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.     

Changes in the value relevance of research and development expenses after IFRS adoption

We investigate whether the nature of differences between national GAAP and IFRS is associated with differential changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses after the adoption of IFRS across countries. Using a difference-in-differences study on a sample of public companies in nine countries that covers pre-IFRS and post-IFRS periods during 1997–2012, we find that the value relevance of R&D expenses declines after IFRS adoption in countries that previously mandated immediate expensing or allowed optional capitalization of R&D costs. On the contrary, there is no change in the value relevance of R&D expenses for countries that switched from the mandatory capitalization rule to IFRS. We also investigate the moderating effects of national institutions on the changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses after IFRS adoption. We find that in countries with stronger investor protection, the changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses are larger. In addition, changes in the value relevance of R&D expenses are smaller for countries whose national culture is characterized by higher uncertainty avoidance. Our findings highlight the importance of both accounting standards and national institutions in explaining the changes in the value relevance of accounting information after IFRS adoption.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Capitalisation of R&D and the informativeness of stock prices: Pre- and post-IFRS evidence

We examine whether requiring (IFRS) versus allowing (UK GAAP) conditional capitalisation of development expenditure affects the extent to which capitalisation conveys more information about future earnings, relative to expensing. We show that capitalisation results in current returns incorporating more future earnings information than expensing under UK GAAP but not under IFRS. i.e., the amount of information incorporated into market prices of capitalisers is the same as that from firms expensing R&D under IFRS. This result holds irrespective of a firm’s earnings management incentives or strength of corporate governance for the period under IFRS. We argue that this is because investors experience greater uncertainty regarding the realisation of future economic benefits associated with the development costs capitalised in the post-IFRS period. Consistent with this, we do find a positive association between capitalised R&D and future earnings variability in the post-IFRS period only, as well as short-term positive abnormal returns for capitalisers relative to expensers in the pre-IFRS period only. Overall, these findings suggest that when moving away from a standard that offers an overt option to capitalise or expense, capitalisation comes with greater uncertainty, which is resolved only in the long term.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

International Financial Reporting Standards and the value relevance of R&D expenditures: Pre and post IFRS analysis

This study examines the value relevance of research and development (R&D) expenditures in the pre and post International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) periods in the UK. It also examines firm size and sector-based differences in the value relevance of R&D during the sample period between 2001 and 2011. The results indicate that capitalized R&D has value relevance during the 11 years sample period. However, the value relevance of capitalized R&D does not appear to have improved in the post-IFRS period. Large firms present higher value relevance of capitalized R&D than small firms which suggest that firm size has significantly different valuation effects on the value relevance of R&D expenditures. Sectors, however, do not appear to present valuation differences across manufacturing and nonmanufacturing firms. The overall findings of this study report no difference in the value relevance of expensed R&D in the pre and post-IFRS periods; however, the value relevance of capitalized R&D appears to decrease from pre to post-IFRS period. We thus argue that these findings have implications for the regulators and accounting professionals.     

Development costs capitalization and debt financing

This study investigates debt market effects of research and development (R&D) costs capitalization, using a global sample of public bonds and private syndicated loans issued by public non‐financial firms. Firstly, we show that firms capitalize larger amounts of R&D in a year when they exhibit a propensity for issuing bonds, rather than borrowing funds privately from the syndicated loan market, in the subsequent year. Secondly, we provide evidence that capitalized R&D investments reduce the cost of debt. We infer that debt market participants are able to identify firms’ motives for R&D capitalization, as we find a reduction in the cost of debt only for those firms that do not show indications of employing R&D capitalization for earnings management reasons. Indeed, only for this sub‐sample of firms, the amount of capitalized R&D contributes positively to future earnings. We confirm that R&D capitalization is positively associated with audit fees and thus can be deemed to be a signaling device. Lastly, we find that it is the amount of R&D a firm is expected to capitalize and not the discretionary counterparts, which facilitates a firm's access to public debt markets, reduces bond and syndicated loan prices, and contributes to future benefits.     

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).     

R&D investments,capital expenditures,and earnings thresholds

Prior studies find that firms cut research and development (R&D) expense in response to earnings considerations. We extend this stream of research by documenting that firms narrowly achieving an earnings threshold also report unusually high capital expenditures. In addition, these firms’ total investments (R&D expense plus capital expenditures) do not vary in response to earnings thresholds, which suggests that, on average, reductions in R&D expense are offset by concurrent increases in capital expenditures. Lastly, our research design allows us to infer that the increased capital expenditures are largely R&D investments that are capitalized instead of non-R&D capital expenditures, suggesting that overall investments in R&D are relatively unchanged.     

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.     

