IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v27y2015i1p51-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of in-process research and development capitalization on M&A and purchase price allocations

Author

Listed:
  • Dowdell, Thomas D.
  • Lim, Steve C.

Abstract

We investigate whether the change in accounting treatment of in-process research and development cost (IPRD) from expensing to capitalization affects the frequency of acquiring target firms with IPRD and the purchase price allocated to IPRD. We examine 1490 acquisitions in high-technology industries using a unique data set of purchase price allocations. For our sample as a whole, we find that the accounting rule change does not reduce the number of acquisitions with IPRD or the purchase price allocated to IPRD, but our results vary by industry. We provide evidence that the frequency of acquisitions with IPRD decreased for two of the four industry groups and IPRD intensity (IPRD/Assets Acquired) decreased for two industry groups. Our study contributes to research that examines whether mandatory accounting changes affect company economic decisions and research on managing earnings using IPRD.

Suggested Citation

  • Dowdell, Thomas D. & Lim, Steve C., 2015. "The effect of in-process research and development capitalization on M&A and purchase price allocations," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 51-56.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:27:y:2015:i:1:p:51-56
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000077
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathy Hsiao Yu Hsu & Young Sang Kim & Kyojik ‘Roy’ Song, 2009. "The Relation Among Targets’ R&D Activities, Acquirers’ Returns, and In‐Process R&D in the US," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(9‐10), pages 1180-1200, November.
    2. Dowdell, Thomas D. & Press, Eric, 2004. "The impact of SEC scrutiny on financial statement reporting of in-process research and development expense," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 227-244.
    3. Thomas D. Dowdell & Steve C. Lim & Eric Press, 2009. "Were In‐Process Research and Development Charges Too Aggressive?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5‐6), pages 531-551, June.
    4. Derrick, Patricia L.D., 2013. "Accounting for promises: The impact of SFAS No. 116 on charities," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 208-219.
    5. Fasci, Martha A. & Willis, Veronda F., 2013. "The impact of GAAP guidance on asset retirement obligations," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 117-122.
    6. Kathy Hsiao Yu Hsu & Young Sang Kim & Kyojik 'Roy' Song, 2009. "The Relation Among Targets' R&D Activities, Acquirers' Returns, and In-Process R&D in the US," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(9-10), pages 1180-1200.
    7. Webinger, Mariah & Comer, Matt & Bloom, Robert, 2013. "The effect of additional guidance on fair value measurement and disclosure in illiquid or inactive markets," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 220-229.
    8. Thomas D. Dowdell & Steve C. Lim & Eric Press, 2009. "Were In-Process Research and Development Charges Too Aggressive?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5-6), pages 531-551.
    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. Shin Hyoung Kwon & Guannan Wang, 2020. "The change in the value relevance of accounting information after mergers and acquisitions: evidence from the adoption of SFAS 141(R)," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(3), pages 2717-2757, 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. Junyoup Lee & Eunsuh Lee & Kevin H. Kim & Daniel Gyung H. Paik, 2018. "Acquired In‐process Research Development and Earnings Management," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 577-588, December.
    2. Chiang, Wei-Chih & Stammerjohan, William & Englebrecht, Ted D., 2014. "Pricing target NOLs in mergers and acquisitions from the participating firms' perspective," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 32-42.
    3. Bret A. Johnson & Ling Lei Lisic & Joon Seok Moon & Mengmeng Wang, 2023. "SEC comment letters on form S-4 and M&A accounting quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 862-909, June.
    4. Markarian, Garen & Pozza, Lorenzo & Prencipe, Annalisa, 2008. "Capitalization of R&D costs and earnings management: Evidence from Italian listed companies," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 246-267, September.
    5. Kathy Hsiao Yu Hsu & Young Sang Kim & Kyojik 'Roy' Song, 2009. "The Relation Among Targets' R&D Activities, Acquirers' Returns, and In-Process R&D in the US," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(9-10), pages 1180-1200.
    6. Thomas D. Dowdell & Steve C. Lim & Eric Press, 2009. "Were In-Process Research and Development Charges Too Aggressive?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5-6), pages 531-551.
    7. Fogel, Kathy & El-Khatib, Rwan & Feng, Nancy Chun & Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara, 2015. "Compliance costs and disclosure requirement mandates: Some evidence," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 83-87.
    8. Mustafa Ciftci & Masako Darrough, 2015. "What Explains the Valuation Difference between Intangible-intensive Profit and Loss Firms?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1-2), pages 138-166, January.
    9. Glasscock, Robson & Harless, David W. & Dorminey, Jack, 2017. "The curious case of Level 3 instruments," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 52-68.

    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:eee:reacre:v:27:y:2015:i:1:p:51-56. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    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.