(Luận văn) evaluating intangible asset using panel data, applying for vietnam listed companies

t to UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES ng THE HAGUE VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS hi HO CHI MINH CITY ep w n lo VIETNAM - NETHERLANDS ad ju y th PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh BY z z k jm ht vb LAI THANH BINH om l.c gm n a Lu MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS n va y te re th HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2014 t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of m oi MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS at nh z z By k jm ht vb LAI THANH BINH n a Lu Dr LE VAN CHON om l.c gm Academic Supervisor: n va y te re th HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2014 t to ng hi ep This research tends to investigate the effect of intangible assets to company’s w performance In this research, some of methodology to evaluate sum of intangible n lo assets will be represented and panel data will be used in model estimation All firms ad used in practical examination are chosen from 250 Vietnam listed companies standing y th for different industries Firms in industries could use these results to allocate ju yi investment on sum of all intangible assets other than just constructing new factories or pl ua al opening new brands Estimation shows that intangible asset take a huge proportion on total company n n va asset Intangible asset not only take an important part in the past performance but also ll fu explain their role as the key factor of future development When interpreting oi m relationship among kinds of asset and firm’s value, we recognize that intangible asset nh significantly impact on firm’s added value, however it not show a clarify at relationship with firm’s stock price Reason comes from fluctuation of stock market z z and some external factor affecting to stock price k jm ht vb om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th t to ABBREVIATION ng hi ep M&A: Merger and Acquisition w R&D: Research and Development n lo IAS: International Accounting Standard ad y th EBIT: Earning Before Interest and Tax ju CAPM: Capital Asset Pricing Model yi pl GSO: Vietnam General Statistics Office al n ua WTO: World Trade Organization n va SBV: State Bank of Vietnam ll fu WACC: Weighted Average Cost of Capital oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th t to TABLE OF CONTENTS ng hi ep CHAPTER INTRODUCTION w 1.1 n lo 1.2 Problem Statement Research Objective 10 ad Research Questions 11 1.4 Structure of Thesis 11 ju y th 1.3 yi CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 12 What Are Intangible Assets 12 2.2 Types Of Intangible Assets 12 2.3 Intangible Asset Valuation Approaches 14 pl 2.1 n ua al va Cost Approach 14 2.3.2 Market Approach 15 2.3.3 Income Approach 15 2.3.4 Panel Data Approach 16 ll fu oi m at nh Conceptual Framework 17 z 2.4 n 2.3.1 z ht vb CHAPTER ECONOMETRIC MODEL 18 jm CHAPTER EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 22 Data Sources 22 4.2 First estimation: Calculate α and β 25 k 4.1 gm Consumption 30 4.2.2 Banking 34 4.2.3 Steel Industry 37 om l.c 4.2.1 n a Lu Estimate Cost Function 40 4.4 Compute Firm’s Equity Value 42 4.5 Compute Firm’s Equity Value with Non Intangible Asset 44 4.6 Evaluating Firm’s Intangible Asset 45 y th te re 4.7 Examine Relationships among Firm’s Revenue, Intangible Asset and Tangible Asset 45 n va 4.3 t to 4.8 Firm’s Intangible Asset and Policy Implications 51 ng CHAPTER CONCLUSION 59 hi ep REFERENCE 65 w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th t to LIST OF TABLES ng hi ep Table 1: Category of Intangible Asset 13 Table 2: Categorized Intangible Assets 22 w n Table 3: Result of equation using fixed-effects and random-effects model27 lo ad Table 4: Hausman test 27 ju y th Table 5: Testing for heteroskedasticity using Wald test 27 Table 6: Testing for multicollinearity using VIF index 28 yi pl Table 7: Effect of Industry on Firm’s Output 28 al ua Table 8: Estimation with all variables 48 n Table 9: Effect of intangible asset and industry development on firm’s added value 48 n va ll fu Table 10: Effect of intangible asset on firm’s added value 49 oi m Table 11: Association among intangible asset, tangible asset, industrial growth rate and stock price 50 nh at Table 12: Association between tangible asset and stock price 50 z z Appendix 1: Fixed effect estimation without industrial dummy variables 61 vb Appendix 