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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Access to private equity and real firm activity: Evidence from PIPEs

We study how access to private equity financing affects real firm activities using a broad panel of publicly traded U.S. firms that raise external equity through private placements (PIPEs) between 1995 and 2008. The public firms relying on PIPEs are generally small, high-tech firms that cannot finance investment internally and likely face severe external financing constraints; PIPEs are by far the most important source of finance for these firms. We show that firms use PIPE inflows to maintain extremely high R&D investment ratios and to build substantial cash reserves. We also use GMM techniques that control for firm-specific effects and the endogeneity of the decision to raise private equity and find that PIPE funding has a substantial impact on corporate investment in cash reserves and R&D, and a smaller but significant impact on investment in non-cash working capital, but little impact on fixed investment or acquisitions. Our estimates indicate that R&D investment initially increases by $0.20–$0.25 for each dollar of private equity flowing into the firm, and that PIPE funds initially invested in cash ultimately go to R&D. These findings offer direct evidence that access to private equity finance has an important effect on the key input that drives innovation at the firm- and economy-wide levels.     

The information content of R&D reductions

An extensive literature shows that R&D intensities and increases are positively related to firm performance, but little research examines the valuation of R&D reductions. This paper fills the void by studying long-term performance following R&D reductions. We find that, contrary to conventional wisdom, large R&D cuts are associated with positive future stock returns. This return drift cannot be explained by asset pricing factors, including R&D intensities and R&D increases. We explore two potential economic motives behind R&D reductions: R&D spillover and firm life cycle. We show that operating performance deteriorates immediately before R&D reductions but exhibits no abnormal pattern afterward. While firm growth falls substantially and variability in profitability reduces, firms with low or declining investment opportunities and mature firms outperform. These findings are inconsistent with the spillover hypothesis, but support the life cycle story that firms attempt to resolve overinvestment in R&D that arises over the course of firm life cycle.     

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.     

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.     

The Relevance to Firm Valuation of Capitalised Research and Development Expenditures

Although the relevance of research and development to firm value has been extensively documented, some apparently contrary results were recently reported using Australian data. Godfrey and Koh (2001) reported that capitalised R&D costs do not seem to contain information relevant to the valuation of Australian companies. As the Godfrey and Koh study was designed to test the value-relevance of intangible assets in general, it is likely that the sample did not include sufficient research-intensive companies to test the relevance of R&D to firm value. This research note confirms results from other previous studies indicating that capitalised R&D is relevant to firm value.     

Measuring R&D curtailment among short-horizon CEOs

I review evidence produced by prior literature on CEO horizon problems and show that prior empirical findings are correlated with the research design employed. I find that evidence of R&D curtailment by CEOs as they approach retirement stems predominantly from cross-sectional correlations between CEO age or tenure and R&D spending. Using a broad sample of CEOs of S&P 1500 firms, I identify two factors that confound the cross-sectional relationship of firm R&D spending on CEO age or tenure which can lead to spurious inferences regarding the CEO horizon problem. I find that tracking R&D spending by the same CEOs over time produces no evidence of R&D curtailment. These results have research design implications for future researchers investigating the impact of shortened CEO career horizons on investment myopia.     

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.     

Reexamining the managerial ownership effect on firm value

Whether equity-based compensation and equity ownership align the interests of managers with stockholders is an important question in finance. Early studies found an inverted U-shaped relation between managerial ownership and firm value, but later studies using firm fixed effects found no relation. Managerial ownership levels change very slowly over time which may mask an ownership effect on firm value when using a fixed effect model. This is due to a much smaller within firm variation than between firm variation. We demonstrate that using pay-performance semi-elasticity, rather than pay-performance sensitivity as a measure of managerial ownership incentives, results in meaningful variation within firm over time. The greater within firm variation increases the power to detect a relation between managerial ownership and firm value with fixed effect regressions. As in the early research on this issue, we find a significant inverted U-shaped relation between managerial ownership and Tobin's Q in fixed effects regressions and after controlling for endogeneity with both two-stage and three-stage least squares regressions. Our results are consistent with incentive alignment at low levels and risk aversion at high levels of managerial ownership.     

CEO ownership, external governance, and risk-taking

This paper shows the relation between CEO ownership and firm valuation hinges critically on the strength of external governance (EG). The relation is hump-shaped when EG is weak, but is insignificant when EG is strong. The results imply that CEO ownership and EG are substitutes for mitigating agency problems when ownership is low. However, very high levels of share ownership can reduce firm value by entrenching the CEO and discouraging him from taking risk, unless mitigated by strong EG. We identify channels through which CEO ownership affects firm value by examining R&D, which is discretionary and risky. We find CEO ownership similarly exhibits a hump-shaped relation with R&D when EG is weak, but no relation when EG is strong. Our results are robust to endogeneity issues concerning CEO ownership and EG.     

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.     

Investability and Firm Value

We study how investability, or openness to foreign equity investors, affects firm value in a sample of over 1,400 firms from 26 emerging markets. We find that, on average, investability is associated with a 9% valuation premium (as measured by Tobin's q). This significant valuation premium persists in firm‐fixed effects regressions, although the magnitude and robustness of the premium is somewhat lower. Analysis of the components of Tobin's q shows that firms that become investable experience significant increases in both market values and physical investment. These effects are strongest for firms that face country‐level or firm‐level financial constraints prior to becoming investable.     

Does corporate diversification reduce value in high technology firms?

We find that firm value is reduced via industrial diversification and this reduction in value depends upon a firm’s technology intensity. We consider that asymmetric information problems are more severe in technology intensive industries and find that high tech industry firms present distinctly larger value reduction when compared to low tech industry firms. The negative valuation effect is greater for firms that have a relatively larger amount of intangible assets and greater R&D capital. We determine that our findings are robust to different estimation methods and alternative excess value measures.     

Feeling right at home: Hometown CEOs and firm innovation

Extending the theories of social and place identity, we predict that CEO hometown identity has a positive and significant influence on firm innovation. Our empirical evidence, from publicly traded firms in China during 2002–2016, suggests that a firm whose CEO's hometown is in the same province or city as the firm's headquarters tends to invest more in R&D and generate more patent applications. Our results are robust to the firm fixed effects and we use difference-in-differences analysis and instrument variable regressions to mitigate endogeneity concerns. CEOs' hometown identity still has a strong and positive impact on innovation after we control for measures of social capital of CEOs. We identify the mechanisms behind the positive relation between firm innovation and CEO hometown identity: hometown CEOs enjoy more support from the board of directors, they are more willing to take risks, and they are more likely to have long-term visions.     

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.     

R&D intensity for innovative and adaptive purposes in overseas subsidiaries: Evidence from Japanese multinational enterprises

This paper investigates the causes of R&D activities of overseas subsidiaries using firm-level panel data for Japanese multinationals. We distinguish between overseas innovative R&D (basic and applied research) and adaptive R&D (development and design) and examine how the intensity of each type of R&D is determined, using Amemiya Generalized Least Squares estimation. Our findings suggest that overseas innovative R&D aims at the exploitation of foreign knowledge, whereas adaptive R&D has no such aim. In addition, the size of the host country’s market positively affects both types, whereas geographic distance between the host and the home country has a negative impact. Finally, the parent firm’s knowledge is found to increase the size of overseas adaptive R&D but not innovative R&D. Based on a theoretical model, we interpret this evidence as showing that knowledge of the parent firm is not fully utilized in innovative R&D of its subsidiary.