Earnings changes associated with relaxing the reconciliation requirement in non-U.S. firms’ SEC filings

We investigate the changes in earnings information content and earnings attributes for non-U.S. firms listed in U.S. equity markets following the 2007 relaxation of the SEC requirement to reconcile IFRS earnings and stockholders’ equity to U.S. GAAP in annual regulatory filings. We analyze a sample of non-U.S. firms listed on U.S. exchanges from 2005 to 2008 that use IFRS, and compare them to non-U.S. firms that continue to use domestic GAAP or U.S. GAAP. Prior literature finds no changes in informativeness following the regulatory change for IFRS-using firms. However, when we partition the IFRS-using firms into two groups based on their history of providing reconciliation information, we find that firms which previously provided more information about the differences between their reporting GAAP and U.S. GAAP had significant increases in the information content of their earnings. In contrast, there is no change in earnings informativeness for firms that provided less informative reconciliations. We regard the reconciliation informativeness as a proxy for firms’ efforts to provide more informative disclosures, which is driven by their disclosure incentives. We also document that the change in the information content of earnings for more informative reconcilers was contemporaneous with a change in earnings attributes for these firms. Consistent with no change in earnings informativeness for less informative reconcilers, there is little change in their earnings attributes. Our results underscore the importance of incorporating disclosure incentives when examining the consequences of a regulatory change.     

The Impact of IFRS Adoption and Corporate Governance Principles on Transparency and Disclosure: The Case of Borsa Istanbul

This article investigates whether mandatory and voluntary regulation and best governance practices enhance disclosure quality in an emerging market where code law tradition, dominant family ownership, and lax rules and implementation make it less likely for disclosure quality effects to be observed. We show that the Transparency & Disclosure (T&D) scores have improved for a sample of Borsa Istanbul (BIST) firms, and the firms that voluntarily adopted IFRS during 2003 and 2004 have significantly higher scores. However, in 2005, the year IFRS became mandatory, the T&D scores for mandatory and voluntary adopters were no longer significantly different. Multivariate analysis shows that the Corporate Governance (CG) principles and voluntary and mandatory adoptions of IFRS have all had significant positive effects on various T&D scores of the sample firms.     

IFRS framework-based case study: DaimlerChrysler – Adopting IFRS accounting policies

This instructional case applies a framework-based approach to explore the concept of comparability in financial reporting and retrospective application of new accounting policies. The DaimlerChrysler (DC) case provides an opportunity for you to research key financial reporting concepts, analyze accounting policy differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, determine adjustments necessary to convert financial statements from U.S. GAAP to IFRS, and compute and discuss key ratio impacts following financial statement conversion. This case demonstrates that transitioning to IFRS is more than an accounting issue; it provides opportunities for financial restructuring (e.g., Daimler’s amendments to pension plans and its 2007 sale of Chrysler). It also illustrates the importance of professional judgment when initially adopting IFRS accounting policies. Also, despite FASB and IASB convergence efforts, you learn that most of the key differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS identified in DC’s reconciliations continue today. This case helps you to: (1) develop skills to interpret and apply the requirements on first-time adoption of IFRS to a real-world setting; (2) research key differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS and their effects on the financial statements and ratios; and (3) understand significant impacts of the transition to IFRS on businesses and financial statements. Completing the case develops your critical thinking and research/technological skills.     

Reporting intangible assets: Voluntary disclosure practices of top emerging market companies

This study is the first to empirically examine the applicability of the Value Chain Scoreboard™ proposed by Lev (2001) as an alternative disclosure framework for intangible assets (IA). The context of the research is the top 200 emerging market companies, which are the focus of increasing international attention. We empirically examine the extent of IA disclosures and find that emerging market companies do actively engage in voluntary disclosure practices to disseminate mainly quantitative IA information to their global stakeholders. Corporate-specific factors such as the adoption of IFRS/U.S. GAAP, industry type, and price-to-book ratio are key influences significantly associated with the level of IA voluntary disclosure. In addition, country-specific factors, including risks associated with economic policies and legal systems, are found to be significantly associated with the level of IA disclosure.     

Discussion of ‘Accounting Premium’ for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP Vis-à-vis German GAAP”

Ernstberger and Vogler [Ernstberger, J. & Vogler, O. (2008-this issue). Analyzing the German Accounting Triad with an Enhanced Multifactor Model—‘Accounting Premium’ for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP Vis-à-vis German GAAP. International Journal of Accounting.] employ the concurrent use of three distinct accounting-standard regimes (German GAAP; U.S. GAAP; and IAS/IFRS GAAP) in Germany as a foundation for evaluating the relation between accounting standard regime and equity-return attributes. They find that firms using U.S. or IAS/IFRS GAAP have higher betas but yield lower returns (cost of capital) relative to firms employing German GAAP. They also find that portfolios designed to isolate the return impacts of U.S. and IAS/IFRS GAAP relative to German GAAP are priced in a risk-factor-like fashion. In this discussion I suggest that a good bit of this empirical evidence is problematic. I also discuss the implausibility of information quality being priced in a Fama and French [Fama, E.F. & French, K.R. (1992). The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance 47 (2): 427–465.] factor-like fashion. Finally, I introduce the importance of conditioning analyses of the relation between firm-level information quality and equity-market return (cost of capital) on the degree to which the shareholder base of a firm holds diversified portfolios.