The quadratic relationship between intangible assets and growth in Portuguese SMEs

This article shows new empirical evidence concerning the growth determinants of SMEs. Specifically, we identify the existence of a quadratic relationship between the level of intangible assets of Portuguese SMEs and their growth. Based on the results obtained here, we conclude that intangible assets represents a catalyst for growth only when accounting for a significant proportion of total assets. A relatively weaker presence of intangibles might in fact inhibit growth.Growth; Intangible Assets; Portuguese SMEs

THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS INVESTMENTS. CHARACTERISTICS AND THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT

In the knowledge-based economy the fundamental determinants of the enterprise value, in the present, have an intangible nature. The intangible investments are the most important factors of the enterprise success. Wealth, growth and welfare are driven nowadays by intangible investments. The knowledge economy is characterized by huge investments in human capital and informational technology. Despite of the increased importance of intangible assets, as the source of the firm` competitive advantages, the information regarding these kind of assets, both available in the inside of the firm and, which is presented to the externals, is pour. In this paper I present the reasons for this situation.intangible, investments, assets, accountancy, value

The Intangible Assets Investments: Accounting Treatment and Risks for Capital Investors and Management

In the knowledge-based economy, the fundamental determinants of the company’s value, in the present, have an intangible nature. The intangible investments are the most important factors of the enterprise success. Wealth, growth and welfare are driven nowadays by intangible investments. The knowledge economy is characterized by huge investments in human capital and informational technology. The current accounting regulation does not allow companies to capitalize a big part of investments in intangibles (produced by a company) and to report these as assets in the financial reports. There are inconsistencies regarding the book-keeping treatment of the two categories of intangible assets: internally generated and externally, acquired from the outside of the company.investments, intangible assets, valuation, book value, investors, managers.

Tax Neutrality and Intangible Capital

Many studies measure capital stocks and effective tax rates for different industries, but they consider only tangible assets such as equipment, structures, inventories, and land. Some of these studies also have estimated that the welfare cost of tax differences among these assets under prior law is about 10 billion per year or 13 percent of all corporate income tax revenue. Since the investment tax credit was available only for equipment, its repeal raises the effective rate of taxation of equipment toward that of other assets and virtually eliminates this welfare cost. However, firms also own intangible assets such as trademarks, copyrights, patents, a good reputation, or general production expertise. This paper provides alternative measures of the intangible capital stock, and it investigates implications for distortions caused by taxes. The existence of intangible capital markedly alters welfare cost calculations. Investments in advertising and R&D are expensed, so the effective rate of tax on these assets is less than that on equipment under prior law. With large differences between these assets and other tangible assets, we find that the welfare cost measure under prior law increases to 13 billion per year. Repeal of the investment credit taxes equipment more like other tangible assets but less like intangible assets. The welfare cost still falls, to about $7 billion per year, but it is no longer "virtually eliminated." With additional sources of intangible capital, credit repeal could actually increase welfare costs. Finally, however, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 not only repeals the investment tax credit but reduces rates as well. Efficiency always increases in this model because the taxation of tangible assets is reduced toward that of intangible assets.

Resource consents - intangible fixed assets? Yes, but, too difficult by far!

Recent international attempts to draft an accounting standard (IAS38) which establishes the most widely acceptable treatment for intangible assets have sparked debate among standard setters, practising accountants and media analysts. Contentious issues include differing treatment for internally and externally generated intangible fixed assets, and the requirement for the existence of a ready market for the exchange of intangible assets. A further question has been identified, that of whether the ‘right to do something’, as in permission to act, is in itself an intangible asset and if so how should it be treated. An example of this is resource consents issued under the Resource Management Act 1991. The aim of this research was to investigate the nature of resource consents as intangible assets according to ICANZ disclosure and recognition standards and to determine the level of disclosure practised by companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. Disclosure of resource consent details as non-financial information would provide a significant proportion of the benefits involved in disclosing this class of asset while limiting the costs involved in the production of the information. We conclude that the details of resource consents held should be disclosed in the annual report as additional non-financial information, or as a separate schedule of resource consents held in the notes to the financial statements as per FRS1. This view is not addressed by the requirements of IAS38 or ED87 as this 'class of intangible assets' is not discussed at all. However, it can be argued that the omission of resource consents and other similar intangibles is contrary to the spirit of the true and fair view requirement of the Financial Reporting Act and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

Maximizing Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets: Case Studies in Intangible Asset Finance

