To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Intangible value.
Journal articles on the topic 'Intangible value'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Intangible value.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Ji, Xu-Dong, and Wei Lu. "The value relevance and reliability of intangible assets." Asian Review of Accounting 22, no. 3 (August 26, 2014): 182–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ara-10-2013-0064.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the value relevance of intangible assets, including goodwill and other types of intangibles in the pre- and post-adoption periods of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Most importantly, this paper investigates whether the value relevance of reported intangible assets is associated with their value reliability. Furthermore, this paper reports whether the adoption of IFRS improves the value relevance of intangible assets and alters the relationship between value relevance and reliability. Design/methodology/approach – Both price and return models based on Ohlosn theory (1995) are employed to test the value relevance and value reliability of intangibles. Australian-listed firms with capitalised intangibles from 2001 to 2009 are selected in this study. The sample includes 6,650 firm-year observations. Findings – The main result shows that capitalised intangible assets are value relevant in Australia, in both the pre- and post-adoption of IFRS periods. Value relevance is higher in firms with more reliable information on intangible assets. This study finds that the value relevance of intangibles has declined in the post-adoption period of IFRS. However, the positive relationship between the value relevance and the reliability of intangibles has remained unchanged in the post-adoption period. Originality/value – The paper contributes a new measurement of value reliability of accounting information about intangibles. This paper is one of few studies on the relationship between value relevance and reliability of intangible assets. The results show that value relevance is positively associated with value reliability. This suggests that, when accounting standard setters assess whether the existing IFRS of intangibles should be improved in the future, they need to think not only in terms of whether the standard can provide more relevant information of intangibles to investors but also whether the standard can make the information of intangibles more reliable.
2
Shakina, Elena, and Mariya Molodchik. "Intangible-driven value creation: supporting and obstructing factors." Measuring Business Excellence 18, no. 3 (August 12, 2014): 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mbe-12-2013-0063.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the factors that support or obstruct market value creation through intangible capital. Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores the impact of intangibles and exogenous shocks on corporate attractiveness for investors measured by market value added. Specifically, the relationship between intangible-driven outperformance of companies, measured by economic value added (EVA) and a number of intangible drivers on macro-, meso- and micro-levels is analyzed. It is supposed that the process of value creation is not only confined to companies’ performances. The empirical research was conducted on > 900 public companies from Europe and the USA during the period of 2005-2009. Findings – The study establishes that investment attractiveness is affected by intangibles. It is found that a company’s experience, size and innovative focus facilitate value creation. An unexpected result was revealed concerning countries’ education level, which appears to be an obstructive condition for intangible-driven value creation. Research limitations/implications – The study reveals the significance of industry belonging for intangible-driven value creation. Nevertheless, it does not discover the particular characteristics of industry that influence corporate attractiveness for investors. These issues could be addressed in future research. Practical implications – The findings established in this study extend the understanding of the phenomenon of intangible capital and enable the improvement of investment decision-making. Originality/value – The study emphasizes the holistic framework of market value creation by analyzing a number of strategic crucial factors in line with EVA.
3
Russell, Mark. "The valuation of pharmaceutical intangibles." Journal of Intellectual Capital 17, no. 3 (July 11, 2016): 484–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jic-10-2015-0090.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to value the patents of pharmaceutical companies using discounted cash flows, and compare the value-relevance of these assets against alternative intangible asset measures such as reported intangible assets and R & D capital. Design/methodology/approach – The study values pharmaceutical intangibles using three methods: an income method; the sum of unamortised R & D expenditures; the firm’s reported intangible assets. Value-relevance tests use ordinary least squares regression and Vuong and Clarke tests. Findings – First, the study finds that the discounted cash-flow valuation of pharmaceutical patents is value-relevant. Second, the value of pharmaceutical patents explains market value better than reported intangible assets but not R & D capital. However, the valuation of pharmaceutical patents is more consistent with the risks of R & D than the valuation of R & D capital which assumes recovery of R & D expenditure. Originality/value – This is the first known study that values patents using an income method and compares those valuations with reported intangible assets and R & D capital valuation models.
4
Nugent, John N., Alex Pomelnikov, and Kerry Webb. "Intangibles: A Puffing of the Wares?" International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting 9, no. 1 (January 3, 2019): 340. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijafr.v9i1.14301.
Full textAbstract:
This paper examines the issue of perceived value generated by the assignment of financial value to intangibles in financial reporting. In particular, values assigned to Goodwill and other intangibles in mergers and acquisitions are examined, and the impact of such intangible valuations as a potential misperception/misdirection as to true underlying entity value is examined.
5
Zhang, Ivy Xiying, and Yong Zhang. "Accounting Discretion and Purchase Price Allocation After Acquisitions." Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 32, no. 2 (July 27, 2016): 241–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0148558x15598693.
Full textAbstract:
The recent movement in standards setting toward fair-value-based accounting beyond financial assets and liabilities calls for more empirical evidence on fair-value measurement, especially that of intangible assets. This article studies the initial valuation of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets after acquisitions. We find that the allocation of purchase price to goodwill and identifiable intangible assets is related to the economic determinants of the valuation. However, it is also significantly affected by managerial incentives arising from the differential treatments of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 142. The same managerial discretions are not exhibited in the purchase price allocation prior to SFAS 142, when goodwill and other intangibles are both amortized. These findings suggest that unverifiable fair value measures are associated with the underlying economics but also deviate from the true values in the presence of management reporting incentives. Further analysis suggests that external appraisers constrain managerial discretion in intangible asset valuation to an extent but do not completely eliminate it.
