Anne Wyatt

Capitalized intangibles and financial analysts

We examine whether firms that capitalize a higher proportion of their underlying intangible assets have higher analyst following, lower dispersion of analysts’ earnings forecasts and more accurate earnings forecasts relative to firms that capitalize a lower proportion. Under Australian generally accepted accounting principles, capitalization of intangible assets has become increasingly ‘routine’ since the late 1980s. It is predicted that this experience leads Australian analysts to expect firms with relatively more certain intangible investments to signal this fact by capitalizing intangible assets. Our results are consistent with this. We find that capitalization of intangible assets is associated with higher analyst following and lower absolute earnings forecast error for firms with a stock of underlying intangible assets. Our tests suggest a weaker association between capitalization and lower earnings forecast dispersion. We conclude that there are benefits for analysts, for management to have the option to capitalize intangible assets. These findings suggest that IAS 38 Intangible Assets and AASB 138 Intangible Assets reduce the usefulness of financial statements.

Accounting for Expenditure on Intangibles

In search of a unifying measurement feature on which to base a more systematic and potentially comprehensive analysis of intangibles, this paper first analyses the economic and accounting properties of intangibles, and second, empirically evaluates managerial practices for measuring and analysing expenditure on intangibles. We present evidence from a survey of 614 large Australian firms that suggests gaps in the extent with which firms plan, monitor, record, analyse, and report on intangibles. Third, we evaluate the implications of our analysis and survey for accounting practice. Our evidence suggests GAAP has a role to provide guidance that helps firms identify and classify their expenditure on intangibles in ways that elucidate the strategic implications of the different types of intangibles for future output. A secondary step for accountants, after identifying and classifying the expenditure on intangibles, is to apply a capitalization test to distinguish expenses from assets. The current asymmetric treatment of expenditure on purchased versus internally generated intangibles is not supportable on economic grounds. However, economists identify weak property rights as a major cause of uncertainty associated with the outcomes from expenditure on intangibles, suggesting verifiable property rights is a unifying measurement feature on which to base a capitalization test for intangible assets.

Towards a financial reporting framework for intangibles: Insights from the Australian experience

In the context of possible future directions in the accounting regulatory arena, this paper considers what policy makers can learn from the experiences of Australian managers and investors in relation to capitalization of intangible assets. Focuses on features of the Australian institutional setting, the motivations behind Australian managers’ decisions to capitalize intangible assets, and capital market efficiency implications. Australian GAAP leaves corporate managers wide discretion to capitalize intangible assets irrespective of whether the assets are acquired or generated internally. One central element of this accounting discretion is the historically liberal attitude of Australian accounting regulators to deviations from the historic cost basis of measurement. Concerns about the availability, and abuses, of reliable measures in relation to intangible assets and revalued assets prompted the USA to proscribe these practices generally. Evidence from the Australian setting suggests these concerns could be overstated. Evidence to date suggests Australian equity markets are no less efficient than the USA markets. Existing evidence suggests uncertainty about intangible investment outcomes is a central property of intangible investment which could quasi‐regulate accounting capitalization practice in a discretionary accounting setting. Supports future regulatory deliberations and research focus on the economics of intangible investments, and information search behaviours of investors, as one way to move forward in the regulatory sphere.

Is There Useful Information in the ‘Use of Proceeds’ Disclosures in IPO Prospectuses?

This study contributes evidence on the valuation relevance of the ‘use of proceeds’ disclosure in the initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. This article develops a classification of ‘use of proceeds’ disclosures that aims to capture information embedded in the disclosures relating to the purpose (growth, production, financing) and amount committed to specific assets. These measures are then related to IPO underpricing, survival prediction and expected and realised prospects of the IPOs. The results suggest the ‘use of proceeds’ disclosure categories have incremental information over other sources of information for underpricing, for predicting firm survival and in the case of some disclosure categories, for investors’ evaluation of the firms’ prospects and risks in the early years after listing.

Insights from the Failure of the Countrywide Financial Corporation

Purpose - – This paper aims to evaluate the business activities, financial reports, and management compensation practices of Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide) in the period preceding the companys financial distress and leading to its eventual takeover by Bank of America in 2008. This analysis provides a number of insights into the risks that Countrywide was exposed to which may guide future research and financial management. Design/methodology/approach - – Case study evaluating the failure of Countrywide Financial Corporation. Findings - – First, Countrywide was highly reliant upon the securitization of mortgage loans to finance its activities and this was apparent in the financial reports. Second, these securitization transactions exposed Countrywide to significant financial risks, including the risk inherent in the uncertain values of residual interests and warrantees. Problematically, these risks were not transparently reflected in the financial reports, as confirmed by the lag in the timing of stock price responses. This untimely market response suggests the equity market was not aware of Countrywides risk exposures until shortly before the companys solvency crisis. Third, the compensation practices of Countrywide encouraged and rewarded management for exposing the firm to significant risks. Practical implications - – This paper provides insights into financial management that are relevant for researchers and professionals. Originality/value - – This paper provides insights for researchers and practitioners relating to the impact of asset securitization on business risk and how these business activities and risks are disclosed in the financial reports.