IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v43y2019i5p1251-1286..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of intangible assets in explaining the investment–profit puzzle

Author

Listed:
  • Özgür Orhangazi

Abstract

Starting around the early 2000s, and especially after the 2008 crisis, the rate of capital accumulation for US nonfinancial corporations has slowed down despite relatively high profitability; indicating a weakening of the link between profitability and investment. While the literature mostly focuses on financialisation and globalisation as the reasons behind this slowdown, I suggest adding another layer to these explanations and argue that, in conjunction with financialisation and globalisation, we need to pay attention to the increased use of intangible assets by nonfinancial corporations in the last two decades. Intangibles such as brand names, trademarks, patents and copyrights play a role in the widening of the profit–investment gap as the use of these assets enables firms to increase market power and profitability without necessarily generating a corresponding increase in fixed capital investment. After discussing the ways nonfinancial corporations use intangible assets, I look at large corporations in the USA and find the following: (i) The ratio of intangible assets to the capital stock increased in general. This increase is highest for firms in high-technology, healthcare, nondurables and telecommunications. (ii) Industries with higher intangible asset ratios have lower investment to profit ratios. (iii) Industries with higher intangible asset ratios have higher markups and profitability. (iv) The composition of the nonfinancial corporate sector has changed and the weight of high-technology and healthcare firms has increased; but this increase did not correspond to an equal increase in their investment share. The decline in the investment share of durables, nondurables and machinery is matched by an increase in the investment share of location-specific industries with low intangible asset use, most notably firms in energy extraction. In general, these firms have steadier markups and higher investment to profit ratios. (v) Yet, intangible-intensive industries’ profitability has increased faster than their share of investment or total assets. All in all, these findings are in line with the suggestion that the increased use of intangible assets enables firms to have high profitability without a corresponding increase in investment.

Suggested Citation

  • Özgür Orhangazi, 2019. "The role of intangible assets in explaining the investment–profit puzzle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(5), pages 1251-1286.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:5:p:1251-1286.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bey046
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Leila Davis & Joao de Souza, 2022. "Stylized facts on the evolution of profit rates in the US: Evidence from firm-level data," Working Papers 2022-01, University of Massachusetts Boston, Economics Department.
    2. Gabriele Beccari & Francesco Marchionne & Beniamino Pisicoli, 2022. "Alternative financing and investment in intangibles: evidence from Italian firms," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 174, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    3. Dögüs, Ilhan, 2021. "Production structure, output and profits - A note," ZÖSS-Discussion Papers 88, University of Hamburg, Centre for Economic and Sociological Studies (CESS/ZÖSS).
    4. Terranova, Roberta & Turco, Enrico M., 2022. "Concentration, stagnation and inequality: An agent-based approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 569-595.
    5. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluca Orsatti & Guido Pialli, 2023. "The knowledge-intensive direction of technological change," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, March.
    6. Leila Davis & Joao Paulo A. de Souza, 2022. "Churning and profitability in the U.S. corporate sector," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 924-957, July.

    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:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:5:p:1251-1286.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.