6
Kimouche, Bilal, and Abdenaser Rouabhi. "The impact of intangibles on the value relevance of accounting information: Evidence from French companies." Intangible Capital 12, no. 2 (March 9, 2016): 506. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.653.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose: The paper aims to explore whether intangible items that recognised in financial statements are value-relevant to investors in the French context, and whether these items affect the value relevance of accounting information. Design/methodology/approach: Empirical data were collected from a sample of French listed companies, over the nine-year period of 2005 to 2013. Starting of Ohlson’s (1995) model, the correlation analysis and the linear multiple regressions have been applied. Findings: We find that intangibles and traditional accounting measures as a whole are value relevant. However, the amortization and impairment charges of intangibles and cash flows do not affect the market values of French companies, unlike other variables, which affect positively and substantially the market values. Also goodwill and book values are more associated with market values than intangible assets and earnings respectively. Finally, we find that intangibles have improved the value relevance of accounting information. Practical implications: French legislators must give more interest for intangibles, in order to enrich the financial statements content and increasing the pertinence of accounting information. Auditors must give more attention for intangibles’ examination process, in order to certify the amounts related to intangibles in financial statements, and hence enrich their reliability, what provides adequacy guarantees for investors to use them in decision making. Originality/value: The paper used recently available financial data, and proposed an improvement concerning the measure of incremental value relevance of intangibles items.
7
Voyko, D. V., and A. V. Voyko. "INTANGIBLE ASSETS: ISSUES OF ACCOUNTING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION OF THE ECONOMY." Vestnik Universiteta, no. 9 (October 26, 2019): 112–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2019-9-112-117.
Full textAbstract:
The issues of classification and approaches to management of intangible assets of companies have been considered. Main features of intangible assets have been examined, as well as normative regulation of financial accounting of them. The important point of intangible assets management is their classification and distribution to homogeneous groups, that allows us create and clarify intangibles’ management policy in terms of digitalization. In addition, the authors have paid attention in the article to the issues of intangible assets valuation. Basic stages of intangible`s assessment have been analyzed, as well as current problems of estimation of true value of intangible assets.
8
Frey, Hannes, and Andreas Oehler. "Intangible assets in Germany." Journal of Applied Accounting Research 15, no. 2 (September 2, 2014): 235–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jaar-07-2014-0068.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – Intangible assets are regarded as the future value drivers of company performance. However, hardly anything is known about the actual importance and influence of intangible assets. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap, so the authors analyse the German stock market index DAX and accomplish a survey among the German Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) concerning intangible assets. Design/methodology/approach – In a first step, the authors analyse the balance sheet data and the corresponding notes of the companies with regard to reported values of intangible assets and applied valuation methods. The sample period covers the years from 2005 to 2008. In a second step, the authors analyse the statements of the German CPAs with regard to intangible assets. The authors sent a standardised questionnaire to all 180 offices of the top ten German auditing firms. Findings – The results indicate that intangible assets have gained in importance, while information on valuation methods is still scarce. According to the German CPAs, the current influence of intangible assets on company performance is on a high level and even will increase during the next few years. The mostly used valuation approach for the fair value measurement of patented technologies is the income approach. Furthermore, the accounting standards leave room for accounting policy – a result which casts doubt on the reliability of financial statements. Originality/value – For the first time not only annual balance sheet data but also corresponding notes regarding intangible assets are analysed. The findings are connected with a survey of an expert group for the valuation of intangibles.
9
Visconti, Roberto Moro. "Leveraging value with intangibles: more guarantees with less collateral?" Corporate Ownership and Control 13, no. 1 (2015): 241–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv13i1c2p3.
Full textAbstract:
This paper shows how intangibles can create scalable value, levered by debt and serviced by intangible-driven incremental EBITDA and cash flows. Intangibles intrinsically incorporate information asymmetries and may so discourage debt, but are also a vital component of cash generating value, so representing a key factor for debt servicing, with paradoxical effects (more guarantees with less collateral?). Operating leverage is enhanced by scalability, an intrinsic characteristic of many intangibles, with a positive impact on cash generation and consequent debt servicing. Ability to improve cash flows emerges as a key feature of value enhancing intangibles, bypassing their lack of collateral value.
10
Jardón, Carlos Fernández, Mariia Molodchik, and Sofiia Paklina. "Strategic behaviour of Russian companies with regard to intangibles." Management Decision 56, no. 11 (November 12, 2018): 2373–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/md-04-2017-0399.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore strategy-specific competencies with regard to intangibles and provides empirical evidence of intangible-based strategy groups for Russian companies. Additionally, the study examines the link between intangible-based strategy and company performance. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses strategic group theory and the resource-based view framework to identify similar strategic behaviour of companies by employment of intangibles. In line with the intellectual capital concept, the study provides a cluster analysis that considers four types of intangibles: human, relational, innovation and process capital. These are measured through publicly available data using principal component analysis. The empirical part of the study uses a database of 1,096 Russian public companies, which covers the period 2004–2014. Findings As a result, the study reveals three profiles of strategic behaviour with regard to intangibles. The majority of Russian public companies (63.5 per cent) are Generics and pursue a non-intensive intangible strategy. Only 13.3 per cent of companies constitute the intangible-intensive profile by having endowment of all intellectual resources higher than the sample average. The remaining companies (23.2 per cent) also pursue an intangible-intensive strategy with a focus on innovation capital. Intangible-intensive strategic groups outperform Generics. Originality/value The study proposes a novel intangible-based strategy continuum, which straddles two polar strategies: generic and smart. The study introduces insights to better understand the differences in performance across intangible-intensive strategies and presents a new empirical inquiry into strategic behaviour with regard to intangibles in Russia.
11
Nussenbaum, Maurice. "Fair value and intangible assets." Revue d'économie financière (English ed.) 71, no. 2 (2003): 57–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/ecofi.2003.4746.
Full text
12
Jeong, Kwang-Hwa, Sang-Ryul Lee, and Yi-Bae Kim. "Social Value and Intangible Assets." Institute of Management and Economy Research 11, no. 3 (September 30, 2020): 153–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.32599/apjb.11.3.202009.153.
Full text
13
Rath, Ray. "Intangible Assets and Share Value." CFA Institute Magazine 29, no. 1 (April 2018): 21–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2469/cfm.v29.n1.8.
Full text
14
Nordberg, Donald. "Communicating Intangible Sources of Value." Journal of General Management 26, no. 4 (June 2001): 28–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030630700102600403.
