Stock analysts' assessments of the shareholder value of intangible assets

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.017Get rights and content

Abstract

Marketing decisions create intangible assets. In the absence of formal intangible asset value reporting structures, the stock analyst acts as an independent valuation source who provides seemingly objective assessments of the shareholder value of a firm's intangible assets. Drawing on qualitative data from in-depth interviews with stock analysts, the authors investigate a series of antecedent factors that affect the accuracy of the stock analyst's assessment of intangible assets. The study collates these observations into several propositions that may serve as a basis for further research.

Introduction

Proponents of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm point to the important role of assets in general and of intangible assets in particular (e.g., Barney, 1986, Barney, 1995, Conner and Prahalad, 1996, Grant, 1991, Hall, 1993). Intangible assets can comprise the majority of a firm's total assets (Doyle, 2000), are important contributors to shareholder value (Gupta et al., 2004), and provide a sustainable source of wealth creation (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2003). Intangible assets include brands, customer relationships, and market knowledge. The RBV suggests that intangible assets may be powerful sources of competitive advantage because rival firms cannot easily comprehend, evaluate, and imitate them. Intangible assets are also difficult to measure. The accounting profession struggles with the task of determining the financial value of intangible assets (Lev, 2001). Consequently, the more intangible-dominant the firm, the more likely its financial reports do not reflect the full potential of the firm's future returns on investment (see Choi et al., 2000).

Generally, each firm has the responsibility to measure and report upon the value of its intangibles. Because of the lack of regulated reporting controls (Guthrie and Petty, 2000), disclosure by firms of the perceived value of intangibles is irregular (Ambler et al., 2001), subjective (Backhuijs et al., 1999), selective (Wyatt, 2002), and informal (Stolowy and Jeny-Cazavan, 2001). Over-valuation of intangible assets was the principal cause of corporate crashes such as WorldCom and Enron in the USA, and HIH and One.Tel in Australia. Investor reaction to these unexpected crashes indicates an urgent need for investors to receive more accurate information about the nature and value of firms' intangible assets (Lim and Dallimore, 2002).

Because intangible assets are complex and difficult to measure (Srivastava et al., 1998), challenges exist not only for investors but also for the stock analysts who advise them. The role of stock analysts is a critical one: evaluating the tangible and intangible assets of firms and then making recommendations to investors based on their evaluations. The more accurately stock analysts evaluate a firm's intangible assets, the more likely they facilitate informed decision-making by investors by providing an accurate assessment of a key influencer of shareholder value.

Stock analysts present themselves to investors as independent, impartial, and expert, yet little is known about how analysts deal with the challenge of assessing intangibles. This paper aims to understand the factors that can influence the accuracy of stock analysts' assessment of the shareholder value of intangible firm assets. On the basis of qualitative data derived from in-depth interviews with 63 stock analysts, the paper integrates these factors into five propositions.

This study is important for the marketing discipline because intangibles often relate to marketing (McLaughlin, 2003). A growing theoretical literature shows that marketing assets provide a substantial contribution to shareholder value. However, what is not known is how, whether, and to what extent, stock analysts understand the contribution of marketing intangibles to shareholder value. This issue is part of a broader question, namely, how do those external to the organization value the contribution of marketing, broadly defined, to the organization's future prosperity? This study also sheds light on the thought processes of stock analysts, and how they conceptualize intangibles and determine the relative contribution of intangibles to future shareholder value vis a vis tangibles.

This article begins by defining key terms, outlining the stock analyst's role, and presenting the methodology used. Subsequently, the article merges insights from the extant literature and from in-depth interviews with stock analysts to develop several propositions relating to analysts' assessments of intangible assets. Finally, the article provides guidelines for future research and discusses the implications of the propositional framework.

Section snippets

Key considerations

Intangibles, knowledge assets, and intellectual capital are interchangeable terms. Each term refers to a claim to future benefits that does not have a physical or financial embodiment, such as a stock or a bond (Lev, 2001).