2: Random effect estimation without industrial dummy variables61 ht jm Appendix 3: Random effect estimation with industrial dummy variables 61 k Appendix 4: Random effect estimation with industrial dummy variables after adjusted heteroskedasticity 62 om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th t to LIST OF FIGURES ng hi ep Figure 1: Relationship between distribution channel and business of Masan Group 34 w Figure 2: Steel scrap price in period from April 2008 to December 2014 38 n lo ad Figure 3: Amazing performance of Hoa Sen Group 40 y th Figure 4: Change of total factor of production (TFP) 46 ju Figure 5: Ratio of Intangible asset on Total asset 47 yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th t to CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ng 1.1 Problem Statement hi ep The fantastic merger and acquisition (M&A) stories of famous Vietnam brands w make a lot of financial researchers actually confuse According to Kinhtedautu n lo magazine (April 2014), foreign companies bargained these acquisitions at unexpected ad price, more higher than total tangible assets of these companies, such as Phở 24 (about y th 20 million dollar) or ICP (higher than 60 million dollar) These businesses raised a ju yi question about original source of firm’s intrinsic value Firms are unable to fully pl evaluate benefit of intangible assets or misunderstood about importance of devoting al n ua money on invisible assets Because of these distortions, calculation about operation va efficiency and payback period of project or firms could be inaccurate For instant, n brand is one of intangible asset and it could make firm’s product sell at higher volume fu ll with higher price If analysts not evaluate strength of brand, he could get stuck in m oi some problem with forecasting future revenue nh at There are some reasons why intangible assets have to be correctly evaluated One of z z these reasons is about unstable characteristic of economy and it is the most important ht vb information not only for company’s management board but also for investor’s jm decision Companies always change themselves, from operating activities to k expanding activities, to appropriate with market, if they don’t want to narrower their gm market share and to lower their income However, general financial statement might be l.c om unable to tell us all of company’s effort to change their business According to a a Lu research of Baruch Lev and Paul Zarowin (1999), our current report-system such as balance sheet, income statement or cash flow statement deteriorated their usefulness n n va over the past several years A lot of money spends on R&D activities or advertising money on intangible asset seems to allocate fund on innovative activities Finally, if th buying their product if it does not create any interesting thing By this reason, spending y economic situation changes day by day and the firms will hard to keep their customers te re were not be showed on these statement and just record as expense Secondly, t to companies couldn’t appropriately assess value of intangible asset, they might be ng violated matching concept in accounting standard Each earned revenue need to hi ep suitable with expense creating it In addition, valuating intangible asset used to apply on some important sectors w n including financial reporting, commercial strategy and strategy for development It lo ad come to financial purpose, shareholders concentrate on company’s financial ju y th position and corporation’s expectation When these factors could be presented clearly, shareholder will be more loyalty with company and cost of equity could be lower also yi pl Beside financial purpose, some intangible assets such as brand or intellectual capital al ua also help firm create differential rate of return via increasing customer loyalty and n creating differential margin on sale (according to Parble Fernandez (2013)) A famous va n brand can sell their product at higher price and reduce their cost by negotiating price of fu ll input with suppliers In sense of strategy development, according to Mike Rocha m oi (2014), manager of company could plan their investment strategy, how much for at nh factory constructing and what proportion for marketing… z After all, demand for measuring value of intangible assets is very clear z ht vb Furthermore, finding an appropriate method places an important role in intangible jm asset research As Parble Fernandez (2013) said, we are just at the