Full text
15
Haji, Abdifatah Ahmed, and Nazli Anum Mohd Ghazali. "The role of intangible assets and liabilities in firm performance: empirical evidence." Journal of Applied Accounting Research 19, no. 1 (February 12, 2018): 42–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jaar-12-2015-0108.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is primarily to explore the extent of intangible assets and liabilities of large Malaysian companies. The authors also examine whether intangible assets and liabilities of a firm have similar or contrasting roles in firm performance. Design/methodology/approach Using a direct and straightforward measure of intangible assets and liabilities, the authors examine a large pool of data from large Malaysian companies over a six-year period spanning from 2008 to 2013. Findings The longitudinal analyses show a significant number of the sample companies, between 34 and 59.33 percent, have a consistent pattern of intangible liabilities. The authors also find firms with intangible liabilities have significantly underperformed financially than a control group of firms. In addition, the authors find that intangible liabilities have significant negative impact on firm performance whereas intangible assets have a contrasting positive impact on firm performance. Research limitations/implications One limitation of this study is that the authors have only used a single measure of intangible assets and liabilities. Albeit the measures used are straightforward and more objective, there could be other measures to capture intangibles. Practical implications The research findings have several theoretical as well as policy implications. Theoretically, the authors extend the resource-based view to the intangible asset-liability mix, affirming the crucial role of intangible resources in financial performance whilst introducing the unfavorable role of intangible liabilities in corporate financial performance. In terms of policy implications, the research findings provide initial empirical input to emerging calls for broader perspectives of intangibles, beyond intangible assets to include intangible liabilities, and therefore belong to an emerging paradigm toward the nature of intangibles. Originality/value This study documents a rare empirical account of the contrasting roles of intangible assets and liabilities in corporate financial performance.
16
Maaloul, Anis, Walid Ben Amar, and Daniel Zeghal. "Voluntary disclosure of intangibles and analysts’ earnings forecasts and recommendations." Journal of Applied Accounting Research 17, no. 4 (November 14, 2016): 421–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jaar-10-2014-0105.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between voluntary disclosure of intangibles and financial analysts’ earnings forecasts properties. Design/methodology/approach Disclosures about intangible assets were hand-collected through content analysis of annual reports of a sample of US non-financial firms, while analysts’ earnings forecasts properties were collected from Bloomberg Professional database. The authors relied on correlation and multivariate regression analyses to test the research hypotheses. Findings The results show that increased intangible disclosures affect analysts’ earnings forecasts accuracy, dispersion, and favourable consensus recommendations. However, this effect varies according to the nature of intangible assets. Practical implications The results may be of interest to different market participants such as corporate managers, financial analysts, and standards setting bodies that recently published guidelines on voluntary disclosure of intangibles. Originality/value This study develops a new comprehensive index to measure the content of narrative disclosures about a large number of intangibles, such as human, structural, and relational assets. The findings contribute to the current debate on the value-relevance of narrative disclosures on intangibles to investors and financial analysts.
17
Grove, Hugh, and Mac Clouse. "Contemporary financial reporting and intangible resources: Implications for corporate governance." Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review 3, no. 1 (2019): 39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cgobr_v3_i1_p4.
Full textAbstract:
The key question of this paper is what are the implications for corporate governance from the emergence of contemporary financial reporting and intangible resources? Going beyond traditional financial reporting, Boards of Directors and corporate executives should investigate the intangible resources of contemporary financial reporting. What intangible resources are causing the huge price to earnings (PE) ratio gap and the huge market to book (M/B) ratio gap for their companies? Possibly such gaps are driven by global brand names, global licensing, customer loyalty, product quality, and product innovation. Unfortunately, the short-term focus upon traditional financial reporting by both Wall Street and corporate executives to “make the numbers”, i.e. short-term (quarterly), predicted numbers, has damaged firms’ competitiveness. Such damages include postponing or cutting expenditures on emerging technologies, advertising, research and development, employee training, and maintenance expenses. Research has shown that such earnings management techniques are relatively futile efforts since a consensus earnings miss by a company generally produces an insignificant 1.5% to 2% share price drop. Boards of Directors should inform corporate executives accordingly. To offer solutions to these issues and implications for corporate governance, this paper is divided into the following sections: the emergence of contemporary financial reporting; asset value migration: the power of intangibles; top five future business value drivers: all intangibles; forward looking measures for intangible resources; market gaps: “old economy” versus “new economy” companies; global brands and global licensing; hidden intangible values made visible; international perspectives on contemporary financial reporting; and conclusions.
18
Amano, Yoshiaki. "Real Effects of Intangibles Capitalization—Empirical Evidence from Voluntary IFRS Adoption in Japan." Journal of International Accounting Research 19, no. 3 (August 24, 2020): 19–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jiar-19-539.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT This study examines how firm behaviors are affected by the voluntary adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Japan, which has expanded the scope for the capitalization of intangible assets compared with the Japanese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Prior research suggests that capitalization of intangibles is preferred by firms with larger intangibles and that it enables them to increase intangible investments. Using empirical data from Japanese IFRS adopters, this study analyzes the relationship between firms' intangible asset amounts and their voluntary adoption of IFRS. The results show that (1) the more intangibles firms possess, the more likely they are to adopt IFRS, and (2) once firms decide to adopt IFRS, their intangible assets increase compared with matched non-adopters. Additional analysis shows that this increase is partly attributable to an increased volume and value of mergers and acquisitions after IFRS adoption, suggesting that the real actions of the adopters changed.
19
Seo, Hyeon Sik, and YoungJun Kim. "INTANGIBLE ASSETS INVESTMENT AND FIRMS’ PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES IN KOREA." Journal of Business Economics and Management 21, no. 2 (March 3, 2020): 421–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.12022.
Full textAbstract:
While many studies have examined the relationship between investment in intangibles assets and performance in large corporations, current research is lacking in regard to intangible investments in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This study looks at SMEs in which intangible investments would usually be minor because they tend to consider intangible investment as an inefficient cost and concentrate on investments in tangible assets. This paper aims to contribute to the current literature and suggests that investment in the intangible assets of (human capital, advertising, R&D) is essential for SMEs pursuing superior firm performance. Actual data collected from 173 SMEs in Korea were analyzed employing hierarchical regression methodology. Results indicate that all three intangible resources have a positive effect on a firm’s profitability and value. Interestingly, this research finds that investment in advertising has the most influential impact on a firm’s profitability and value. This study has implications for SMEs in achieving their profitability and value. The results in this study highlight that intangible investment is not a waste of money for SMEs, and that business managers could strategically utilize these three key contributors (human capital, advertising, R&D) and adopt investment in intangible assets to accomplish their managerial goals.