Research shows a significant and positive relationship between intangible assets and shareholder value, but this proposition rests primarily on an analysis of individual intangible assets. Studies include: brands and products (e.g., Ambler, 2002, Fernandez, 2002, Houston et

Method

The propositions reported below combine insights from the extant literature with insights from in-depth interviews with stock analysts. Madhavan and Grover (1998) recommend this composite approach to (1) gauge the relevance and face validity of propositional frameworks (see also Yin, 1989) and (2) ensure that managerial input is included in the theory building process itself. The authors of the present study spoke by telephone to 63 stock analysts from 40 randomly selected full-service

Regulatory effects

Intangible assets are off-balance sheet items (Lev, 2000). A publicly-listed firm, wishing to state the value of its intangibles, would need to provide a separate item in the annual report or a specific document. No regulatory guidelines currently enforce the frequency or the content of such information (Guthrie and Petty, 2000). Thus, analysts face the situation that some firms do provide information and some do not, which, in turn, makes it difficult to compare firms. Furthermore, firms that

Specialization effects

The time constraints facing analysts suggest that they would benefit from being focused. Another reason for a focussed approach is that the nature and relative importance of intangibles can and does vary significantly from one sector to another (Doyle, 2000). Analysts readily acknowledge this point. One analyst comments, “I think intangibles are arguably universally important to all companies in various sectors, at varying degrees, based on industry structures and competition. A detailed

Valuation models

Most analysts in the survey report using internally-programmed Excel spreadsheets to perform their valuations and assessments of intangible assets. The analysts operate on a variety of subjective parameters built up over a period of time. The parameters tend not to be intangible specific, with the intangibles formulae mixed in with other variables such as fixed assets and historical share performance. As a general rule, these valuation models are very basic, something reflected in the comment

Contextual effects

The analyst's challenge is not only to identify and assess the intangible assets of the firm, but to determine the likely contribution of intangible assets to the firm in dealing with a changing external environment. Barney (1995), one of the foremost proponents of the RBV, points to the need to integrate internal with external environmental analyses when evaluating the competitive advantage of firms. Recall that the first of the four questions referred to earlier asks whether a firm's

Capstone proposition

The final proposition extends the previous propositions. Analysts fail to apply to intangibles the sort of analytical rigor that they apply to tangibles. Analysts have limited notions of what intangibles are, and they have a limited understanding of the contribution of intangibles to shareholder value. Analysts have little interest in, and fail to keep abreast of, the present academic debate on the measurement and reporting of intangibles. These findings, in turn, raise serious doubts about the

Research directions and implications for managerial practice

The interviews confirm the validity of an unarticulated assumption in the extant literature (e.g., Gupta et al., 2004, Fornell et al., 2006): stock analysts do not, or cannot, fully comprehend the wealth generation capability of a firm's intangible assets and, for various reasons, partially or completely exclude them from their assessments and recommendations. However, to be overly critical of stock analysts is a mistake. The four critical questions the RBV poses to learn whether intangible

References (53)

  • W.W. Choi et al.

    Market valuation of intangible assets

    J Bus Res

    (2000)
  • P. Doyle

    Valuing marketing's contribution

    Eur Manag J

    (2000)
  • Bryan A. Lukas et al.

    How can a shareholder value approach improve marketing's strategic influence?

    J Bus Res

    (2005)
  • T. Ambler

    The long and short view of marketing metrics

  • Ambler T, Barwise P, Higson C. (2001). Market metrics: what should we tell the shareholders? Internet publication,...
  • R. Amit et al.

    Strategic assets and organizational rent

    Strateg Manage J

    (1993)
  • B.N. Anand et al.

    Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances

    Strateg Manage J

    (2000)
  • E. Anderson et al.

    Customer satisfaction and shareholder value

  • Backhuijs JB, Holterman WGM, Oudman RS, Overgoor RPM, Zijlstra SM. (1999). “International symposium: measuring and...
  • J. Barney

    Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?

    Acad Manage Rev

    (1986)
  • J. Barney

    Looking inside for competitive advantage

    Acad Manage Exec

    (1995)
  • O.E. Barron et al.

    High-technology intangibles and analysts' forecasts

    J Acc Res

    (2002)
  • M.E. Barth et al.

    Analyst coverage and intangible assets

    J Acc Res

    (2001)
  • B. Bruce

    Stock analysts: experts on whose behalf?

    J Psychol Financial Mark

    (2002)
  • R.F. Carroll et al.

