دانلود مقاله حسابداری تحقیق و توسعه (R&D) در صورت سود و زیان؟
چکیده
کلید واژه ها
1. مقدمه
2. مطالعات مرتبط و توسعه فرضیه ها
3. روش تحقیق
4. آمارهای نمونه و توصیفی
5. نتایج اصلی
6. نتیجه گیری
سپاسگزاریها
منابع
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
چکیده
این مقاله میزان اطلاع‌رسانی سرمایه‌گذاری اختیاری تحقیق و توسعه (R&D) را طبق استاندارد استاندارد بین‌المللی حسابداری 38 با سرمایه‌گذاری غیراختیاری «انگار» تحقیق و توسعه مقایسه می‌کند. در حالی که تحقیقات قبلی به طور مداوم مزایای بازار سرمایه ناشی از سرمایه‌گذاری «انگار» را نشان می‌داد، شواهد قبلی برای سرمایه‌گذاری گزارش‌شده تحقیق و توسعه به دلیل نگرانی‌های مدیریت سود کمتر مطلوب است. از آنجایی که مطالعات «انگار» مبتنی بر داده‌های تعدیل‌شده با فرض سرمایه‌گذاری تحقیق و توسعه هستند، اعداد به‌دست‌آمده عاری از چنین نگرانی‌هایی هستند و ممکن است آموزنده‌تر باشند. ما دریافتیم که تحقیق و توسعه سرمایه‌گذاری شده گزارش شده با عدم تقارن اطلاعاتی کمتر مرتبط نیست، اما به طور مثبت با خطاهای پیش‌بینی مرتبط است. در حالی که ارزش‌های بازار با تحقیق و توسعه سرمایه‌گذاری شده گزارش‌شده مرتبط نیستند، اما به شدت با تحقیق و توسعه سرمایه‌گذاری شده «انگار» مرتبط هستند. همچنین، سرمایه‌گذاری واقعی مخارج توسعه بر اساس استاندارد حسابداری بین‌المللی حسابداری 38، تنها به اندازه هزینه‌های تحقیق و توسعه مرتبط است. نتایج ما با این تصور سازگار است که فعالان بازار سرمایه واقعی را خنثی می کنند و از اطلاعات مربوط به تحقیق و توسعه هزینه شده برای توسعه برآوردهای خود از ارزش تحقیق و توسعه استفاده می کنند. یافته‌های ما از پیشنهاد بارکر و پنمن (2020) حمایت می‌کند که کاستی‌های ترازنامه که ناشی از عدم قطعیت ذاتی در مخارج مانند تحقیق و توسعه است، باید با اطلاعات دقیق‌تر در مورد ماهیت هزینه‌های مرتبط در صورت سود و زیان تکمیل شود.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
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).
H1: Capitalized development expenditures under IAS 38 are negatively associated with information asymmetry.
H2: R&D accruals as reported under IAS 38 are positively associated with market values.
H3: Capitalized development expenditures under IAS 38 are positively associated with analysts’ forecast errors.
H4: In an IFRS setting, ‘‘as-if” R&D accruals are significantly positively associated with market values when assuming a full capitalization of R&D expenditures