20
Pastor, Damián, Jozef Glova, František Lipták, and Viliam Kováč. "Intangibles and methods for their valuation in financial terms: Literature review." Intangible Capital 13, no. 2 (February 10, 2017): 387. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.752.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review literature devoted to intangibles and their valuation and give examples of the methods that can be used for valuation of individual intangibles in financial terms.Design/methodology/approach: Paper presents a systematic review of articles dedicated to intangibles and their valuation.Findings: This review shows that there is a need for consensus in definitions of intangibles, intangible assets, knowledge assets and other related terms. These terms are used interchangeably in spite of their different meanings. Many methods for valuation of intangibles can be found in the literature, but widely accepted list of basic intangibles with suggested methods for their valuation in financial terms is still missing.Research limitations/implications: Not all the papers related to this topic could be covered in this paper. Presented list of important intangible components may be enhanced and examples of some other methods for their valuation may be added in the future.Practical implications: Paper calls for development of framework comprising list of the most important intangibles, proposals of methods used for their valuation and examples of their use. This framework can be helpful for organization, which are confronted with a difficult task of intangibles valuation.Originality/value: Basic definitions and differences between intangibles, intangible assets, identifiable intangible assets, knowledge assets and intellectual capital have not been mentioned in one paper yet. List of intangibles and methods for their valuation gives a direction for future work that can be fruitful for valuation of intangibles.
21
Kumari, Pooja, and Chandra Sekhar Mishra. "Value relevance of R&D reporting in India: significance of intangible intensity." Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 17, no. 3 (September 2, 2019): 432–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jfra-08-2017-0073.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Fundamental shifting of the world toward intangible intensive economy raised an apprehension regarding value relevance of internally generated intangible assets. In the previous studies, research and development (R&D) expenditure is recognized as a significant accounting item, which can indicate potential internally generated intangible assets. This study aims to examine whether investors consider nature of intangible intensity of a firm for the evaluation of R&D expenditure to determine equity values in India. Design/methodology/approach The authors compared value relevance of capitalized and the expensed portion of R&D expenditure between intangible- and non-intangible-intensive firms. They adopted empirical model grounded on the generalized version of Ohlson’s (1995) model. Findings The findings of the study indicate that, in intangible-intensive (non-intangible) firms, the capitalized portion of expenditure is positively (negatively) significant and the expensed portion of R&D expenditure is negatively (positively) significant to explain equity values. Practical implications The findings of this study may have potential implication for the discussion on the accounting treatment of internally generated intangible assets based on the nature of intangible intensity of the firm. The study also suggests that while setting standards, standard-setters should consider nature of intangible intensity of the firm, which could disseminate the discrepancy between the market and book value of the equity. Originality/value The study provides evidence, how value relevance of R&D reporting is affected by the nature of intangible intensity of a firm.
22
Goodridge, Peter, Jonathan Haskel, and Gavin Wallis. "Can Intangible Investment Explain the UK Productivity Puzzle?" National Institute Economic Review 224 (May 2013): R48—R58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002795011322400104.
Full textAbstract:
This paper investigates whether intangibles might explain the UK productivity puzzle. We note that since the recession: (a) firms have upskilled faster than before; (b) intangible investment in R&D and software has risen whereas tangible investment has fallen; and (c) intangible and telecoms equipment investment slowed in advance of the recession. We have therefore tested to see if: (a) what looks like labour hoarding is actually firms keeping workers who are employed in creating intangible assets; and (b) the current slowdown in TFP growth is due to the spillover effects of the past slowdown in R&D and telecoms equipment investment. Our main findings are: (a) measured market sector real value added growth since the start of 2008 is understated by 1.6 per cent due to the omission of intangibles; and (b) 0.75 per cent per annum of the TFP growth slowdown can be accounted for by the slowdown in intangible and telecoms investment in the early 2000s. Taken together intangible investment can therefore account for around 5 percentage points of the 16 per cent productivity puzzle.
23
Shih, Nien-Su. "How Intangible Dynamics Influence Firm Value." Journal of Mathematical Finance 03, no. 02 (2013): 323–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmf.2013.32032.
Full text
24
Palan, Ronen. "The financial crisis and intangible value." Capital & Class 37, no. 1 (February 2013): 65–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309816812472967.
Full text
25
Rappuoli, R. "MEDICINE: The Intangible Value of Vaccination." Science 297, no. 5583 (August 9, 2002): 937–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1075173.
Full text
26
Marr, Bernard. "Measuring and managing intangible value drivers." Business Strategy Series 8, no. 3 (March 6, 2007): 172–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515630710684169.
Full text
27
Mackenzie, Craig. "The intangible value IN SOCIAL ACCOUNTING." Measuring Business Excellence 3, no. 1 (January 1999): 58–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb025569.
Full text
28
McDonald, Malcolm. "Linking intangible assets to shareholder value." Journal of Digital Asset Management 5, no. 3 (June 2009): 126–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dam.2009.6.
Full text
29
Lhaopadchan, Suntharee. "Fair value accounting and intangible assets." Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 18, no. 2 (May 11, 2010): 120–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13581981011033989.
Full text
30
Marr, Bernard. "Strategic management of intangible value drivers." Handbook of Business Strategy 6, no. 1 (December 1, 2005): 147–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08944310510557161.
Full textAbstract:
Organizations are recognizing that if they want to survive and prosper in the long run they need to strategically manage their intangible assets. New theories of strategic management such as the resource‐based view show that organizations can only gain sustainable competitive advantages if they are focusing on the development of their value drivers. Intangible assets such as know‐how, brands, copyrights, patents and relationships with customers or suppliers, are key value drivers in today’s business world. It is therefore critical for organizations to identify, understand, and manage these organizational value drivers. This article outlines the process of how organizations can identify their key resources – tangible and intangible – as well as their interdependence and causal dynamics to deliver value. An improved understanding of the strategic resource architecture helps to overcome causal ambiguity of how value is created and helps to direct resource allocation and competence acquisition.
