FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2326827249> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2326827249 abstract "The purpose of the paper is to match intellectual (IC) measurement methods and the reporting practices of a group of Italian listed firms, in order to examine potential convergence in practice. We focus on Italian listed firms because of the centrality of the family in their corporate governance setting and because of the weak relationship between these firms and the banks. This relationship could influence the market value of a firm as prior literature suggest analyzing German environment (Goebel, 2015). This study applies a market-based approach, focused on the market-to-book ratio (MtB), to investigate the relationship between this ratio and potential determinants of the value of IC. Included in the determinants are intangible assets, as defined by IAS 38. We focus on the MtB as proxy of the intellectual because there is wider literature that highlights its importance in revealing the intellectual of a firm. Moreover, in Italy the literature has mainly investigated the intellectual under the network analysis (e.g. Bozzolan, 2003). To our knowledge, we do not find any study in the Italian context using the logit regression analysis (on a panel data) in order to investigate the relationship between the market to book ratio and some potential determinants of IC value, recognizing, however, that this ratio may depend also on other factors that are not IC components. Applying the market capitalization approach we assume that a positive (latent) firm IC value occurs where the MtB ratio is greater than 1. This approach is applied to the reporting practices of Italian companies, as evidenced in their financial statement, in order to assess the visibility of intangible assets (IA) and the extent to which they explain the value of IC (Lev and Zambon, 2003). According to conservative and prudential accounting conventions, several factors may give rise to a mismatch between IC and IA, including: only partial alignment of accounting categories with IC terminology; the limited recognition of RD the retrospective character of valuation; and the virtual absence of human capital in conventional statements. However, even if such factors were to be removed from the firm-level valuation of IA, and the value of each asset could be explained using its market-value, the sum of these values will not capture the holistic effect of interactions between IC components which typically generate an overall value which is greater than the aggregate value of single estimates. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between MtB ratios, where they are greater than unity, and selected determinants drawn from the existing literature, including intangible assets, firm profitability, firm age, firm size, and so on, consistent with Morariu (2014), Goebel (2015), and Cheng and Liu (2015). Our empirical study is conducted for a panel of 148 Italian companies listed on the Milan Stock Exchange at the end of 2013, and draws upon annual reports for the financial years 2009-2013. We estimate a logistic regression model, in which the dichotomous dependent variable is given the value 1 if the firm MtB ratio exceeds 1, against independent variables including total and individual intangible assets, ROA, size, age, leverage, concentrated and family ownership, auditing, and industry type. Our results indicate a positive and moderately significant association between positive MtB and total intangible assets, a finding that is not consistent with Goebel (2015) who finds no association between LRVTB value (an MtB variant) and intangible assets. We argue that this result may be attributed both to the limitations of conventional accounting measures but also to investors’ perception of a value of firms greater than the sum of the value of each intangible asset recognized in the financial statements (that is the holistic effect of interactions among individual intangible assets). Further, we find a significant positive relationship between positive MtB and firm profitability (ROA). Finally, we find that IC value is significantly higher for firms which engage a Big 4 auditor. Thus, we argue that the balance sheet book value for such firms reflects greater conservatism in recognition criteria according to IAS 38, and less earnings management, than in firms audited by a non-Big 4 auditor. Moreover, the resulting significant negative relationships between the MtB ratio and firm age and size suggest that younger and smaller firms are able to implement more effective strategies of investment in intangible assets in order to create firm value (that is, IC value). Other factors that we find not to be significantly associated with IC value include leverage, recognized R&D expenses, patents and trademarks, goodwill, concentrated and family ownership, and industry membership. Our paper contributes to the literature on IC measurement in analyzing the appropriateness of MtB in order to detect the IC value. We focus on Italian context that differs from German environment for the character of corporate governance of Italian listed firms and for the predictive variables that include all components of intangible assets (e.g. goodwill, patents, trademarks, etc)." @default.
• W2326827249 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2326827249 creator A5034351114 @default.
• W2326827249 creator A5050341065 @default.
• W2326827249 creator A5055374793 @default.
• W2326827249 date "2016-03-01" @default.
• W2326827249 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2326827249 title "Measuring the intellectual capital of italian listed companies" @default.
• W2326827249 cites W11665253 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1555673035 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1556867621 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1557084995 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1559673323 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1591891602 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1593162059 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1642347625 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1907896385 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1955934323 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1968919141 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1978238415 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1984626273 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1990772042 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W1996740792 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2005346306 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2008524757 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2008756387 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2023964651 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2039085346 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2040424994 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2043164853 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2044383324 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2065918174 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2069387323 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2073253969 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2089087592 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2089170325 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2107837498 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2108183214 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2112126938 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2117912017 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2120565512 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2127884663 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2136805389 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2137266665 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2158374033 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2186896795 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2303021174 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2416117889 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W2500431456 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W3121453885 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W3125638770 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W3158813551 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W569806370 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W629248568 @default.
• W2326827249 cites W3124686700 @default.
• W2326827249 doi "https://doi.org/10.3280/ei2015-001002" @default.
• W2326827249 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2326827249 type Work @default.
• W2326827249 sameAs 2326827249 @default.
• W2326827249 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2326827249 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2326827249 hasAuthorship W2326827249A5034351114 @default.
• W2326827249 hasAuthorship W2326827249A5050341065 @default.
• W2326827249 hasAuthorship W2326827249A5055374793 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C106159729 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C193445137 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C202552767 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C2779137862 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C2780148112 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C2780299701 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C2780838347 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C39389867 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C53811970 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C10138342 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C106159729 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C114614502 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C119857082 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C121955636 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C138885662 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C144133560 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C151730666 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C162324750 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C182306322 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C193445137 @default.
• W2326827249 hasConceptScore W2326827249C202552767 @default.

• next