begin point on the k way to evaluating intangible assets Up to now, there are three methods to calculate gm total value of these assets This research will apply a new method to this job l.c 1.2 Research Objective om a Lu Specially, this research measures magnitude of intangible asset effect on company n performance in different industries This result will help firms decide to allocate their n va resources in different kind of asset New method, indirect approach using panel data y companies te re method, will be used to calculate total value of intangible assets for Vietnam selected th 10 t to According to Lawrence (May 2012), market power is the ability to generate excess ng profits of the company from the difference between the price and marginal cost hi ep Sources of market power are the difference of the product He concluded, based on research by Bain (1956) suggests that market power is observed as barriers to entry, w n and barriers to differentiate your product from Without differentiation, products are lo ad sold on the market as other products and buyers only interested in choosing the lowest y th selling price This will lead to the market to equilibrium and eliminate excess profits, ju not market power exists The difference of products from three main elements and the yi pl process is similar to the creation of intangible assets Lawrence indicated some origins ua al formed the difference of products includes: n - Resources owned monopoly: This resource can be a source of inputs exclusive, va n proprietary trade from the government (for example right to provide taxi service in the fu ll city) or a patent exclusive Exclusive inputs could be exclusive raw materials or m oi mineral ingredients For example, to obtain inputs such monopoly companies must at nh possess sufficient social capital and financial position, brand’s strength enough to z ensure that providers only make business with them Similarly exclusive input, z vb proprietary trade from the government is as well as a component of social capital jm ht These intangible assets come from a good relationship between business and k government Patent invention is an extremely important asset This property may come gm from R&D activities, or from the acquisition But overall, a firm holds many patents intangible assets from structural capital (Table 1) om l.c prove that its leadership focuses on developing long-term orientation These are a Lu - Economic of scale: This is the origin of "natural monopoly" To participate in the n va industry, enterprises have accumulated an amount of capital needed and thereby create n barriers to entry 52 th be reused for other sectors In other words, the decision to join the industry, businesses y businesses have to spend a huge cost and if not used in this industry, the cost will not te re - The size and "sunkeness" of needed Investment: To join the industry, t to must be ready to face a request "sunk cost" very large Entering this market makes the ng potential business risks and inhibits companies to entry The expenses they facing hi ep include the cost of R&D, market research costs, the cost of advertising and promotion, brand building costs In other words, these are cost-intensive industries to invest in w n relational capital (Table 1) Coke and Pepsi are the best examples Obviously creating lo ad a product like Coca-Cola or Pepsi brittle is not too big challenge However, it could y th not say that their products easily are replaced completely by the other substitute ju products This is the result of building a strong brand and costly advertising strategy of yi pl Coca-Cola and Pepsi Obviously, according to game theory, to be able to survive in the ua al market of Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the potential must now prepare for their financial n resources to run its advertising and building up its brand against CocaCola and Pepsi va n This financial requirement is an actually barrier to entry, barrie of brand name fu ll Through the analysis of market power and the source of its formation, the study of m oi Lawrence (1956) has pointed out the close relationship between the intangible assets nh of a firm's business and possession of market power If businesses want to make a at z beyond profit from holding market power, the need to next is the development z ht vb orientation based on the construction of intangible assets jm Market power is really strong impact on the business of company However, there k are many