IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iae/iaewps/wp2009n12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying Corporate Expenditures on Intangibles Using GAAP

Author

Listed:
  • L. C. Hunter

    (Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, The University of Melbourne and School of Business and Management, University of Glasgow)

  • Elizabeth Webster

    (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne)

  • Anne Wyatt

    (UQ Business School, University of Queensland)

Abstract

This paper aims to show how firms account for expenditure on their intangible investments and how this influences their decision making processes. Evidence from our survey of 614 large Australian companies show that (1) firms do not systematically identify and separate expenditures on intangible investment from expenditures on tangible investment and operating expenditures; and (2) this leads to an information gap that adversely affects the firm's internal processes for evaluating the decision to invest in intangibles. The paper builds a deductive argument for the use of the general purpose financial reporting system (GAAP) to separate and report the expenditures on intangibles by corporations in a way that is consistent and comparable across firms and over time. Our evidence suggests that investment decisions by management and investors, where intangibles are involved, are likely to be based more on rules-of-thumb than objective evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • L. C. Hunter & Elizabeth Webster & Anne Wyatt, 2009. "Identifying Corporate Expenditures on Intangibles Using GAAP," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2009n12, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    • Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2009n12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2009n12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MartinNeil Baily & Robert Z. Lawrence, 2001. "Do We Have a New E-conomy?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 308-312, May.
    2. Barth, ME & Elliott, JA & Finn, MW, 1999. "Market rewards associated with patterns of increasing earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 387-413.
    3. Stefano Brusoni & Orietta Marsili & Ammon Salter, 2005. "The role of codified sources of knowledge in innovation: Empirical evidence from Dutch manufacturing," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 211-231, January.
    4. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Clarkson, Peter M & Thompson, Rex, 1990. "Empirical Estimates of Beta When Investors Face Estimation Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(2), pages 431-453, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Violeta SÃCUI & Diana SALA, 2012. "Economic Properties of Intangible Assets.The Value Paradox," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(5), pages 793-803, December.
    2. James R. Frederickson & Elizabeth Webster & Ian O. Williamson, 2010. "Is the Current Accounting Treatment of Education and Training Costs Appropriate?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(3), pages 265-273, September.

    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. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    2. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Managing Knowledge Flows through Appropriation and Learning Strategies," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2006n06, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    3. Stefan Lachenmaier, 2005. "Identification of Available and Desirable Indicators for Patent Systems, Patenting Processes and Patent Rights Research Project for the German Patent and Trademark Office," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 25.
    4. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    5. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2006. "Investment in Intangible Capital: An Enterprise Perspective," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 82-96, March.
    6. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    7. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    8. Alessandri, Todd M. & Khan, Raihan H., 2006. "Market performance and deviance from industry norms: (Mis)alignment of organizational risk and industry risk," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1105-1115, October.
    9. Jonathan Temple, 2002. "The Assessment: The New Economy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(3), pages 241-264.
    10. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    11. Crass, Dirk & Garcia Valero, Francisco & Pitton, Francesco & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Protecting innovation through patents and trade secrets: Determinants and performance impacts for firms with a single innovation," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Abhijit Barua & Joseph Legoria & Jacquelyn Sue Moffitt, 2006. "Accruals Management to Achieve Earnings Benchmarks: A Comparison of Pre‐managed Profit and Loss Firms," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5‐6), pages 653-670, June.
    13. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    14. Seguin, P. J. & Smoller, M. M., 1997. "Share price and mortality: An empirical evaluation of newly listed Nasdaq stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 333-363, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Ting, Hsiu-I & Wang, Ming-Chun & Yang, J. Jimmy & Tuan, Kai-Wen, 2021. "Technical expert CEOs and corporate innovation," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    17. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    18. Bettis, J. Carr & Bizjak, John & Coles, Jeffrey L. & Kalpathy, Swaminathan, 2018. "Performance-vesting provisions in executive compensation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 194-221.
    19. repec:cbh:journl:v:14:y:2015:i:3:p:88-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
    21. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    managerial accounting system; GAAP accounting system; expenditures on intangible investment; rate of return;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iae:iaewps:wp2009n12. 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: Sheri Carnegie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.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.