外文翻译--无形资产管理、计量和呈报.doc

《外文翻译--无形资产管理、计量和呈报.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译--无形资产管理、计量和呈报.doc（14页珍藏版）》请在沃文网上搜索。

1、外 文 翻 译外文题目 Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting 外文出处 The Brookings Institution 外文作者 Baruch Lev 原文：Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and ReportingR&D and the Growth of Business EnterprisesThe contribution of R&D to the performance measure (profits ,sales) statistically to R&D expe

2、nditures in the current and previous periods to allow for the delayed effect of R&D on business performance and by controlling for the effect of other investments (physical assets ) on business performance. This statistical approach to empirically address issues concerning intangibles and their priv

3、ate and social impact was frequently used by economists and researchers in related areas. The empirical worked started with extensive historical case studies and proceeded to large sample (cross-sectional) analyses of R&D on firms productivity and growth .The research effort yielded several importan

4、t findings: -R&D expenditures contribute significantly to the productivity(value added) and output of firms ,and the estimated rates of return on R&D investment are quite high as much as20-35 percent annually with the estimates varying widely across industries and over time.- The contribution of bas

5、ic research (work aimed at developing new science and technology) to corporate productivity and growth is substantially larger than the contribution of other types of R&D ,such as product development and process R&D(where the latter is aimed at enhancing the efficiency of production processes).The e

6、stimated contribution differential of approximately three to one in favor of basic research is particularly intriguing ,given the widespread belief that public companies have been recently curtailing expenditures on basic research, in part as a response to the skepticism of many financial analysts a

7、nd institutional investors about the commercialization prospects of basic research. Basic research is, of course, more risky than applied R&D (see chapter 2), but it is inconceivable that risk differentials by themselves account for a three-to-one productivity of basic research.-The contribution of

8、corporate-financed R&D to productivity growth is larger than corporate-based but government-financed R&D (granted primarily to government contractors).The fact that most contracts with the government are based on cost-plus terms may partially explain this findings. This result should not detract fro

9、m the significant contribution to the industrial and technological infrastructure of publicly funded research conducted by government agencies and in federal laboratories (such as the contribution by the National Institutes of Health to pharmaceutical and biotech companies) as well as the substantia

10、l contribution of university research to technology.It should be noted that much of the research summarized above was based on survey data and industry aggregates, due to severe limitations in corporate published data. In fact, most of the examined variables and attributessuch as basic versus applie

11、d research and company versus government-sponsored R&Dcannot be directly estimated from information publicly disclosed to investors. Thus an important implication of these and similar findings is to suggest which kinds of currently unavailable information and data would be useful to managers, invest

12、ors, and policymakers.Alternative Output Measures: Market Value and PatentThe research presented above relates R&D inputs (intensity, capital) to firms productivity, sales, or profit growth, in an attempt to estimate the return on corporate investment in innovation as well as to examine macro-econom

13、ic issues, such as the productivity decline in the United States in the 1970s and early 1980s. This methodological approach encounters various problems; in particular the time lag between the investment in R&D and the realization of benefits (such as sales) is often long (particularly for basic rese

14、arch) and generally unknown, increasing the uncertainty about the estimated R&D contribution. Furthermore, biases and distortions in reported profitsarising from firms attempts to “manage” investors perceptions (see chapter 4)might cloud the intrinsic relationship between R&D and its subsequent bene

15、fits.These measurement difficulties have prompted a search for alternative and more reliable indicators of R&D output than reported sales and profitability measures. Two output indicators have received considerable in attention: capital market values of corporations and patents. Believers in efficie

16、nt capital markets argue that stock price and returns provide reliable signals of enterprise value and performance; hence R&D contribution can be evaluated using market values. Patents, and particularly citations in patent applications, provide an additional of the value of R&D and firms technology.