different opinions about its effect on the economy The economists make gm both good and bad perspective on the impact of market power to the market l.c First, we will look at the negative side of market power Perfect competition market om is the most ideal market with the highest level of competition The effect of this is a Lu derived from the studies about market structure In this market, the price reaches the n n va optimal value and economic benefit equal to the market rate of return In other words, Therefore, a dominant market occurs and they may maintain superior economic 53 th monopoly markets, monopoly corporate has pricing power and output decisions y is different for the monopoly market, where competition is eliminated completely In te re when fully competitive market, no one can enjoy an outstanding return ratio The story t to benefits in the long term For example, it is the case of Microsoft on the web browser ng market This firm had repeatedly been accused of monopoly power on this market hi ep Directly installing Microsoft Internet Explorer browser (IE) in Windows operating system leaded users to forget the existence of other browsers software In 2004, almost w n anyone using the Internet must also due to IE web browser software IE market share lo ad at this time accounted for 95% Two years later, although other companies had made a y th lot of effort to improve its products and many new entrants entered this market; IE's ju market share still remained at 85% This fact shows the power of monopoly power yi pl enormous and it is a real barrier to the development of other companies in the same ua al industry Microsoft had created this monopoly by straightly integrating IE in the n installation of the Windows operating system The policy makers try to reduce the va n market power of the monopolies to increase competition from other firms by the fu ll antitrust laws This is necessary because the impact of monopolies cause a DWL is m oi very clear The problem of IE has faced strong reactions from countries around the at nh world, because it actually inhibits creativity and new products on the web browser market One example is the punishment from the European market So far, Microsoft z z suffered multiple litigation involving antitrust laws which applied to both the vb jm ht Windows and Internet Explorer, with total fines of up to nearly 2.2 billion dollars Antitrust efforts bring visible results and make IE lost market share From a big k gm account for most of the market share, in 2013, IE only holded 24% market share and l.c other products constantly increased market share, including Firefox Chrome 35% and om 29% a Lu However, beside the negative side, market power in its essence brings a very n va important positive impact To see this effect, we must first distinguish the difference n between market power and monopoly power Based on Lawrence (2012), market could only achieve monopoly power when it can maintain market power in a period of 54 th sufficient amount of market power In other words, a firm may have market power y products, management and distribution system Meanwhile, monopoly power is a sum te re power is the ability to generate excess profits generated based on differences in t to time long enough to accumulate sufficient market power needed Clearly, to achieve ng monopoly power is not simple Speaking to the formation of market power, it refers to hi ep the intangible value that is owned by firms The creation of intangible value is not simple To make a difference, or the remarkable improvement in the product, the w n management or the business methods, the founders have worked very hard to try and lo ad go through the great waterfall For example, the case of Bill Gates, to create Microsoft, y th he had to spend five years working with the duration of 15 consecutive hours per day ju It is the same in case of Travic Kalanick, founder of Uber He had experienced a lot of yi pl previous failures after created a product that are distinctive and have market power ua al Each distinct product will be created and formed a new market and reduce competition n from substitute products exist before Superior economic returns, low competitiveness va n are rewards promoting creativity and innovation in the economy This is the fu ll motivation to create resource in the long term growth of the economy, it is technology m oi improvements The idea of technological improvements will bring long-term growth at nh and value-added social