Identifying Corporate Expenditures on Intangibles Using GAAP
AbstractThis 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne in its series Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series with number wp2009n12.
Length: 39 pages
Date of creation: May 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia
Phone: +61 3 8344 2100
Fax: +61 3 8344 2111
Web page: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/
More information through EDIRC
managerial accounting system; GAAP accounting system; expenditures on intangible investment; rate of return;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ACC-2009-07-11 (Accounting & Auditing)
- NEP-ALL-2009-07-11 (All new papers)
- NEP-BEC-2009-07-11 (Business Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Wesley M Cohen & Richard R Nelson & John P Walsh, 2003. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not)," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000624, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- 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.
- Stefano Brusoni & Orietta Marsili & Ammon Salter, 2002. "The role of codified sources of knowledge in innovation: empirical evidence from Dutch manufacturing," SPRU Working Paper Series 80, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
- 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 431-53, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jenny Chen).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.