资本化争议：研发费用、披露内容与数量，以及利益相关方观点（英文版）.pdf

The capitalisation debate:R Haskel and Westlake 2017; Lev and Gu 2016). Such concerns are particularly relevant to accounting for intangibles, including research and development costs (hereafter R&D). Under IAS 38 Intangible Assets, while research costs are expensed, development costs should be capitalised, if they meet the six conditions specified in the standard. Thus, at least technically, the capitalisation of development costs is not considered a managerial choice. Nevertheless, from the financial statements preparers point of view, significant managerial judgement and detailed evaluations are required so as to conclude whether the six conditions have been met or not. Similarly, auditors need to exercise judgement with associated detailed evaluations to enable them to conclude that they are satisfied with the adopted accounting treatment of their clients. Interestingly, mandatory disclosure requirements in IAS 38 are only that the relevant amounts involved (ie capitalised and/or expensed and if these are material) be disclosed separately. Executive summary6Thus, financial statement users, when using an annual report, primarily rely on firms voluntary/narrative R&D disclosure decisions for understanding the value and future benefits arising from such capitalised expenditure. In practice, given the requirements in IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, one would also expect companies to disclose information on significant risk factors and managerial judgement relative to material levels of capitalisation.While there is literature relevant to R&D in non-IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) reporting regimes, to the best of the authors knowledge, research on the characteristics of firms that capitalise and/or expense R&D expenditure specifically under IFRS is minimal. Similarly, research that captures the quantity of companies disclosures in relation to R&D under an IFRS reporting regime is also minimal. Finally, users and/or preparers views on the matter are largely absent from extant literature following the adoption of IFRS. The overall objective of this research is to shed light on these three areas. METHODThis research project was conducted in three PhasesIn Phase 1, by drawing on listed companies from more than 20 countries (20,475 firm-year observations) that adopted IFRS in 2005 or later, for the 10-year period 2006 to 2015, we collect and summarise evidence on: how many firms expense all their R&D costs (expensers) and how many companies capitalise some of or all their R&D costs (capitalisers) and how many expense all their R&D costs. This evidence is provided in aggregate and also on a country and industry level. We also provide descriptive statistics of the amounts capitalised and expensed relative to market values. We then provide analyses that indicate the country- and firm-level determinants that drive the decision to capitalise development costs, as well as the amounts capitalised. In Phase 2, we capture and analyse the quantity of R&D-related disclosures in company annual reports for a sub-sample of around 3,400 observations from those firms identified in Phase 1. We construct a research instrument that contains 116 R&D-related keywords. Using software, The capitalisation debate: R&D expenditure, disclosure content and quantity, and stakeholder views | Executive summary7anti-self-dealing index, the higher the incidence and level of R&D capitalisation. Capitalisation is also greater and more likely to occur in countries with a common law legal system. Further analysis, examining expected levels of capitalisation, indicates that a large proportion of firm-year observations expensing R&D (84%) follow the expected method for the accounting treatment, given their firm- and country-specific characteristics. Nonetheless, we find that a large proportion of firm-year observations capitalising R&D (45%) would be expected to have expensed R&D costs, on the basis of their firm and country characteristics. This indicates that expensing should incur more frequently, given firm- and country-specific characteristics. Thus, concerns that financial reporting is becoming less decision-useful with balance sheets not fully (or at all) reflecting the rise in intangible assets (compared with a historic tangible asset base) that now underpin business models and firm economic growth appear apposite. Phase 2: Quantity of R&D-related keywords Overall, we find that companies do not provide a high quantity of R&D-related disclosure, despite the importance of intangible assets such as R&D. Although some evidence was found of extensive disclosure with a high of 287 keywords referred to across the annual report, the median frequency in annual reports is only 17 keywords. This mirrors the relative lack of capitalisation although it raises questions about the general disclosure in R&D investment, even where this is largely expensed. Further, companies tend to refer more to R&D in the first half of the annual report (ie voluntary disclosure narratives) than in the second half (ie the financial statements). Moreover, not surprisingly, we find some evidence that firms that capitalise R&D tend to refer marginally more frequently to R&D in the financial statements section of the annual report than firms that expense R&D. In the narrative section of the annual report, we find no differences in the quantity of R&D disclosures between those companies that expense R&D and those that capitalise R&D. we count the number of times these R&D-related keywords feature in the annual reports as a whole and within the narrative and financial statements sections separately. We analyse these results in relation to capitalisers and expensers, and according to R&D intensity. Further analyses draw on the industry- and country-level determinants of higher versus lower disclosers.Preliminary evidence from Phases 1 and 2 was presented to an ACCA roundtable discussion. Using these findings, prior literature and feedback from the roundtable, in Phase 3, we conducted interviews with key stakeholders (preparers, auditors and investors), to gain insights into the capitalisation treatment, related disclosure and its decision usefulness. The last of these considers the relevance of the accounting treatment of R&D to users of financial statements and whether there is a need for the decision usefulness of R&D reporting to be improved.MAIN FINDINGSPhase 1: R&D accounting treatment and reportingThe data shows that 62.2% of observations in the sample fully expense R&D costs, while the remainder are split between those that partially capitalise (27.5%) and those that fully capitalise (10.3%). Arguably, these findings suggest that in conforming to the requirements and conditions set out in IAS 38, the majority of companies either fully or partly expense R&D and hence the recognition of R&D as an intangible asset category may be viewed as low. Within the results, there are country- and industry-level differences in capitalisation. At a firm level, the decision and magnitude of capitalisation is positively affected by a firms R&D intensity, leverage, internationalisation (measured by its percentage of international sales), and earnings-management incentives. Larger firms exhibit a lower incidence of capitalisation and capitalise proportionally lesser amounts than smaller firms. The stronger the audit and enforcement mechanisms in a country and the greater