Is there a case for Intangible Expense Reporting?

I had recently blogged about the need for publicly listed firms to embrace IC Reporting as a tool for providing their current and prospective investors with more incisive information about their business. A handful of businesses around the world have already adopted this practice but the vast majority is yet to start, perhaps they are awaiting industry or regulatory guidance in this matter. Meanwhile there is another school of thought among the IC community that suggests that a more practical and less stringent approach would be to have businesses report their expenses incurred on developing intangible assets along with their statement of accounts. The logic behind this suggestion is that businesses already keep track of their operating expenses and capital expenditures. Hence it should not be too difficult to keep track of specific expenses incurred on developing intangible assets. Let’s try and dissect this approach and try to understand its pros and cons.

Let’s set the ground rules first. Let us agree that we are only considering the interest of investors here. There are other stakeholders that could also benefit from an Intangible report on the firm such as employees, suppliers and partners, yet we are not addressing their concerns here because these stakeholders have a direct access to the business through which they can get reliable information about the business that is useful to them. Investors however do not have access to any such direct channels and have to rely solely on the formal communication from the business as the only authoritative source of reliable information about the business.

Next, let us think about what investors are interested in. Very simply they are interested in Return on their Investment or ROI. ROI is the bottom-line interest of every investor. Yet it is not enough for the management to commit a particular ROI to investors which they will accept at face value. Investors also need to see the proof of why their investment in the business will be a multi-bagger.

An astute investor will choose to invest in those industries whose products and services will be in great demand in the coming years. Within that industry, the investor will then choose to invest in that specific firm which is best geared up for catering to the forecasted demand of the industry. Choosing the industry whose products and services will be in demand in the future requires a thorough understanding of the macro-economic environment of the geography where the industry is located. Investors rely on a variety of research reports and other inputs for deciding the industry of their choice. But once an investor has decided on the industry that he wants to invest in, all that remains to be done is choosing the firm that is best equipped to meet the demand for products and services of that industry.

At this point investors will start looking at performance of the various firms in the industry, one at a time. And all they will have for doing so is the published financials of the business. Since investors know that more than 70% of the value of any business is generated by intangible assets, this is what they will try to figure out from the financial statements, but will fall woefully short. Let us assume here for the sake of argument that the published financials for the business also include the expenses specifically made for developing intangible assets. Is this a good assumption? Will this really work in practice? Technically it is very easy for accountants to ‘group’ intangible expenses and publish the same along with their financials. However, let us look this situation from the point of view of the company’s managers, the people who will be responsible for publishing this information in the first place. What is their objective? Clearly they are motivated by making the most amount of operating profit for the business, since that will fetch them the maximum compensation (assuming their compensation is linked to operating profits). And how is operating profit calculated – simply by deducting all operating expenses from all operating income. If managers now have an avenue of categorizing some operating expenses as capital expenses, what do you think they are going to do? They will clearly reduce operating expenses and increase capital expenses, which in turn will directly inflate profits in the current period at the cost of deflating profit in future periods since all capital expenses need to be depreciated in the future. This will directly benefit managers when their performance is reviewed for the current period but it will hurt investors who will be left with reduced profits in the future. A discounted cash flow analysis of the business will show that the value of the business is less now. Therefore what is good for managers will turn out to be not so good for investors. It is exactly this behavior of managers that is curbed by accounting guidelines that have strict rules for determining the expenses that can be capitalized in the statement of accounts.

The above argument against reporting of expenses incurred on intangibles is in the best case – that is when all such expenses are actually incurred on developing intangible assets. However, since accounting principles in this matter are not yet evolved, frivolous practices may soon kick in around expenses that center on the ‘grey’ area. For instance, all or part of employee wages may be shown as expenses incurred on developing human capital. Expenses incurred on annual maintenance of information technology assets such as computers, video conferencing equipment, etc. may be shown as expenses incurred on developing structural capital. And routine expenses incurred by salespeople for soliciting customers may be shown as expenses on developing customer capital. These and other such ‘creative’ accounting practices will flourish to the point where operating expenses will be negligible. Is this a desirable state? You may say it is desirable for managers but investors will be worse off than they are now.

The conclusion I am arriving at therefore is that whereas the suggestion for reporting of intangible expenses is a noble thought, in practice it will only lead to obfuscation, deceit and chicanery. Instead what we need is an Intellectual Capital Report of the business that is drafted by an independent IC professional. This report should be published along with the statement of accounts and it should be audited by external IC professionals in the same manner that the accounting statements are audited by external accounting professionals.

I invite fellow IC professionals to submit their own point of view to this discussion.

The need for IC Reporting

Change has been a way of life for mankind, yet change has always been difficult. Throughout history, man has constantly been faced with the opportunity of doing something in a new way, a better way – but that has always met with resistance. To give just one example, do you recall the invention of the personal computer by IBM in the 1940s and the subsequent (by now infamous) remark of IBM Chairman Thomas Watson “I think there is a world market for five personal computers”. In hindsight, we can now say that the personal computer has been largely responsible for the rapid modernization of our society during the last thirty years. So rapid and massive has been this modernization that as a society we have become used to embracing change more and more rapidly – remember ATMs did not exist thirty years ago, the World Wide Web did not exist twenty years ago and mass mobile telephony as we have accustomed to today did not exist even just ten years ago!

