms acquiring targets from technologically abundant countries

In this paper, we aim to extend the internalization theory by Buckley and Casson [Buckley, P.J., Casson, M., 1976. The Future of Multinational Enterprise. Holmes & Meier, New York] and Caves [Caves, R.E., 1971. International corporations: the industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica 38, 1–27] in two respects. First, we hypothesize that synergies arising from a technology-oriented cross-border M&A increase the stock market value of an acquirer’s R&D spending. Second, we hypothesize that an acquirer’s access to a country with more favorable R&D environment through the target firm is the main source of synergy arising from intangibles in these M&As. Our empirical results of analyzing data from 10 most R&D active countries in Europe are consistent with these hypotheses and support our extension of the internalization theory. Specifically, we find that multinationality of a firm with intangible assets as such does not add value to R&D, but the combination of its own R&D with that of a firm located in a country with highly favorable R&D environment.     

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.     

Board diversity,firm risk,and corporate policies

We examine the effects of diversity in the board of directors on corporate policies and risk. Using a multidimensional measure, we find that greater board diversity leads to lower volatility and better performance. The lower risk levels are largely due to diverse boards adopting more persistent and less risky financial policies. However, consistent with diversity fostering more efficient (real) risk-taking, firms with greater board diversity also invest persistently more in research and development (R&D) and have more efficient innovation processes. Instrumental variable tests that exploit exogenous variation in firm access to the supply of diverse nonlocal directors indicate that these relations are causal.     

R&D investment and systematic risk

The present study investigates the relationship between a firm's R&D intensity and the risk of its common stock, by analysing a sample of firms which are more profitable, larger in market capitalization and more R&D intensive than the universe of US‐listed firms. The results from the portfolio analysis, Monte Carlos simulations and correlation analysis of our sample show that: (i) R&D intensity is positively related to systematic risk in the stock market; (ii) the greater systematic risk is largely attributable to the greater intrinsic business risk and the greater operating risk of R&D‐intensive firms; (iii) R&D‐intensive firms carry marginally less financial leverage but they do not differ from other firms in terms of operating leverage; and (iv) our results are particularly strong in the manufacturing sector. For the non‐manufacturing sector, the results are not robust for different study periods.     

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.     

Cash holdings and R&D smoothing

The sharp increase in R&D investment in recent decades has important but unexplored implications for corporate liquidity management. Because R&D has high adjustment costs and is financed with volatile sources, it is very expensive for firms to adjust the flow of R&D in response to transitory finance shocks. The main contribution of this paper is to directly examine whether firms use cash reserves to smooth their R&D expenditures. We estimate dynamic R&D models and find that firms most likely to face financing frictions rely extensively on cash holdings to smooth R&D. In particular, our estimates suggest that young firms used cash holdings to dampen the volatility in R&D by approximately 75% during the 1998–2002 boom and bust in equity issues. Firms less likely to face financing frictions appear to smooth R&D without the use of costly cash holdings. Our findings provide new insights into the value of liquidity and the financing of intangible investment, and suggest that R&D smoothing with cash reserves is now important for understanding cash management for a substantial fraction of publicly traded firms.     

R&D AND CAPITAL MARKETS

The substantial growth of R&D expenditures over the last two decades, together with the continuous substitution of knowledge (intangible) capital for physical (tangible) capital in corporate production functions, has elevated the importance of R&D in the performance of business enterprises. At the same time, however, the evaluation of corporate R&D activities by investors is seriously hampered by antiquated accounting rules and insufficient disclosure by corporations. Despite the fact that the expected benefits of R&D stretch over extended periods of time, corporate investments in R&D are immediately written off in financial reports, leaving no trace of R&D capital on balance sheets and causing material distortions of reported profitability. After a brief review of statistics documenting the growth and economic importance of corporate R&D in the U.S., the article presents a comparison of R&D disclosure regulations among industrialized nations that shows U.S. rules to be the least flexible in allowing management discretion in how they measure and report R&D. Next the author surveys the large and growing body of empirical research on R&D, which provides strong testimony to the substantial contribution of R&D to corporate productivity and shareholder value. Moreover, despite widespread allegations of stock market “short termism” throughout the 1980s and early '90s, the research indicates “unequivocally” that capital markets consider investments in R&D as a significant value-increasing activity. But if investors clearly demonstrate a willingness to take the long view of R&D, there is also evidence of undervaluation of some R&D-intensive companies—particularly those with low profitability—as well as other potential costs to corporations and investors stemming from inadequate public information about R&D. To help correct the reporting biases and distortions of R&D, the author offers some suggestions for investors and analysts that follow R&D-intensive companies. In particular, he proposes (1) adjustment of reported data to reflect the capitalization and amortization of (instead of expensing) corporate R&D and (2) the use of various quantitative measures for gauging research capabilities and output, including citations of the firm's patents and measures indicating the share of current revenues coming from products developed within recent years.     