    Intellectual capital in the new economy

    J Intelect Cap

    (2000)
  • J. Child

    Organization: contemporary principles and practice

    (2005)
  • D.J. Collis et al.

    Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990's

    Harvard Bus Rev

    (1995)
  • K.R. Conner et al.

    A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism

    Organ Sci

    (1996)
  • S. Dutta et al.

    Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities; methodology and empirical applications

    Strateg Manage J

    (2005)
  • Fernandez P. (2002). Valuation of brands and intellectual capital. Research Paper No. 456, University of Navarra,...
  • C. Fornell et al.

    Customer satisfaction and stock prices: high returns, low risk

    J Mark

    (2006)
  • D.S. Gelb

    Intangible assets and firms' disclosures: an empirical investigation

    J Bus Finance Account

    (2002)
  • A.D. Gershoff et al.

    Recommendation of evaluation? Task sensitivity in information source selection

    J Consum Res

    (2001)
  • R.M. Grant

    The resource-based theory of competitive advantage

    Calif Manage Rev

    (1991)
  • T.F. Gruca et al.

    Customer satisfaction, cash flow and shareholder value

  • S. Gupta et al.

    Valuing customers

    J Mark Res

    (2004)
  • Cited by (39)

    • Does it pay to withdraw marketing metrics disclosure? An empirical study of retailers’ cessation of monthly comparable-store sales

      2023, Journal of Business Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      We focus on these factors because they reflect the prime environment in which firms operate. Financial analysts significantly affect investors’ evaluations of marketing metrics and their investment decisions (Whitwell et al., 2007). The industry’s competitive landscape shapes firms’ corporate strategies (Porter, 1985), influencing investors’ interpretation of marketing metrics and firms’ financial value.

    • How digitalized interactive platforms create new value for customers by integrating B2B and B2C models? An empirical study in China

      2022, Journal of Business Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The first states that value is embodied in more specific aspects, such as the function or practicality of a product, represented by the monetary form of the service or product (Keranen & Jalkala, 2013). The second proposes that customer value focuses more on intangible assets such as reputation, skills, or knowledge (Whitwell, Lukas, & Hill, 2007), which are an important source of customer value (Keranen & Jalkala, 2013). The digitalized interactive platform connects the people and resources that interact in the market.

    • How firm internationalization is recognized by outsiders: The response of financial analysts

      2018, Journal of Business Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Instead of adding value directly to the internationalization-performance link, analysts' recommendations help us to better understand the external response of firm internationalization in the financial market. With globalization, firm competition is no longer purely domestic in nature, thereby obliging financial analysts to adopt “a broader, rather than narrower, view of the external environment in which the firm operates” (Whitwell, Lukas, & Hill, 2007: 88). The growing investment preference for foreign stocks increases the analysts' obligations to provide recommendations in a global setting (Barniv, Hope, Myring, & Thomas, 2010).

    • Towards a framework of customer value assessment in B2B markets: An exploratory study

      2013, Industrial Marketing Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Recent studies in this stream suggest that suppliers should emphasize the benefits of their offerings that have the greatest impact on customers' profits (e.g., Anderson et al., 2006; Terho et al., 2012; Wouters, Anderson, Narus, & Wynstra, 2009). The second stream tends to focus on more intangible aspects of customer value, such as reputation, skills or knowledge, often referred also as intangible assets (c.f. Whitwell, Lukas, & Hill, 2007). For example, the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991), service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), and the resource advantage theory (Hunt & Morgan, 1995, 1996), among others, consider intangible assets as important sources for customer value.

    • Relationship marketing's role in managing the firm-investor dyad

      2011, Journal of Business Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      In addition, shareholder activism (Gillan and Starks, 2007) prompt questions about managerial conduct, and challenges the IR function as firm–investor mediator. Finally, companies' asset compositions include more off-balance sheet intangibles (Whitwell et al., 2007) while investors increasingly focus on nonfinancial aspects (Aspara and Tikkanen, forthcoming). These developments imply a greater need to inform investors beyond traditional accounting statements and indicate the function's increasing importance.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +61 3 8344 3380; fax: +61 3 9349 4293.

    2

    Tel.: +61 3 9840 3000; fax: +61 3 98403099.

    View full text