31
Shakina, Elena, and Angel Barajas. "Intangible-intensive profile of a company: the key to outperforming." Journal of Intellectual Capital 16, no. 4 (October 12, 2015): 721–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jic-03-2015-0025.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reveal and empirically validate a new typology of company strategic profiles regarding intangible resources. Design/methodology/approach – The study is carried out in three steps. The first stage comes to identify the coordinates of intangibles in which strategic profiles are found. The second stage enables a clusterization of more than 1,600 European companies observed during seven years in the coordinates of intangibles. The last step introduces comparative analysis of these clusters in terms of their performance. Findings – As a result of empirical analysis three strategic profiles regarding intangibles are discovered. Two of these profiles are called intangible-intensive as they demonstrate clear predominance of a particular set of intangibles. The innovative profile is associated with intensive investment in innovation and networking capabilities. The conservative profile puts emphasis on managerial capabilities and development of business process. The non-intangible-intensive profile, that has been called moderate, evenly allocates resources among intangibles keeping them on a low level relative to the intangible-intensive profiles. Practical implications – This research is useful for practitioners in strategic and knowledge management. It provides insight into common features of company strategies for intangibles as well their impact on short- and long-term performance. Originality/value – This work contributes to the field of strategic knowledge management by demonstrating a new relevant typology in company behavior regarding intangibles. Moreover, it equips decision makers in companies with a tool to design strategic vision in intangibles.
32
Shakina, Elena, Angel Barajas, Petr Parshakov, and Aleksei Chadov. "Status-quo vs new strategy in intangibles." Journal of Economic Studies 44, no. 1 (January 9, 2017): 138–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jes-07-2015-0132.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose This study explores company strategies for intangibles. The authors investigate whether it is reasonable for companies to intensify intangibles when the current strategy is not intangible-intensive. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate a theoretical model to describe the strategic decision making in companies. Design/methodology/approach The authors use the Bellman-equation framework to find the conditions under which a change in strategy for intangibles is reasonable. Findings The results determine the parameters of returns on intangibles in different strategies, the optimal intangible stock and the influence of external economic shocks. The findings of the study demonstrate that many requirements have to be met to make intangible-intensive strategy beneficial for a company. Moreover negative shocks of crises force a company to postpone a new strategy on intangibles. Practical implications This research provides an insight into strategic behavior of companies under uncertainty. The theoretical findings demonstrate under which conditions companies should decide to switch to a strategy more intangible-intensive. This model can be used to empirically test parameters of different investment strategies of companies using structural estimation techniques. Originality/value This work contributes to the theory of managerial economics giving closed form solutions for the dynamic optimization of company behavior. The findings also show how this behavior might change when economic crises are faced or expected.
33
Castilla Polo, Francisca, and Consuelo Ruíz Rodríguez. "The intangible index in bank management." Intangible Capital 15, no. 3 (December 30, 2019): 171. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.1366.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose: Our research objective is to perform a descriptive analysis of the information on intangible assets disclosed by Spanish banks indexed on the IBEX 35 as a step prior to the creation of which allows us to eventually create a specific disclosure index for this type of content during 2010-2012, the most critical years of the crisis in Spain.Design/methodology/approach: In a first section of the methodology, it has been carried out a content analysis using five categories that cover all the terms that were considered the most relevant in the literature on intangible assets: concepts of intellectual capital, human capital, structural capital, relational capital and usefulness of information. This information has been the basis for the design of an index by categories and global as a second part of the methodological design.Findings: Our results found that the disclosure level of Spanish financial entities in terms of intangibles is reduced with an aggregate index of intangible assets of 0.2698 (between 0 and 1). Although, within the categories proposed it can be highlighted the priority role of the usefulness information index followed by the relational and human capital indexes.Research limitations/implications: The study focuses on 2010 to 2012, which conditions and justifies the results obtained for a period of crisis such as the one analyzed.Practical implications: Our results confirm that the financial entities have not bet for the use of the disclosure of information on intangibles during the crisis despite their potential value in order to guarantee a competitive business performance.Social implications: Managers of financial institutions may have a comparative vision of the disclosure of intangibles and adopt future disclosure policies that consider the value of this information.Originality/value: As the main contribution, this paper incorporates the results of a specific index on intangibles (both globally and specifically for 5 categories) for financial institutions. Our results open future lines of research that analyze why not use this information for competitive purposes and, specifically, to gain confidence in a context as difficult as that experienced in the years of crisis studied.
34
Shakina, Elena, and Angel Barajas. "Intangible-intensive profiles of companies: protection during the economic crisis of 2008-2009." Journal of Intellectual Capital 17, no. 4 (October 10, 2016): 758–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jic-02-2016-0029.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose This study explores the strategies adopted by companies during the economic crisis of 2008-2009. It investigates whether it is reasonable for companies to intensify their investment in intangibles during recession periods. The purpose of this paper is to find empirical evidence that companies with clear intangible-intensive profiles are likely to outperform those without a clear strategy. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the intangible-intensive strategies of companies in terms of their dynamics during the pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis periods. Through dummy regression applied to data from more than 1,600 European companies involved in the empirical analysis, the paper aims to show moderating effects from intangible-intensive strategies on company performance, expressed in terms of economic value added and market value added. Findings The results established in this study shed some light on the global economic crisis in 2008-2009. The findings of this study demonstrate that companies with a conservative profile towards intangibles outperform both those without a defined profile and those with an innovative one. However, an innovative profile enables faster recovery after a crisis. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature on the strategic management of companies, and highlights the particular importance of intangible-intensiveness when markets experience systematic distresses. It is emphasized that lessons learned during the recent global economic crisis must be taken into account in the strategic vision of any company.