welfare has been studied for a long time According to classical economics, D.Ricardo and K.Marx said that technological progress is the main z z resource for growth, against the diminishing marginal productivity of capital vb jm ht Another question posed, if market power is a source of inspiration for technological k improvements and makes a difference in the product, so which elements of market gm power will be the key? om l.c In a study of Schumpeter (1942), he searched the empirical evidence on the relationship between market structure and technological innovation activities Factor a Lu structure of the market becomes the main representation of market power The more an n va industry accumulates market power, the closer it is with monopoly Schumpeter n research on the relationship between the concentration in an industry with R&D costs y te re of the firms in the industry He came to the conclusion that, in a competitive market, market In contrast, the market concentration, the large business is the key factor for 55 th small businesses are the main means of generating new ideas and innovations to t to the increase in total output in the long term In the other study, the tests also mainly ng revolves around two hypotheses: (1) the rate of expansion of firm’s scale often slower hi ep improvements generated by it and (2) the relationship covariates speed of technological innovation and market concentration w n Schumpeter's argument (1942) has faced opposition from the Harvard school of lo ad economics, as represented by the study of Mason (1951) He said that the study of the ju y th relationship between business size, concentration of market and technological improvements have no clear relationship to each other Conclusion of Schumpeter yi pl (1942) offers a challenge to the view of the antitrust laws In a study of Wesley (1989), al ua he gave evidence to prove the fact that all studies of Schumpeter (1942) cannot draw n conclusions as had been The reason for this argument is that a business cannot be va n continuous access to basic resources for technology improvements Wesley gives three fu ll factors necessary for technological improvements include: the demand structure, the m oi abundance of potential technological improvements and policy conditions for the nh interest generated from technology improvements He said that the study of at z Schumpeter (1942) is not enough data and does not include all the variables needed, z ht vb thus leading to bias jm In a study of R.W Vossen (1996), he said that the study of Schumpeter unfinished, k but not refute the arguments of Schumpeter Numerous other studies also agree with gm covariates relationship between industry concentration and costs for R&D activities om l.c There are two main reasons given First, firms have market power is concentrated enough internal resources to carry out research and development For the industry a Lu focused mainly small businesses, incentive for product innovation and technological n va development are not so high, so the R&D cost can become a risky investment to n dominate business expenses of your business The second reason comes from the y te re impact of the time company could take benefit from innovation, called protect period has the small number of company and has a larger scale Meanwhile, firms perform 56 th Almost arguments support the idea that the industry with the high concentration will t to R&D will face less competition and help to protect more prolonged period ng Nevertheless, some argue disagree with the views on the covariates between the hi ep concentration of industry and R&D activities Economists support this argument that firms in industries with a high concentration will have less incentive to compete, thus w n less pressure to implement innovative and differentiating products However, this lo ad argument is faced with a problem given by Vossen (1996) He said that the economic y th arguments did not mention the magnitude of barriers to entry If the industry has low ju barriers to enter, current market forces are facing the potential competitor When the yi pl firms in the industry create a profitable enough to attract other businesses involved in ua al the sector, it will create a new competitive force, too Thus, the sector has a higher n concentration of industry will tend to spend more improvement activities R.W va n Vossen (1996) also posed the question about no motivation to improve technology fu ll merely from industrial concentration