As innovative companies struggle to raise funds, intellectual property and intangible assets are providing alternative ways of financing innovation. But greater awareness of them as an asset class is needed. Raising that awareness is the focus of a new report from Athena Alliance, Maximizing Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets: Case Studies in Intangible Asset Finance by Ian Ellis, a former U.S. Department of Commerce official specializing in intellectual property and international trade. The report outlines increasing, but still nascent, means of financing innovation based on these assets in public, private and venture capital markets. As industry has invested capital in research and development to develop new technology and advance other creative activities, intellectual capital has become a valuable asset class, according to the paper. In response, firms specializing in intangible-based financing are springing up, using them to raise capital for the next round of innovation.The paper details equity, equity-debt, debt, and sale-leaseback transactions, both private and public, that have helped companies raise capital, based on careful, rigorous analysis and conservative underwriting standards. For example, the author notes that in 2000, there were two public deals using royalty securitization, raising $145 million. In 2007-08,$3.3 billion was raised in 19 deals.Unlike some of the exotic financial vehicles, however, the financial products discussed in this paper are some of the most basic financing mechanisms in business. The innovation is in recognizing the value of intangible assets for corporate finance. These new financial firms are using traditional financial techniques in new ways to help innovative companies.But more should be done.One important step would be developing sound, industry-wide, underwriting standards, according to the report. For example, Small Business Administration (SBA) rules permit its loans to be used for acquisition of intangible assets when buying on-going businesses. Rules are unclear on whether those assets can be used as collateral. The paper recommends that SBA work with commercial lenders to develop standards for using intangible assets as collateral.The report builds on earlier Athena Alliance papers, notably Intangible Asset Monetization: The Promise and the Reality

Market-Driven Management and Intangible Assets in Global Television Set Manufacturers

The television set industry is a global sector where the most competitive companies are market-driven. Their competitive advantage is based not only on their ability to innovate products but also on their capability to develop and strengthen intangible assets, such as corporate culture, brand image and relationships between organisations.Television set industry, Market Driven Management, Competitiveness, Intangible Assets DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.4468/2010.2.07silvestrelli

Corporate Taxes, Profit Shifting and the Location of Intangibles within Multinational Firms

Intangible assets are one major source of profit shifting opportunities due to a highly intransparent transfer pricing process. Our paper argues that multinational enterprises (MNEs) optimize their profit shifting strategy by locating shifting–relevant intangible property at affiliates with a low statutory corporate tax rate. Using panel data for European MNEs and controlling for unobserved time–constant heterogeneity between affiliates, we find that the lower a subsidiary’s tax rate relative to other affiliates of the multinational group the higher is its level of intangible asset investment. This effect is statistically and economically significant, even after controlling for subsidiary size and accounting for a dynamic intangible investment pattern.corporate taxation; multinational enterprise; profit shifting; intangible assets; micro level data

On the Treatment of Intangible Assets in National Accounting

The purpose of this paper is to give some suggestions on the treatment of intangible assets in national accounting. Knowledge ("World 3" in Karl Popper's term) is a sort of environment for human beings. As people more and more come to think that knowledge is an important factor for economic growth, the society comes to believe knowledge is capital. However, it is not easy to treat knowledge as capital. First of all, it is because knowledge creation is not economic production. In this paper, it is proposed that knowledge access should be focused instead. In addition, by drawing attention to striking similarities between expenditures for certain intangible fixed assets and certain work-in-progress-type expenditures, it is suggested that the concept of intangible fixed assets in the 1993SNA may be better interpreted when you consider them as a special type of work-in-progress. Finally, the treatment of intangible non-produced assets is discussed.

"Assessing agglomeration economies in a spatial framework with endogenous regressors"

This paper is concerned with the influence of agglomeration economies on economic outcomes across British regions. The concentration of economic activity in one place can foster economic performance due to the reduction in transportation costs, the ready availability of customers and suppliers, and knowledge spillovers. However, the concentration of several types of intangible assets can boost productivity as well. Thus, using an interesting dataset which proxies regional productivity, we will assess the relative importance of agglomeration and other assets, controlling for endogeneity, spatial autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity at the same time. Our results suggest that agglomeration has a definite positive influence on productivity, although our estimates of its effect are dramatically reduced when spatial dependence and other hitherto omitted variables proxying intangible assets are controlled for.Agglomeration economies, intangible assets, endogeneity, spatial autocorrelation, spatial HAC estimation. JEL classification:C21, J24, R10, R11, R12.