Limits of tax regulation: Evidence from strategic R&D classification and the R&D tax credit

We investigate a tax avoidance strategy where firms use the ambiguity inherent in tax reporting to classify indirect costs as research and development (R&D) expenditures to take advantage of the R&D tax credit. We label this tax practice “strategic R&D classification”. We find a one standard deviation increase in strategic R&D classification leads, on average, to a 1.7% (1.5%) reduction in GAAP (cash) effective tax rates, suggesting this practice provides significant tax savings. However, we also find strategic R&D classification is related to both the level and changes in uncertain tax benefit liabilities required to be recognized under FIN 48, suggesting this practice comes with financial reporting costs. Our study contributes to the literature by documenting some of the costs and benefits associated with a previously unexplored tax strategy, and highlights the limitations faced by tax authorities in monitoring firms’ R&D tax credit.     

Exchange rate undervaluation and R&D activity

We examine how real exchange rate undervaluation policy affects research and development (R&D) activity. Using a panel data set comprising 49 developed and developing countries covering 1996–2011, we show that undervaluing the exchange rate retards technological innovation. Such a negative impact is particularly prominent for developed countries. This paper provides new insights into the real effects of undervaluation policy on the economy. An implication of our work is that countries implementing exchange rate undervaluation policy should be mindful of its potential negative effects on research and development activity.     

证券分析师关注与企业研发投入

本文基于2015—2019年中国A股上市企业财务数据,以信息中介假说和业绩压力假说为理论基础,考察了分析师关注对企业研发投入的影响。研究发现：（1）分析师关注对企业研发投入存在倒U形影响,但呈现抑制作用的样本较少,更多呈现出促进作用,且结论在2SLS及GMM估计下依然稳健;（2）分析师关注通过信息解读与业绩压力机制共同影响研发投入;（3）明星分析师关注会引起管理层业绩压力,从而造成研发投入的挤出效应,而低声誉分析师关注不引起该效应;（4）高机构持股可缓解业绩压力效应,使分析师关注促进研发投入提升。本文对于解读分析师功能及分析师与微观企业研发投资决策之间的联系提供了新视角,拓展了企业研发投资研究的逻辑边界。     

Employment protection legislation and R&D investment

This paper examines how employment protection legislation influences corporate R&D investment. With a sample of 113,228 observations across 23 OECD countries from 2001 to 2018, I document that firms in strong employment protection legislation have lower R&D expenditure and investment efficiency. In addition, I find that the effect of employment protection on R&D expenditure is stronger in financially constrained firms but the effect of employment protection on R&D investment efficiency is stronger in financially unconstrained firms.     

The Relation Among Targets' R&D Activities, Acquirers' Returns, and In-Process R&D in the US

Abstract:  Using a sample of 129 mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in the US between publicly traded acquirers and targets in research and development (R&D) intensive industries over the period of 1994-2004 and a size- and industry-matched sample, we examine the relation among targets' R&D activities, the probability of acquirers' writing-off in-process R&D (IPRD), and acquirers' returns around the time of M&A announcements. We find that firms acquiring targets with higher R&D investments tend to write off some of the acquired R&D assets upon the completion of the M&As. We also find that the median cumulative abnormal return during the three days around M&A announcements for acquirers with subsequent IPRD write-offs is −2.73% while the return for acquirers without IPRD write-offs is −0.60%. This suggests that acquirers' stock returns around M&A announcements are much lower when investors expect acquirers to expense IPRD. The results are consistent with our conjecture that acquirers tend to write-off IPRD when they acquire overvalued targets. We also find that IPRD write-offs do not increase earnings or stock returns of acquirers after M&As, which is inconsistent with an earnings management hypothesis.     

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.     

R&D, knowledge spillovers and stock volatility

Firms improve their know‐how not only by innovations (producing new knowledge), but also by knowledge spillovers (learning from others). The objective of this study is to test for two major hypotheses developed from a theoretical model explaining the relationship between R&D, knowledge spillovers and stock volatility. Analytically, the model suggests that asymmetric information caused by R&D activities with uncertain future output increases stock volatility, even though dividends and consumptions remain unchanged. However, interfirm knowledge spillovers have a negative impact on stock volatility by reducing the degree of asymmetric information. Both hypotheses are supported by empirical evidence from this study.