«Department of Accounting and Finance Working Paper Series AF2014/15WP05 ...»
Mahlich, J., Yurtoglu, B.B., 2011. Intangibles Kapital und Rentabilität in der Pharmaindustrie,.
Die Unternehmung/Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice 65, 32-49.
Mansfield, E., 1968. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation: An Econometric Analysis. Norton for the Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, New York.
Megna, P., Mueller, D.C., 1991. Profit rates and intangible capital. The Review of Economics and Statistics 73, 632-642.
Mossialos, E., Mrazek, M., Walley, T., 2004. Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: striving for efficiency, equity and quality. Open University Press, London.
Mueller, D.C., 1986. Profits in the Long Run. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nadiri, M.I., Prucha, I.R., 1996. Estimation of the depreciation rate of physical and R&D capital in the U.S. total manufacturing sector. Economic Inquiry 34, 43-56.
Nerlove, M., Arrow, K.J., 1962. Optimal advertising policy under dynamic conditions.
Economica 29, 129-142.
Odagiri, H., Yamawaki, H., 1990. The persistence of profits in Japan, in: Mueller, D.C. (Ed.), The Dynamics of Company Profits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 129Pear, R., 1993. Clinton Backs Off Drug Price Limits. New York Times, as printed by San Jose Mercury News.
Porter, M.E., 1974. Consumer behavior, retailer power and market performance in consumer goods industries. The Review of Economics and Statistics 56, 419-436.
Posner, R.A., 1971. Taxation by regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, 22-50.
Public Citizen, 2002. Pharmaceuticals rank as most profitable industry, again: “Druggernaut” tops all three measures of profits in new Fortune 500 report. Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, April 17.
Rajan, M.V., Reichelstein, S., Soliman, M.T., 2007. Conservatism, growth, and return on investment. Review of Accounting Studies 12, 325-370.
Rapp, R.T., Lloyd, A., 1994. "Civilized" pharmaceutical price regulation: can the U.S. have it too? Regulation 17, 72-82.
Saad, M., Zantout, Z., 2014. Over-investment in corporate R&D, risk, and stock returns. Journal of Economics and Finance 38, 438-460.
Salamon, G.L., 1982. Cash recovery rates and measures of firm profitability. The Accounting Review 57, 292-302.
Salamon, G.L., 1985. Accounting rates of return. American Economic Review 75, 495-504.
Salamon, G.L., 1988. On the validity of accounting rate of return in cross sectional analysis:
Theory, evidence, and implications. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 7, 267-292.
Salmi, T., 1982. Estimating the internal rate of return from published financial statements.
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 9, 63-74.
Scherer, F., 2001. The link between gross profitability and pharmaceutical R&D spending. Health Affairs 20, 216-220.
Scherer, F.M., 1982. The breakfast cereal industry, in: Adams, W. (Ed.), The structure of American industry. Macmillan, New York.
Schmalensee, R., 1972. The Economics of Advertising. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam and London.
Schweitzer, S.O., 2006. Pharmaceutical economics and policy. Oxford University Press, New York.
Sloan, R.G., 1996. Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? The Accounting Review 71, 289-315.
Taylor, C., 1999. The cash recovery method of calculating profitability: an application to pharmaceutical firms. Review of Industrial Organization 14, 135-146.
U.S. Congressional Budget Office, 2006. Research and development in the pharmaceutical industry.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004. Pharmaceutical price controls in OECD countries:
Implications for U.S. consumers, pricing, research and development, and innovation.
Vogler, S., Espin, J., Habl, C., 2009. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement information (PPRI) – New PPRI analysis including Spain. Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law 11, 213Watts, R.L., Zimmerman, J.L., 1986. Positive accounting theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Figure 1: ROE of pharmaceutical firms vs. ROE of firms in other industries in U.S.
(1972-2012) Figure 1 compares the ROE of pharmaceutical firms (with SIC codes 2833, 2834, 2835, and 2836) to the ROE of non-pharmaceutical firms in the U.S. Firms with missing data for main test variables and firms with negative book equity are excluded from the sample. Firm-year observations in the top and bottom 1 percentile of ROE distribution are deleted to minimize the impact of outliers.
Figure 2: Difference in ROE between pharmaceutical firms and firms in other industries for international sample (1999-2012) The sample comprises 6 countries: Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), India (IND), Japan (JAP), Sweden (SWE), and U.K. (GBR) over the period 1999-2012. ROE difference is the difference in weightedaverage ROE between the sample of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical firms in a given year and country. Weights are set to the share of book equity in the total equity of pharmaceutical or nonpharmaceutical firms in each country-year.
Table 1: Effects of R&D accounting on ROE Table 1 compares two hypothetical pharmaceutical firms, A and B, with different accounting treatments for R&D. Both invest each year 100 into R&D and generate 115 in annual revenues. Both firms have a cash asset (30), some investment in R&D, and no liabilities. Firm A capitalizes 100% of R&D outlays and amortizes them over the next year. Firm B is allowed only to capitalize 10% of its R&D investments and must expense the remaining 90% of R&D investments when incurred.
Table 2: Accounting profitability of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical firms Table 2 reports summary statistics on the accounting rates of return of pharmaceutical firms and non-pharmaceutical firms for firms in the U.S. (Panel A) and international sample (Panel B). We obtain a weighted average ROE (the ratio of net income to closing book equity) for each country and year, and set weights to the share of book equity in the total equity of pharmaceutical firms in each country-year. ROE_diff is the difference in weighted-average ROE between the sample of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical firms in a given year and country. R&D_diff is the difference in weighted-average R&D expenditure between the sample of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical firms in a given year and country.
Panel A. U.S. sample (1972-2012)
Table 3: Effect of R&D accounting on ROE Table 3 reports the estimated coefficients of equations (1) and (2). The dependent variable, ROE_diffit is the country’s i difference in weighted-average ROE between the sample of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical firms in year t. R&D_diffit is the difference in weighted average R&D expenditure (the ratio of R&D expenditure to closing book equity) between the sample of pharmaceutical firms and the sample of non-pharmaceutical firms in year t. ΔGDPit is the annual change in GDP in country i and year t. The sample comprises U.S. firms over the period 1972-2012 and the international firms (Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Sweden, U.K.) over the period 1999-2012.
Columns (1) and (2) are OLS regressions, while columns (3) and (4) are estimated using country fixed effects. tstatistics use robust standard errors adjusted for heteroscedasticity and time series dependence and are reported in parentheses below coefficient estimates. ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Table 4: ROE adjusted for the influence of R&D accounting Table 4 reports the rates of return (ROE) after adjusting earnings and equity for capitalization and amortization of R&D investments. ROE of pharmaceutical firms is adjusted for the effects of R&D accounting using three techniques: (i) linear amortization, (ii) declining balance, and (iii) empirical amortization rates. The lower part of the table reports ROE_diffit, the difference in weighted-average ROE between the sample of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical firms as a result of the three types of adjustments.