17、Concerning capital market studies, the research persuasively indicates that investors regard R&D as a significant value-increasing activity. For example, a number of event studies register a significantly positive investor reaction (stock price increases) to corporate announcements of new R&D initia

18、tives, particularly of firms operating in high-technology sectors and using cutting edge technology. When information is available, investors distinguish among different stages of the R&D processsuch as program initiation and ultimate commercialization most significantly rewarding mature R&D project

19、s that are close to commercialization. Furthermore, econometric studies that relate corporate market values or market-to-book ratios to R&D intensities consistently yield positive and statistically significant association estimates. Further probing of the data suggests that investors value an R&D do

20、llar spent by large firms more highly than that spent by small firms, probably a reflection of economies of scale in R&D. For example, large companies may benefit from lessons of failed R&D projects as they pursue the development of other project.The evidence thus indicates unequivocally that invest

21、ors view R&D expenditures as on average enhancing the value of firms and that that also demonstrate some ability to differentiate the contribution of R&D across industries, firm sizes, and stages of R&D maturity. Investors ability to fine-tune R&D valuations is obviously hampered by the absence of d

22、etailed information on these attributes in corporate financial reports.Data on R&D expenditures available in financial statements are crude indicators of R&D contribution and value creation: there is productive R&D and wasteful R&D (Motorola and partners$5 billion investment in the Iridium satellite

23、 communications project, currently in bankruptcy, is an example of the latter). The R&D productivity estimates discussed above obviously averaged the good and the bad, missing considerable information in the process. In an attempt to improve the estimation of R&D contribution, researchers experiment

24、ed with patents, which can be considered an intermediate output measure of R&D (the final output measure is, of course, the benefitsales, cost savingsgenerated by the R&D expenditure). Patents are only partial indicators of R&D output, since not every R&D project id patented. Yet patent research pro

25、vides interesting insights.The Findings of Patent ResearchVarious attributes of patents, such as the number of patents registered by a company (patent counts), patent renewal and fee data, and citations of and to patents were examined by researchers. Both patent counts and the number of innovations

26、emerging from a companys R&D program were found to be associated with the level of corporate investment in R&D (the higher the R&D expenditures, the larger, on average, the number of consequent patents and innovations) as well as with firms market values (the larger the number of patents and innovat

27、ions, the higher the market value, on average). Patents are thus related to both inputs (R&D) and outputs (market values) of the innovation process and, therefore, are meaningful intermediate value measures.It is clear, however, that patent and innovations are noisy measures of R&D contribution, due

28、 to the skewness of their value distributionsthat is, the tendency of a few patents or innovations to generate substantial returns (blockbusters), while the majority turn out to be virtually worthless. Citations (references) to a firms patents included in subsequent patent applications (forward cita

29、tions) offer a more reliable measure of R&D value, since such citations are an objective indicator of the firms research capabilities and the impact of its innovation activities on the subsequent development of science and technology.Various studies show that patent citations capture important aspec

30、ts of R&D value. For example, Manuel Trajtenberg reports a positive association between citation counts and consumer welfare measures for CAT scanners; Hilary Shane finds that patent counts weighted by citations (the firms number of registered patents divided by the number of citations by others to

31、these patents) contribute to the explanation of differences in Tobins q measures (market value over replacement cost of assets) across semiconductor companies; and Bronwyn Hall and colleagues report that citation-weighted patent counts are positively associated with firms market values (after contro

32、lling for R&D capital). Patents and their attributes thus reflect technological elements used by investors to value companies.In a direct test of the usefulness of patent citation measures as indicators of value, studies have been conducted to examine the ability of various citation-based measures t

33、o predict subsequent stock returns and market-to-book values possess such predictive ability: the number of patents granted to the firm in a given year, the intensity of citations to a firms patent portfolio by subsequent patents, and a measure based on the number of citation in a firms patents (bac

34、kward citations) to scientific papers (in contrast with citations to previous patents).The third measure reflects the scientific intensity of a patent and may provide a proxy for the extent of basic research conducted by the company. The fact that patent indicators are associated with subsequent sto

35、ck prices and returns suggests that investors are not fully aware of the ability of these measures to convey useful information about firms innovation processes and capabilities. This is of course not surprising, given the novelty of patent-related measures as indicators of enterprise value.Patents

36、are the intangible assets actively traded in markets (see chapter 2), in the form of licensing and sale of patents. An examination of firms royalties from the licensing of patents indicates that the volume of royalty income is swiftly increasing and that investors value a dollar of patent royalties

37、(the implicit, market multiplier of royalty income) two to three times higher than a dollar of regular income. The reason for the high valuation of patent royalties probably lies in the stability of this income source (patents are usually licensed for several years) relative to other more transitory

