Determinants of the valuation of intangible assets a contrast between Taiwanese and American IC design houses

Abstract

In the knowledge economy, the analysis of intangible resources affects an organization's value and growth. Both the choosing of the appropriate evaluation models and the critical factors for intangible assets are the most difficult issues to deal with. The first purpose of this study employs five evaluation models to compute the intangible value of IC design houses in US and Taiwan. The results show that the value of IC design houses in US is higher than Taiwanese by market capital methods. In contrast, the value of Taiwanese IC design houses is more consistent with the return of asset methods comparing to that of US firms. The second purpose of this paper is to investigate the compositions of intangible assets between Taiwanese and American IC design industry. We constructed 26 items from financial and intellectual capital aspects. Results of factor analysis indicated 8 main attributes of intangible value. Results of stepwise regression indicated that current profitability attributes are the most important ones associated with the intangible value in Taiwan, and research performance are the most important ones in US. These findings suggest that US design houses is more long-term running oriented than Taiwanese short-term oriented.

Invested resource, competitive intellectual capital, and corporate performance

“…The authors adopted variables on R&D density from Hermans and Kauranen (2005), and Wu et al (2006). In addition, in accordance with Chu et al (2008), data representing the tangible assets possessed by employees as a proxy for measuring equipment capacity was also collected. Administrative expense ratios were taken from Danish Trade and Industry Development Council (DTIDC, 1997), and the largest customer sales were used to assess the amount of maintainable customer relationships.…”

“…However, using an IC perspective enables us to do so. Many empirical studies of IC, like Bontis (1998), Bontis et al (2000), Tseng and Goo (2005), and Chu et al (2008), use different methodologies to analyze the relationships between different kinds of IC. Our research seeks to incorporate IC into an RBT‐based complete value creation process that includes factors ranging from resource or capital input to performance output.…”

Intellectual capital and firm performance in the global agribusiness industry

“…wages and salaries, social security, pension costs, profit sharing and other labour compensation packages Van Buren (1999), Pulic (2000), Ballester et al (2002), Swartz et al (2006), Lajili and Zéghal (2005) and Sydler et al (2014) Relation capital Selling, general and administrative expensesInclude the expenses not directly attributed in the production process, but related to sales, general and administrative functions DanishTrade and Industry Development Council (1997),Cheng et al (2008Cheng et al ( , 2010 andGourio and Rudanko (2014turnover Computed as the ratio of net annual sales to average fixed assetsWang and Chang (2005),Chu et al (2008),Cheng et al (2010) andYu et al (2015) …”

The Hidden Effect of Intangible Financial Information on the Market Value of Hospitality Firms in the United States

“…R&D expenditures is a proxy for intellectual property (Cohen, 2005); advertising expenditures is a proxy for brand equity (Koh et al, 2009;Rao, Agarwal, & Dahlhoff, 2004); and relational capital, including customer retention, customer satisfaction, suppliers quality and reliability, and stakeholder relationship (Chu, Hsiung, Huang, & Yang, 2008). Because hospitality firms do not spend much on R&D (only 5 out of 94 firms), this study uses the sum of advertising expenditure and R&D expenditure to examine whether these significantly impact the value of q, in other words, whether or not this variable creates intangible value.…”