35
Mishra, Sagarika, and Mike T. Ewing. "Financial constraints and marketing investment: evidence from text analysis." European Journal of Marketing 54, no. 3 (February 27, 2020): 525–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ejm-01-2019-0090.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this study to examine the effect of financial constraint on intangible investment because intangible investment provides an overall picture of marketing investment and activity. Intangible investment also plays a significant role in facilitating future sales. Using a new measure of intangible investment (Peters and Taylor, 2017), the authors first establish that intangible investment is positively related with future sales. Then, using a new text-based measure of financial constraint, the authors show that financial constraint has a significant negative effect on future intangible investments after controlling for other factors. Intangible investment has three components. The first is R&D, the second is 30 per cent of selling and general administrative expense (SGA) and the third is other intangibles. The authors find that the negative and significant effect of financial constraint on 30 per cent SGA is stronger. This indicates that financially constrained firms reduce marketing related investments. The authors then considered firm size and found that smaller firms facing financial constraint continue to increase their intangible investments, whereas larger firms reduce their intangible investment. As a robustness test, the authors use advertising expenditure as a measure of promotion related investment and find that financial constraint has a negative effect on advertising spending. The authors then use two traditional measures of financial constraint in their analysis to compare with the new text-based measure. Design/methodology/approach The authors use ordinary least squares with cluster robust standard error to conduct their empirical analysis. Findings First the authors establish that intangible investment positively affects future sales. Further the authors find that financial constraint negatively affects intangible investment. Moreover, financial constraint negatively affects the brand capital of intangible investment. Research limitations/implications The authors did not conduct any industry specific analysis to see how financial constraints affect intangible investment across different industries. Industry specific analysis is important because in some industries/sectors intangibles are clearly more important than in others, so this is an important avenue for future research. It will also be interesting to explore if and how financial constraint has a mediating effect on sales growth via intangible investment and different components of intangibles. Practical implications This study identifies another important factor that can negatively affect brand capital investment. Originality/value The authors have used a measure of financial constraint and text mined all the annual reports of US firms for the period of 1994-2016 to compute this measure.
36
Sicoli, Graziella. "The Role of Intangibles in the Creation of Company Value." International Journal of Business and Management 13, no. 9 (August 1, 2018): 161. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v13n9p161.
Full textAbstract:
The interest of the business economists in intangibles is growing and to this day the topic remains discussed both with reference to the nature of these resources, and to their role, their contribution in terms of value creation. Intangibles are one of the main sources of companies’ competitive advantage (Tanfous, 2013). The definition and classification of intangibles is still an open question. Among intangibles, knowledge assumes a fundamental role. As stated by Sveiby (Sveiby, 1997) intellectual capital is ‘knowledge that can be converted into value. In fact, only the value of intangibles offers a comapny the possibility of differentiating itself from its competitors, and as stated by Stewart the differences among firms is played out by the correect management of intangible resources, which allow them to overcome competitors (Stewart, 1997). The aim of this work of the work is to carry out an analysis of the literature with reference to the definitions and classifications offered both nationally and internationally, their role in the company and their contribution in terms of value creation. To understand the sources of competitive advantage that intangibles generate it is necessary to build a model based on the statement that the resources of the company are immobile and heterogeneous. (Barney, 1991). Every enterprise must create the structures that help them to accumulate knowledge capital and create intangible assets systematically and to convert it to value for their customers in order to gain a competitive edge and create long-term shareholder value (Lev, 2003). This paper confirms the theory that adequate investments in intangibles exercises a positive influence on company performance; for the future, with the purpose of creating company value, we believe it opportune to consider the good association between intangibles and the various components of immaterial resources; this association will be able to guarantee not only the creation of value for the shareholders but for all the subjects directly and indirectly involved in the life of the company as well as the survival and reputation of the company itself. The paper offers adequate points for reflection for future examination regarding the relationship between investments achieved in intangibles and the creation of company value. Moreover, it confirms what the was previously stated, that up to now, studies on intangibles have not arrived at a universally accepted definition. Therefore, we hope for this in the near future.
37
Jones, Stewart. "Does the Capitalization of Intangible Assets Increase the Predictability of Corporate Failure?" Accounting Horizons 25, no. 1 (March 1, 2011): 41–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/acch.2011.25.1.41.
Full textAbstract:
SYNOPSIS: The value relevance of intangible assets is now well documented in the literature, leading to calls for standard setters to adopt more flexible reporting rules for these assets. In this study, I evaluate the merits of intangibles capitalization from a bankruptcy and default risk perspective, which has not been previously considered in the literature. The study is conducted in a unique reporting environment, where managers have had considerable discretion to capitalize a wide range of intangibles over an extended period. Three main results are reported. First, failing firms capitalize intangible assets more aggressively than non-failed firms over the 16-year sample period, but particularly over the five-year period leading up to firm failure. Second, drawing on the accounting choice literature, I find that managers’ propensity to capitalize intangible assets has a strong statistical association with earnings management proxies, particularly among failing firms. Finally, voluntary capitalization of intangibles has strong discriminating and predictive power in a firm failure model, even after controlling for several other factors.
38
Krasiuk, Inna, and Yelena Demidova. "Impact of Intangible Factors on Business Value." Business Ethics and Leadership 1, no. 3 (2017): 64–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.21272/bel.1(3).64-74.2017.
Full text
39
Bauman, Mark P., and Kenneth W. Shaw. "Value relevance of customer-related intangible assets." Research in Accounting Regulation 30, no. 2 (October 2018): 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.racreg.2018.09.010.
Full text
40
Eisfeldt, Andrea L., and Dimitris Papanikolaou. "The Value and Ownership of Intangible Capital." American Economic Review 104, no. 5 (May 1, 2014): 189–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.189.
Full textAbstract:
Intangible capital which relies on essential human inputs, or 'organization capital,' presents a unique challenge for measurement. Organization capital cannot be fully owned by firms' financiers, because it is partly embodied in key labor inputs. Instead, cash flows must be shared with key talent and thus neither book nor market values will fully capture its value. Measurement of organization capital requires a model featuring these unique property rights. We use accounting data along with a simple example of such a model to measure the fraction of the US capital stock which is missing from book and market values.
