مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد حسابداری تحقیق و توسعه در صورت درآمد؟ – الزویر 2021

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Related literature and hypotheses development

3. Research methodology

4. Sample and descriptive statistics

5. Main results

6. Conclusion

Declaration of Competing Interest

Acknowledgements

Data availability

References

Abstract

     This paper compares the informativeness of discretionary research and development (R&D) capitalization under IAS 38 with non-discretionary “as-if” R&D capitalization. While prior research consistently demonstrated capital market benefits of “as-if” capitalization, prior evidence for reported R&D capitalization are less favorable due to earnings management concerns. Because “as-if” studies are based on adjusted data assuming R&D capitalization, the resulting numbers are free from such concerns and may be more informative. We find that reported capitalized R&D is not associated with lower information asymmetry but positively associated with forecast errors. While market values are not associated with reported capitalized R&D, they are strongly associated with “as-if” capitalized R&D. Also, actual capitalization of development expenditures under IAS 38 is only as value relevant as when expensing all R&D. Our results are consistent with the notion that market participants undo actual capitalization and use the information on expensed R&D to develop their own estimates of R&D value. Our findings lend support to the proposition by Barker and Penman (2020) that deficiencies of the balance sheet that result from the uncertainty inherent in expenditures such as R&D, should be supplemented by more detailed information on the nature of the related expenses in the income statement.

Introduction

     The accounting for intangibles such as research and development (R&D) remains an unresolved question and a major discrepancy between International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (Lev, 2019). We use the German setting with highly R&D-intensive firms applying IFRS1 to compare the informativeness of discretionary R&D capitalization under IAS (International Accounting Standard) 382 with non-discretionary “as-if” R&D capitalization derived from additional disclosed information. Whereas prior research has consistently demonstrated capital market benefits of “as-if” capitalization (e.g., Lev & Sougiannis, 1996), such benefits are questionable for reported capitalized R&D under IFRS due to earnings management concerns (e.g., Dinh et al., 2016, Jones, 2011, Mazzi et al., 2019). However, actual and “as-if” capitalization have not yet been compared within the same setting. Because “as-if” studies are based on adjusted data where the actual accounting for R&D is undone and capitalization is assumed, the resulting numbers are free from earnings management and may hence be more informative.

Conclusion

     This paper compares the informativeness of actual capitalization under IAS 38 with “as-if” capitalization. While prior research consistently demonstrated benefits of “as-if” R&D capitalization, the results of studies that examine reported R&D capitalization are less favorable. Because the IASC’s decision to prescribe partial R&D capitalization was largely based on “as-if” studies, our analysis aims at resolving the conflicting evidence between studies of reported capitalized R&D vs. “as-if” capitalized R&D. Prior studies of actual R&D capitalization have found that reduced informativeness may be due to earnings management concerns. “As-if” studies are free from such concerns because they are based on adjusted data assuming R&D capitalization. Hence, the resulting numbers may be more informative.

     Whereas prior literature has focused on R&D reporting on the balance sheet, Barker and Penman (2020) argue that such expenditures inevitably lead to mismatching and, hence, deficiencies of the balance sheet due to the uncertain nature of intangibles. They propose that such deficiencies of the balance sheet be supplemented by more detailed information on the nature of the related expenses in the income statement. Market participants can use this information to develop their own estimates of the value of R&D ventures. This approach is consistent with that of “as-if” studies which use the information on expensed R&D to develop estimates of the value of R&D ventures independent from information provided on the balance sheet. Hence, our study provides evidence for testing the proposal in Barker and Penman (2020).