factor? Vossen said that if the motivation to m oi improve technology only for large companies, so why small companies are still born at nh with breakthrough ideas? He also made one more question for the study of Schumpeter (1942) when the variable cost of R&D was used in research According to Vossen, an z z important issue is not how much the company gives money to the cost of R&D that is vb jm ht how many different products are created When looking at the overall picture of research on industrial concentration and effectiveness of improvement, the actual data k gm is often not the obvious meaning (Weiss, 1963; Allen, 1969;; Scherer, 1965) or even l.c negative results (Williamson, 1965; 1990; Schwalbach and Zimmermann, 1991; om Koeller, 1995) about the relationship between industry concentration and effective a Lu technological innovations Researchers have used many different variables to represent n effective technological improvements, such as growth rate of company, the number of va n patents, the number of new products announced in the journal The final results shows that the cost of R&D spent more than the value recorded Additionally, in a 57 th Nooteboom and Vossen (1995) had pointed out in his study of empirical evidence y R&D expenses and not related to the effective technology improvements te re showed that the degree of industrial concentration only has the effect on increasing t to study of Nooteboom and Vossen (1996), the authors had shown an interesting result ng Small businesses have a lot more motivation for innovation and development, at the hi ep same time, R&D efforts of small businesses also bring more effective than large companies The reason is in the limitation of small companies funds Small businesses w n with limited financial resources will have fewer options for R&D activities Therefore, lo ad small businesses will choose the project with the highest potential In contrast, for y th large companies, due to higher financial capacity, so, the selection of investment ju projects is easier Large firms will therefore have an average rate of return from the yi pl project is lower than small businesses, in other words, the efficiency of investment in ua al R&D activities will be lower n From these studies, we will go to two policy proposals for two types of market; the va n market has a high concentration and low concentration The public sector enterprises fu ll have focused much more intangible assets will accumulate more and more market m oi power and high concentration These industries will spend costs in R&D but the effect nh will be limited To improve the efficiency improvement, development direction of the at z industry need to toward the larger market Larger market means about export markets z vb So, with industries in Figure which have high proportion of intangiable asset in jm ht firm’s total asset, such as consumer goods, steel, container etc, government should k support them via policies to help these industries accessing to world markets, increase gm their export business For the industry with small value of intangible assets, the om l.c Government should have some special policies with industries which is potential to create more efficient innovation In addition, there should be clear and specific policies a Lu to stimulate R&D in these markets, such as financial supporting, free management n va training for profitable innovations, tax supporting for enterprisers etc These policies n should go towards non-financial advantage because of the potential and necesseness of te re small company’s projects y th 58 t to CHAPTER CONCLUSION ng In conclusion, we clearly see the influence of intangible assets and its rewards for hi ep businesses to pursue the development of intangible assets Intangible assets not only bring remarkable profits for businesses but also to create incentives for the sustainable w n development of enterprises In this paper, panel data are used to value intangible assets lo ad in accordance with the indirect approach Results showed that Vietnam companies is y th mostly decrease economic of scale and can not maintain continuous growth based ju yi solely on capital and labor Resources of long-term growth for the companies were pl expressed through specific TFP calculation The study brought an approach to the al n ua valuation of intangible assets and hopes to bring another perspective, more va comprehensive studies in this direction The calculations show a very clear picture of n