41
Cordazzo, Michela, and Paola Rossi. "The influence of IFRS mandatory adoption on value relevance of intangible assets in Italy." Journal of Applied Accounting Research 21, no. 3 (April 18, 2020): 415–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jaar-05-2018-0069.
Full textAbstract:
PurposeFollowing the mandatory IFRS adoption in 2005, the Continental European accounting systems changed. This study investigates if it influenced the value relevance of intangible assets in Italy.Design/methodology/approachTo measure the value relevance of intangible assets of non-financial firms listed on Borsa Italiana from 2000 to 2015, this study isolates the impact of several classes of intangible assets on stock prices and then classifies firms according to intangible asset intensity.FindingsGoodwill, intellectual property and other rights, start-up costs or other intangible assets are significantly correlated with stock prices when Italian accounting standards were applied prior to 2005, whereas research and development expenditures are not associated with stock prices. The mandatory IFRS adoption has exerted positive effects only for goodwill and research and development expenditures, and it is negative for start-up costs. Further, when intangible-intensive firms are considered in the post-IFRS adoption period, declining value relevance exists relative to intellectual property and other rights or research and development expenditures; goodwill and other intangible assets increase in value relevance.Research limitations/implicationsThis study is subject to country-specific determinants and firm-specific characteristics. It treats accounting standards as exogenous, and the classification reflects the concentration of intangible assets in an industry. By relying on investors’ assessments of risk, it does not sufficiently explore the risk conveyed by future abnormal earnings and earnings volatility.Practical implicationsThis study offers insights for measuring and reporting intangible assets, by specifying that their value relevance depends on their level and aggregation.Originality/valueThis study investigates the value relevance of intangible assets in the post-IFRS period, in reference to intangible-intensive firms. It also divides intangible assets into several classes to specify the value relevance of goodwill.
42
Zhou, Zhao, Jun Mei Zhang, Shu Hui Wang, Rui Chen, and Wen Wen Zhong. "Study on the Value Management of Forestry Intangible Assets in the Era of Knowledge Economy." Applied Mechanics and Materials 618 (August 2014): 583–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.618.583.
Full textAbstract:
In the era ofthe knowledge economy, the accounting priority has shifted from tangible assets to intangible assets. The knowledge economy-based intangible assets is gradually emerging as the main impetus for determining the forthcoming cash flow and market value. This paper takes the stocks listed in Shenzhen Securities Exchange as the study object, conducts empiricalstudy and analysis based on the sampling data, including 2008-2010 pershare intangible assets,per share returns, per share net assets after deducting intangible assets and share price,describes the disclosure of intangible assets of such listed companies as Jilin Forest Industry,Zhongfu Industrial, Yihua Timber Industry, Fenglin Group and Palm Landscape and inspects the value relevance of intangible assets. Accordingly, this paper proposes to consolidate the value management of intangible assets of the forestry enterprises and improve their core competítíveness.
43
Erickson, Scott, and Helen N. Rothberg. "Intangible dynamics in financial services." Journal of Service Theory and Practice 26, no. 5 (September 12, 2016): 642–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jstp-04-2015-0093.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine a range of metrics concerning knowledge and related intangible assets in financial service industries. The metrics are then analyzed according to theory from several disciplines so as to better understand intangible dynamics, the relationship between different intangibles. Guidance is provided in terms of valuing knowledge and pursuing competitive intelligence (CI) based on the unique characteristics of financial services intangibles. Design/methodology/approach Data are drawn from a large database and supplemented with other sources. The primary database includes a considerable collection of publicly available financial results combined with proprietary data from a CI consultancy. Results on knowledge asset-levels and CI activity, by industry sector, are presented as well as the degree to which big data is employed. Findings Financial services show high levels of big data, low levels of knowledge assets, and high levels of CI activity. In some ways, these differing valuations of intangibles by different parties are counterintuitive, but they can be explained with reference to theory and a deeper understanding of the intangible dynamics. Research limitations/implications The results allow a deeper understanding of the relationship between data, information, knowledge (explicit and tacit), and intelligence in a specific industry. Given the uniqueness of the financial services results, these findings provide considerable insight into how intangibles strategies and applications can differ by industry. Practical implications These results provide direction to financial services decision-makers concerning investment in knowledge management systems (limited), CI initiatives (aggressive), and big data (aggressive). Originality/value The paper brings unique data to the table and brings together theory from a number of disparate fields of study, providing a different perspective on the interplay of knowledge, intelligence, and data in financial services.
44
Fomina, O. V., O. O. Avhustоva, and I. K. Shushakova. "Assessing the Intangible Assets." Business Inform 4, no. 519 (2021): 154–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2021-4-154-160.
Full textAbstract:
The article is concerned with the issues of assessing the intellectual property rights as part of intangible assets of enterprises. The article is aimed at substantiating the theoretical principles and improving methodological approaches to the assessment of intangible assets in the process of formation of the value of enterprise. The normative-legal regulation of valuation of intangible assets in order to determine the value of intangible assets of enterprises in monetary terms for the purposes of accounting and in the field of professional valuation activity is studied. The interrelationship of approaches of independent professional estimation and accounting valuation in order to apply it to the needs of accountance is specified. Described are the cost (based on determining the cost of expenses, necessary for the reproduction or substitution of the valuation object), profit (used to determine the valuation of intellectual property rights, based on the application of assessing procedures for transferring the expected profit to the value of the assessed object) and comparative (determines the market value of an intangible asset, when there is sufficient reliable information on prices in the market of such objects and the terms of contracts for the disposal of property rights to such objects) approaches to the valuation of intangible assets. The formulas for computing the value of intangible assets based on the cost approach are provided. The assessment of intangible assets is carried out according to the above specified formulas of the cost approach on the example of a patent for invention. It is determined that in the absence of an active market to determine the fair value of intangible assets, it is advisable to apply the cost approach, namely: the method of direct reproduction.
45
Dicuonzo, Grazia, Andrea Perrone, and Vittorio Dell'Atti. "Empirical Evidence on the Value Relevance of Brand Values across Countries." International Business Research 11, no. 2 (January 26, 2018): 197. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n2p197.