investor protection and the higher its The stronger the audit and enforcement mechanisms in a country and the greater investor protection and the higher its anti-self-dealing index, the higher the incidence and level of R&D capitalisation. The capitalisation debate: R&D expenditure, disclosure content and quantity, and stakeholder views | Executive summary8Further, while it is acknowledged that capitalisation of some development costs could act as a signal of the managerial view of the future generation of income from certain assets, investors seem to focus more on the overall spend on R&D and are less interested in its accounting treatment, consistent with the no-effects hypothesis. This is in part further justified by a concern that capitalisation may serve as an earnings-management tool. As a result, some investors either capitalise all R&D and then amortise it or make no adjustments to the split featuring in the accounts, when they prepare their valuation estimates.As regards disclosure, there was general agreement that mandatory disclosure in IAS 38 is minimal and often boiler-plated disclosure on R&D expense and capitalisation. There is a desire for greater disclosure, which would underpin any capitalisation decision based on the six criteria. Further, such disclosure should directly link to those disclosures provided under IAS1 on material judgements relating to the capitalisation decision. Nevertheless, the perception is that such disclosure is currently limited, on the grounds that this would force companies to provide proprietary information. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSThe issue of intangible assets and R&D in particular has been on the agenda of standard setters and regulators for some time. For example, in 2015, as a response to the request for views on the Agenda Consultation of the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB), the European Securities and Markets Authorities (ESMA) agreed that there is need for a review of the guidance for intangible assets and R&D. Indeed, ESMA suggested that the topic be added to the IASBs research agenda as a separate item (Maijoor 2015). More recently, in November 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) reported that it was undertaking a project aiming to review, inter alia, the mandatory disclosures for intangibles (FASB 2018). In the UK, in 2018, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) initiated a project to review As with the results in Phase 1, there are country- and industry-level differences in capitalisation. The quantity of R&D disclosure is positively affected by a firms R&D intensity, size, risk (as proxied by beta), international exposure and incentives to manipulate earnings. Further, older firms tend to disclose less about R&D. Finally, companies in countries with high levels of corruption and those companies in a country with common law legal systems tend to disclose more about their R&D. Phase 3: Stakeholders viewsThe views of the 16 stakeholders who participated in our interviews are summarised as follows. There is a general support for a principles-based accounting standard that requires capitalisation against a set of criteria. This is against the uniform expensing accounting treatment in the US. It is argued that principles-based capitalisation enhances comparability between companies in specific sectors and over time. Even so, it is accepted that current reporting practice appears to be dominated by prudence rather than faithful representation. Thus, expensing R&D costs is more readily justified than capitalising them. This is driven by three main factors: difficulty in meeting the six criteria outlined in IAS 38, concerns over future impairments of development costs capitalised, and constraints in the assurance of any capitalised costs. Concerns were also raised as to the apparent inconsistency between the accounting treatment of internally generated R&D compared to externally purchased R&D. Capitalisation of internally generated development costs is largely constrained by the requirement to meet the six conditions specified in IAS 38. However, as part of an acquisition, under IFRS 3 Business Combinations, many of these assets that are not recognised in the acquirees pre-combination financial statements would then be measured at fair value and recognised. Thus, for two otherwise identical firms, differing accounting treatment of R&D costs could result in internally generated costs being primarily expensed whereas externally acquired could be capitalised. There is a general support for a principles-based accounting standard that requires capitalisation against a set of criteria. The capitalisation debate: R&D expenditure, disclosure content and quantity, and stakeholder views | Executive summary9any capitalised amounts. Perhaps professional accountancy bodies can assist in the improvement of companies practices indirectly. Providing more in-depth training on the area of R&D and the issues around it could assist in a change of culture from an emphasis on prudence to more faithful representation. Additionally, preparers and auditors could be encouraged to support more disclosures to assist transparency and the associated decision-usefulness of financial statements.We find that references to R&D-related terms are, in general, minimal in company annual reports. Moreover, where disclosure is provided, it varies significantly in length and location in the annual report. The interviews with stakeholders confirm a demand for more disclosure, especially when development costs are capitalised. Thus, as a first step forward, companies are encouraged to provide clearer and greater levels of disclosure than that currently provided in relation to the amounts of R&D expenditure in their financial statements. As far as the standard setters are concerned, if disclosures continue not to be mandated in IAS 38, a better link between R&D-related information and those disclosures required in IAS 1 about estimation of risks and future prospects would be useful to users of financial information. Moreover, given the signalling importance of overall R&D spend rather than necessarily how it is accounted for, our respondents deem that enhanced disclosure about the overall amount of R&D spend is appropriate to aid the decision-usefulness of financial statements (either in notes to the financial statements or the narratives section of the annual report). current requirements and practice for the business reporting of intangibles and subsequently develop practical proposals for their improvement in the future. Following along these lines, in the feedback statement of its research agenda consultation, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) is also proposing to work on this area in the near future. More specifically, it proposes research regarding better information on intangible assets (EFRAG, 2018). On that basis, it is anticipated that the conclusions and recommendations arising from our research findings would inform these projects. The findings show that more than 60% of the companies in the sample do not capitalise any R&D. Additionally, a large proportion of the companies that capitalise some development costs would be expected not to do so, given their firm- and country-specific characteristics. Overall, however, while maintaining the principles-based approach that supports capitalisation, current criteria in IAS 38 would seem largely to militate agai