IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijefaa/v9y2017i6p141-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Options Trading on the Relationship between Research Quotient and Firm Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Han-Ching Huang
  • Calista Amelia Irawan

Abstract

The performance of innovation could be counted by the number of patent. Patent information enables a firm to estimate R&D efficiency and stock market value. Nonetheless, patents is not universal because more than 50% companies in COMPUSTAT do not patent their new products. Since patents have some drawbacks, Cooper, Knott, and Yang (2015) use Research Quotient (RQ) as an indicator of firm innovation because RQ measures the productivity of the R&D department, which produces a new innovative product and transforms it into revenues. In this paper, we examine the impact of option trading on the relation between RQ and stock market return (or firm value). We find that RQ has the positive impact on firm value, proxy by market-to-book (MTB) value. The option dummy, which is the firm with option trading, has significantly positive impact on the relation between RQ and firm value and insignificantly positive impact on the relation between RQ and future stock return. Nonetheless, interaction term of RQ and option volume has positive and significant impacts on MTB and future stock return.

Suggested Citation

  • Han-Ching Huang & Calista Amelia Irawan, 2017. "The Impact of Options Trading on the Relationship between Research Quotient and Firm Performance," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(6), pages 141-153, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijefaa:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:141-153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/67533/37049
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/67533
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    2. Lev, B & Zarowin, P, 1999. "The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 353-385.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coluccia, Daniela & Dabić, Marina & Del Giudice, Manlio & Fontana, Stefano & Solimene, Silvia, 2020. "R&D innovation indicator and its effects on the market. An empirical assessment from a financial perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 259-271.
    2. Fred Ramb & Markus Reitzig, 2005. "Who do you trust while Shares are on a Roler-Coaster Ride? Balance Sheet and Patent Data as Sources of Investor Information During Volatile Market Times," DRUID Working Papers 05-15, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. Reitzig, Markus & Ramb, Fred, 2004. "Who do you trust while bubbles grow and blow? A comparative analysis of the explanatory power of accounting and patent information for the market values of German firms," Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies 2004,17, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    4. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    5. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    6. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    7. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    8. Malgorzata Wachowska & Magdalena Homa, 2020. "The Role of Ethnic Diversity in Stimulating Innovation Processes: Comparative Analysis of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 1157-1176.
    9. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    10. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    11. Yu-Shan Chen & Ke-Chiun Chang, 2009. "Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 637-655, September.
    12. Lam, Kevin C.K. & Sami, Heibatollah & Zhou, Haiyan, 2013. "Changes in the value relevance of accounting information over time: Evidence from the emerging market of China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 123-135.
    13. Hyuk-Soo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae Lee & Ryungha Oh, 2022. "Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: trends in geographic localization, 1976–2015," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 123-147, April.
    14. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    15. Pierpaolo Parrotta & Dario Pozzoli & Mariola Pytlikova, 2014. "The nexus between labor diversity and firm’s innovation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 27(2), pages 303-364, April.
    16. Hirschey, Mark & Richardson, Vernon J., 2001. "Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and U.S. firms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 65-82, January.
    17. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    18. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    19. Lorena Mitrione & George Tanewski & Jacqueline Birt, 2014. "The relevance to firm valuation of research and development expenditure in the Australian health-care industry," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 39(3), pages 425-452, August.
    20. Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010. "International Knowledge Diffusion and Home‐bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    research quotient; firm value; stock return; option trading;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ijefaa:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:141-153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.