the intangible asset allocation between sectors in the economy fu ll About the company angle, the paper gives a very clear direction for the allocation of m oi limited resources on the different options The cost for the wrong decision is enormous nh at and if companies want to survive longer in the competitive market, they need an z investment perspective that base on the future survival of their business On the z ht vb macroeconomic policy perspective, the paper combined the previous studies with the jm calculation of the value of intangible assets to make development-oriented policies k These orientations gain flexibility for policy makers The policies not use mass for gm all individuals in the economy that have the clear classification Through it, the l.c economic effects of macroeconomic policies will larger and minimize the negative om externalities for the economy a Lu Although based on the advantage of previous studies, this study also exist some n n va limitationa First, the data of Vietnam is studied in the period 2008 to 2012 that is a businesses will be affected by economic cycles and macroeconomic policies change, 59 th assuming growth rate of economic in the future is only relative In the future, when the y recovery phase of economic Second, due to economic policy changes so often, te re period of downtrend in the business cycle, so that data should not be tested for t to these assumptions may be violated and change the regression results However, this ng limitation can be overcome when the data is more extensive, and this will be the next hi ep research orientation of this topic w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th 60 t to APPENDIX ng hi ep Appendix 1: Fixed effect estimation without industrial dummy variables w Coef Std Err t P>t [95% Conf Interval] dlnQ dlnK 0.62 0.05 11.63 0.51 0.72 dlnL 0.24 0.06 3.93 0.12 0.37 _cons 0.65 0.04 14.71 0.56 0.74 F test that all u_i=0: F(213, 404) = 0.34 Prob > F = 1.0000 n lo ad ju y th yi Appendix 2: Random effect estimation without industrial dummy variables pl [95% Conf Interval] 0.54 0.72 0.14 0.34 0.57 0.72 Std.Err z P>z 0.63 0.04 14.3 0.24 0.05 4.78 0.65 0.04 16.78 n ua Coef al n va dlnQ dlnK dlnL _cons ll fu m oi Appendix 3: Random effect estimation with industrial dummy variables nh Coef Std.Err z P>z [95%Conf Interval] 0.63 0.04 14.03 0.54 0.72 0.24 0.05 4.64 0.14 0.34 0.21 0.34 0.63 0.53 -0.45 0.88 -0.25 0.4 -0.62 0.54 -1.04 0.54 -0.61 0.56 -1.1 0.27 -1.71 0.48 -0.28 0.16 -1.72 0.09 -0.61 0.04 -0.02 0.56 -0.03 0.97 -1.11 1.07 0.1 0.56 0.18 0.86 -1 1.19 0.1 0.3 0.33 0.75 -0.49 0.68 0.23 0.44 0.53 0.6 -0.63 1.09 0.03 0.56 0.05 0.96 -1.06 1.13 0.11 0.4 0.26 0.79 -0.69 0.9 -0.2 0.56 -0.36 0.72 -1.29 0.89 0.23 -0.02 0.98 -0.45 0.44 0.14 0.34 0.41 0.68 -0.52 0.8 -0.12 0.34 -0.37 0.72 -0.78 0.54 -0.04 0.4 -0.1 0.92 -0.83 0.75 -0.15 0.56 -0.27 0.79 -1.25 0.94 at z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm n n va y te re th 61 a Lu dlnQ dlnK dlnL V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl al n va fu oi m at nh z vb k jm gm 0.42 0.43 0.79 0.68 1.22 0.34 1.08 0.98 0.3 1.13 0.54 0.77 0.85 0.18 0.86 0.39 0.89 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.6 0.39 0.71 0.61 0.53 0.39 0.88 om l.c -0.6 -0.59 -0.8 -0.65 -0.5 -0.98 -0.4 -1.21 -0.64 -1.06 -0.16 -0.59 -0.32 -0.32 -0.82 -0.72 -1 0.09 -0.55 -0.66 -1.51 -0.98 -0.41 -1.2 -0.98 -0.36 -0.34 0.41 ht 0.73 0.76 0.99 0.96 0.41 0.34 0.36 0.84 0.47 0.96 0.3 0.62 0.42 0.38 0.21 0.86 0.39 0.02 0.74 0.99 0.46 0.64 0.96 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.89 z -0.34 -0.31 -0.01 0.05 0.82 -0.95 0.91 -0.2 -0.72 0.06 1.05 0.5 0.81 0.88 -1.26 0.17 -0.85 2.41 0.33 0.01 -0.74 -0.47 -0.05 -0.5 -0.46 0.39 0.14 5.34 ll 0.26 0.26 0.4 0.34 0.44 0.34 0.38 0.56 0.24 0.56 0.18 0.4 0.28 0.3 0.25 0.4 0.36 0.2 0.34 0.34 0.56 0.4 0.2 0.49 0.4 0.23 0.19 0.12 n -0.09 -0.08 0.02 0.36 -0.32 0.34 -0.11 -0.17 0.03 0.19 0.2 0.23 0.26 -0.32 0.07 -0.3 0.49 0.11 -0.41 -0.19 -0.01 -0.25 -0.19 0.09 0.03 0.65 ua V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28 V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V41 V42 V43 V44 V45 V46 V47 V48 V49 _cons a Lu Appendix 4: Random effect estimation with industrial dummy variables after n n va adjusted heteroskedasticity th 62 y dlnK dlnL V7 Robust z P>z [95%Conf Interval] Std.Err 0.63 0.11 5.6 0.41 0.85 0.24 0.1 2.29 0.02 0.03 0.44 0.21 0.13 1.6 0.11 -0.05 0.48 Coef te re dlnQ t to ng hi ep w n lo ad ju y th pl ua al n va ll oi m at nh z vb k jm -0.05 -0.53 -0.07 0.06 0.19 0.38 1.17 0.16 0.21 -0.11 0.13 0.31 0.04 0.14 -0.06 0.23 0.04 0.15 0.27 1.02 0.04 0.72 0.02 -0.03 0.13 0.33 0.9 0.51 0.43 -0.04 0.15 0.41 0.74 0.2 0.19 -0.33 0.24 0.16 om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th 63 -0.45 -0.7 -0.5 -0.1 -0.19 -0.7 -0.1 -0.29 -0.14 -0.03 -0.29 -0.21 -0.24 -0.41 -0.2 -0.16 -0.24 -0.3 -0.68 -0.03 -0.25 -0.31 -0.07 0.04 -0.49 -0.06 0.09 -0.6 -0.02 -1.01 0.24 0.02 -0.19 -0.5 -0.62 -0.17 ht 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.04 0.5 0.63 0.64 0.04 0.94 0.1 0.14 0.66 0.59 0.18 0.96 0.91 0.28 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.54 0.01 0.57 0.12 0.03 0.11 0.4 0.01 0.97 0.39 0.91 z -2.45 -14.39 -2.58 -0.45 2.05 0.67 0.49 0.47 2.04 -4.56 -0.07 1.62 -1.48 -0.44 -3.28 -0.54 -1.34 -0.05 0.12 1.07 -1.75 1.78 -1.61 -2.36 0.62 2.57 0.57 1.54 3.04 -2.23 1.61 -0.83 3.85 2.47 0.04 -9.41 -0.86 -0.12 fu 0.1 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.48 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.16 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.34 0.18 0.19 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.1 0.04 0.22 0.08 n -0.25 -0.61 -0.28 -0.02 0.1 0.1 0.23 0.03 0.11 -0.2 0.14 -0.12 -0.04 -0.15 -0.09 -0.08 0.02 0.36 -0.32 0.34 -0.11 -0.17 0.03 0.19 0.2 0.23 0.26 -0.32 0.07 -0.3 0.49 0.11 -0.41 -0.19 -0.01 yi V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28 V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V41 V42 V43 V44 V45 t to ng hi ep V46 V47 V48 V49 _cons -0.25 -0.19 0.09 0.03 0.65 0.25 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.04 -1 -2.23 1.04 0.45 14.4 0.32 0.03 0.3 0.65 -0.73 -0.35 -0.08 -0.09 0.56 0.24 -0.02 0.25 0.14 0.74 w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm n a Lu n va y te re th 64 t to REFERENCE ng hi ep Asonitis, P A (2009) Intangible assets for academic Library Management, 419- 429 w n lo Dimson, E., Marsh, P., & Stauton, M (2003) Global Evidence on the Equity Risk ad Premium Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27-38 y th ju Fama, E., & Kenneth, F (1992) The Cross Section of Expected Stock Return yi Journal of Finance, 427-465 pl ua al Fernandez, P (2013) Valuation of brands and intellectual capital IESE Business n School, CH25-1 to CH25-19 va n IFRS (2012) IAS 38 Intangible Assets IFRS institute fu ll Kossovsky, N B (2002) Online patent and license exchange US Patent oi m 2002/0004775 nh Lawrence, J (May 2012) Market Power: How it arise? How is it measure? NYU at z Working Paper, 8-10 z k jm Journal of Accounting Research, 353–385 ht vb Lev, B & (1999) The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them gm Lev, B., & Theodore, S (1996) The capitalization, amortization, and valuerelevance of R&D Journal of Accounting and Economics, 107-138 l.c om Mason, E (1951) Schumpeter on monopoly and the large firm Review of a Lu Economics and Statistics, 139-141 n Motohashi, K (2007) Firm-level analysis of information network use and n va productivity in Japan Jounal of Japanese International Economies, 121–137 Markets and Policies, 549–573 65 th on value and productivity: Evidence from Japan Review of Pacific Basin Financial y Ramirez, P G (2006) Measuring firm-specific organizational capital and its impact te re OECD (2011) New sources of growth: intangible assets Washington DC: OECD t to Reilly, R F (1999) Valuing intangible assets New York: McGraw-Hill ng Rocha, M (2014) Brand Valuation:A versatile strategic tool for business hi ep Interbrand Rogers, E M (1983) Diffusion of Innovations New York: Collier Macmillan w n lo Sadowski, D & (2003) Organisational capital: The power of an economic ad metaphor—organisational capital in german establishments IAAEG Discussion Paper ju y th Series yi Schumpeter, J (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy New York: Harper pl n Papers ua al Series, I D (2000) Total Factor productivity: A ahort biography NBER Working va n Sharpe, W F (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under ll fu conditions of risk Journal of Finance, 425–442 m oi Vossen, R., & Nootebom, B (1996) Determinants of Innovation: The Message at nh from New Indicator London: Macmillan z Wesley, M (1989) Empirical study of innovation and market structure In R z ht vb Schmalensee, & R Willig, Handbook of Industrial Organization (pp 1060-1062) jm Stanford: Elsevier Science k Yamaguchi, T (2014) Intangible Asset Valuation Model Using Panel Data Asia- gm Pacific Finan Markets om l.c n a Lu n va y te re th 66