Full textAbstract:
Stock prices reflect firms-related information differently depending on the environmental and institutional context. However, previous empirical studies test mainly accounting data. Since intangible assets became a crucial element for business success and brands are considered critical for value creation, correlated disclosure is proven to be value relevant for investors. The majority of accounting standards do not allow to recognize internally generated intangible assets in the balance sheet and therefore more and more practitioners, both investors and analysts, use brand values provided by third independent parties, such as consulting firms. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and how brand-related information differs across countries testing the value relevance of brand values published in Brand Finance’s Reports. This study aims to open a new stream of literature regarding the value relevance of non-accounting information across countries.
46
Shakina, Elena, Mariia Molodchik, and Angel Barajas. "Endogenous value creation: managerial decisions on intangibles." Management Research Review 40, no. 4 (April 18, 2017): 410–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mrr-01-2016-0026.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose This study aims to explore value creation through intangibles in corporations, taking into consideration the endogenous nature of managerial decisions. It is stated that intangibles bring extra information asymmetry into a company and make managers and investors’ goals less aligned. Design/methodology/approach A theoretical model is elaborated and empirically tested on the assumption that managers, while investing in intangibles, simultaneously make a company competitive and attractive to investors. The authors use a conceptual model of endogenous value creation to test how intangibles affect outperforming of a company and provoke the expectations of investors. The research is carried out on a sample of more than 1,650 European companies covering the period from 2004 to 2011. Structural equation modelling is applied for the purposes of empirical analysis. Findings The authors reveal a diverse impact of intangibles on outperforming of a company measured by economic value added and its ability to create market value. The study discovers that managers are prone to indicate positive signals to investors rather than create sustainable competitive advantages. Practical implications This research emphasizes on the particular importance of awareness of policymakers, namely, companies’ top managers, about the outcomes of their decisions. Decision-making in public companies should involve as much deliberation as possible about the potential impact of what is decided. Originality/value This work contributes primarily to the field of corporate finance in companies that use intangibles. The endogenous process of value creation is modelled and tested. As a result, a number of essential problems in agent relationships in intangible-intensive corporations are discovered.
47
Allee, Verna. "Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets." Journal of Intellectual Capital 9, no. 1 (January 18, 2008): 5–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930810845777.
Full text
48
Yasyshena, Valentyna. "Analysis of dissertations addressing issues of accounting, analysis, and audit of intangible assets in Ukraine." Herald of Ternopil National Economic University, no. 3(89) (October 10, 2018): 79–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.35774/visnyk2018.03.079.
Full textAbstract:
The paper presents an analysis of dissertations defended in Ukraine during the years 1998-2018 in specialty 08.00.09 (08.06.04) “Accounting, analysis, and audit (by types of economic activity)”, in which issues of accounting, analysis, and audit of intangible assets were discussed. The dissertation projects are systematized thematically according to fifteen research areas, namely: economic essence, meanings, and definitions of terms; identification and recognition; classification; evaluation; documenting; accounting; depreciation issues; assets inventory; reporting; legislation; analysis; audit; control; computer technology and information systems; modeling. It is revealed that the major trends in the latest studies on accounting, analysis, audit and control of intangible assets, are related to matters of assigning intangibles to particular reporting units and defining intangible scores. It is found that issues of intangible assets are mostly addressed in the following areas: accounting; economic essence, meanings, and definitions of terms; classifications; evaluation; documenting; analysis; modeling; computer technology and information systems. Fewer studies are related to the development of reporting indicators, audit, identification and recognition, control, depreciation issues, assets inventory, legislation. The necessity for further in-depth study is shown and the issues to be addressed are the following: information disclosure on intangible assets in accounting; specification of alternative approaches to recognition, evaluation and consolidation in accounting; application of computer technology and information systems; application of the modeling method; increase of business value through effective use of intangible assets; development of the evaluation model for trademark effectiveness; development of customer base and the procedure for its assessment as an intangible asset; improvement of methods of depreciation; taxation of intangible assets operations; improvement of the current legislative background; methods of analysis, audit and control of availability, movement and efficiency of intangible assets; methodology and arrangements for management accounting of intangible assets; ways to build accounting and analytical information system for managing intangible assets.
49
Aulia, Filosofi Putri, Poppy Sofia Koeswayo, and Djoemarma Bede. "Relevance of Intangible Asset, Equity Book, and Earning Value on Stock Price in Information Technology Era." Journal of Accounting Auditing and Business 3, no. 1 (February 5, 2020): 135. http://dx.doi.org/10.24198/jaab.v3i1.25943.
Full textAbstract:
This study aims to provide an overview for issuers related to investors' behavior in using the values presented in financial statements in the information technology era, by measuring the moderation effect of intangible assets on the relevance of earnings and book value of equity on stock prices. It tested using a price multiple moderated regression model and LQ45 indexed issuers on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2018 as a sample. The results of the study show that investors in the Indonesian capital market use the magnitude of profits and intangible assets as a material for consideration in making investment decisions, and no longer use book value of issuer's equity. They do not fully switch to using intangible assets as the creator of the main value of issuers but instead use them as one of the considerations in buying shares of an issuer. However, now investors use the value of intangible assets more dominant than using the value of profits.
50
MAIER, RONALD, GIUSEPPINA PASSIANTE, and SHUJUN ZHANG. "CREATING VALUE IN NETWORKS." International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 08, no. 03 (September 2011): 357–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0219877011002416.
Full textAbstract:
Recent studies has pointed out the emergence of a new model of network, called value creation networks (VCNs), to respond effectively to changes in the business environment and customer demands. VCN model posits networks, communities of individuals, and refusal of a centralized mindset as the core elements of their frame of reference. Their networked configuration is characterized by flatter hierarchy and teambased work organization, to respond efficiently to changes in the business environment. The aim of this introductory paper is to discuss some strategic issues concerning VCNs: their concept of value,their strategic role in the so-calledknowledge economy, their intangible benefits. Moreover, we highlight theopportunities deriving from informationand communication technologies (ICTs) to create further intangible value. In the final section, werelate the other papers in this special issue to our discussion.