Yet today, we are at the crossroads of one more change – this time in the field of accounting and reporting of company performance. Unlike tangible changes outlined in the examples above, this is a softer change. It has to do with the way business accounts are recorded and presented to stakeholders. But why do we need a change in our accounting system, you might ask? What is wrong with it? It isn’t broke, right? So why fix it? The reasons however are many.

Firstly, the present system of accounting is old, very old. The double-entry bookkeeping system of accounting that is in use today was popularized by the Italian monk Luca Pacioli more than 500 years ago! This system relies on recording each business transaction using balancing credit and debit entries in two different ledgers. It is a system that is well understood and it has served us well throughout the industrial era, yet it has one critical shortcoming. The system works by matching revenues to expenses accurately in order to determine income. But it cannot handle value creating transactions that happen much before revenues have been realized. For instance, when the R&D efforts of a pharmaceutical company culminate in the passing of regulatory clinical tests, enormous value is created. Yet the accounting system does not recognize any of it.

The loss would have been limited had it been restricted to the failure to recognize value. But present accounting policies in fact do more damage by mandating the immediate expensing of R&D costs that go into the drug discovery process instead of capitalizing them, thereby recognizing such costs as an asset. The net effect of this policy is a reduction in net income in the year that R&D costs are incurred at the cost of protecting future income. This is a double whammy.

Finally, the accounting system is in total disconnect with the way companies operate in the knowledge economy. We know for certain by now that intangible assets are the primary driver of growth in the knowledge economy. Yet the accounting system is blissfully ignorant to this situation. For example, we all know that the value of Apple is linked closely to the ability of Steve Jobs to lead the company on the path of continuous innovation. Yet, the book value of Apple did not change when Steve Jobs rejoined Apple and it will definitely not change if Steve Jobs were to quit Apple all of a sudden!

Professional accounting bodies the world over have been trying their best to make the accounting system adapt to the knowledge economy. But changing a system that is carved in the hearts and minds of accountants over the last 500 years is easier said than done. In the meantime, investors are getting highly impatient. Genuine investors already know that published income statements and balance sheets are not reliable instruments for making investment decisions. They rely instead on other sources of information such as analysts, insiders, research, tips, etc. Some of these sources are genuine yet others exist only for making a quick buck from gullible investors. Such is our plight today.

But the situation can be remedied and quite easily too. This is where the need for IC Reporting comes in. All that needs to be done is that the annual report (or even quarterly income disclosures) needs to be supplemented by a statement of change in the Intellectual Capital of the company. This way, investors will be able to see not only the financial performance of the business but they will be able to correlate that performance with the investments in intangible assets of the business. They will be able to verify the sustainability of the performance. This in turn will drive down the cost of capital for the business which in turn will make the business more efficient. In short, IC Reporting will enable an unending positive feedback cycle for the business.

Change seems radical whenever it is first proposed. But in hindsight it always seems a no-brainer. IC Reporting is a change whose time has come. We will see this change implemented much sooner than later. And it will be for the good of all of us.

Value sustains through recessions

Many economists believe that the present economic depression is as bad as the great depression of the 1930s. I was not born then, neither were most people around me, hence I cannot tell for sure. But as I wade through these most difficult times I dare to ask, how has this recession changed our spending habits? How many of us have stopped dining outside in restaurants because of the recession? Or stopped seeing movies in multiplexes? Or visiting shopping malls and buying stuff, we probably could do without? To those who can sincerely answer these questions in the affirmative, I bow my head in salute. To the remaining vast majority of mere mortals like myself, I say that although we cannot curtail our basic inclination to splurge (thanks to the multiple credit cards that have been thrust upon us by ever willing banks) , we can definitely fine tune our instincts to seek out the best value deals and extend our purchasing power ever more. We need to stretch that dollar and make it go further. We need to chase value. Whether you are a seller or a buyer, you need to chase value. Individuals, businesses, suppliers, customers and investors, all need to chase value. While this is a most noble intent even in the best of times, in recessionary conditions like these it could mean the very difference between survival and extinction. And why is that? Simply because history has proven time and again that recessions and booms are cyclical. One simply follows the other. Much as we believe the adage that whatever goes up has to come down, it is also equally true that whatever goes down has to come up! The point being that this recession will end for sure – in the meantime we have to survive by seeking more bang for our buck.

Which brings us to the question – how should investors seek value? And how should businesses publish and report value. As far as investors are concerned, value investing is a field which is very well researched and understood. Yet it fails in many situations because the value investor relies solely on the published financial results. In times like these, the value investor has to look at more than just the financials. He has to understand the underlying value creating processes of the businesses that he is investing in. Similarly, business houses need to publish more than just the financial statements. They need to inform their investors about the characteristics of their business that generate value for their customers and how they are focused on managing and growing those very parameters.

Interestingly both purposes can be served easily via an Intellectual Capital (IC) Report. Business houses need to start publishing an IC report along with their annual report or even with their quarterly disclosures. Investors on the other hand need to start demanding such reports from the management of their holding businesses and use it for making value based investment decisions.