38、 components of income. Patent royalties also impact investors valuation of R&D, namely the market value they assign to a dollar of R&D expenditures. The valuation of the R&D of firms with royalty income is higher than the valuation of the R&D of firms that do not license patents, probably due to inv

39、estors belief that the quality and prospects of the R&D of firms able to license patents is relatively high.SummerR&D, a major form of corporate intangible investment, is found to be an important contributor to firms productivity, growth, and capital market value. The magnitude of this contributionr

40、eturn on R&D investment varies across industries and over time but is, by and large, considerably higher than firms cost of capital; hence the value creation capability of R&D. The research record, therefore, strongly supports the assertions made in chapter 2 concerning the scalability of intangible

41、s due to their nonrivalry and increasing returns properties as well as the existence of positive network effects (externalities) of many intangibles.In addition to the general findings about the positive contribution of R&D to corporate value and growth, the empirical record indicates the following:

42、-The return on basic (fundamental) research is substantially higher than that of applied or process R&D.-Despite the expensing of R&D outlays in financial reports, investors consider R&D an important asset.-Even for internet companies, where the uncertainty regarding future benefits is currently con

43、siderable, investors value much of the R&D(product development) as an investment (asset) rather than an expense .-Patents and their attributes (for example, citations) constitute useful intermediate output measures of R&D value.-In recent years, Internal R&D has been complemented by acquired R&D and

44、 technology under development, where the latter often surpasses the former in volume of expenditure.-Royalties from patent licensing are a potent (in terms of creating market value) source of corporate income.Organizational CapitalThe extensive research focusing on R&D provides important insights ab

45、out the organization of R&D activities (such as economies of scale), the private and social returns on R&D, the appropriation of R&D benefits (such as the effectiveness of patent protection), and investors valuation of innovation activities. R&D, however, is but one component of firms intangible cap

46、ital (knowledge assets), which is of course particularly pronounced in the technology-and science-based sectors. Other components of intangibleshuman and organizational capitalhave received substantially less research attention than R&D. Consequently, our knowledge concerning important intangibles i

47、s rudimentary at best.Resource：Baruch Lev. Intangibles: Management, Measurement and Reporting M. The Brookings Institution,2001.55-62.译文：无形资产管理、计量和呈报研究开发与企业成长通过将工作指标（利润、销售收入）系统地与研究开发支出（在当期和以前各期中允许在经营业绩上的递延效应）相联系可以得出研究开发的贡献，同时控制其他投资形式对经营业绩的影响。这种统计方法实证了关于无形资产和它们的私人和社会影响，被相关领域的经济学家和研究者广泛地应用。实证工作开始于广泛的历

48、史案例研究分析，大量样本（具代表性的）分析产生了研究开发对生产率和增长率的数据。这些研究取得了一些重要发现：研究开发支出对于生产率（价值增长）和产出数据具有重大贡献，而且估计的研究开发投资回报率非常高，相当于每年20%-35%，但在不同行业和不同时期估计值的变化较大。基础研究（旨在开发新科学和新技术）对于公司生产率和增长率的贡献,本质上大于其他形式的研究开发，如产品开发和加工研究开发（后者目的在于提高产品加工效率）。基础研究相对与应用研究的贡献的差异比是3：1，这个差额非常具有吸引力。使得大众普遍认为上市公司最近已经削减了对基础研究的支出，部分原因在于许多财务分析师和机构投资者对商业化的基础研

49、究的怀疑。基础研究当然比应用研究开发（见第二章）更具风险，但风险差异并不足以解释基础研究3：1的生产率优势。公司融资的研究开发对于生产率增长的贡献要高于一公司为基础的政府融资的研究开发（政府许可）。事实上，大多数与政府签订的合同都是基于成本加成条款，也许可以部分解释这些发现。这结果不能减损政府部门在联邦实验室进行的公共研究对于工业和技术的基础设施的重大贡献，以及大学研究对于技术的巨大贡献。需要指出的是鉴于公司公布的数据具有严重的局限性，以上概述的很多研究总结以调查数据和工业联合体为基础。事实上，大多数检验变量和特征（如基础与应用研究、公司发起与政府发起研究开发）不能直接由向投资者公布的信息中获得。因此这些发现和类似发现的一个重要启示就是那些现在未