Ch悶。 Da Management Review 始l. 30 No. 2, 2010 pp. 1-23
無形資產價值創造決定因子一電腦與
週邊企業實證
Key Factors for Intangible Asset Value Creation:
The Empirical Study of Computer and Peripheral Firms
朱博湧 Po-Young Chu國立交通大學管理科學系
Department of Management Science, National Chiao-Tung University
林裕沒 I Yu-Ling Lin
國立勤益科技大學企業管理系
Department ofBusiness Management, National Chin-Yi University ofTechnology 劉俊宏 Jun-Hong Liu
國立交通大學管理科學系
Department of Management Science, National Chiao Tang University
摘要:世界及台灣科技百大企業其特質為何?何者之無形資產價值較高?而 無形資產價值高低和入選科技百大企業是否有關聯?本研究以科技百大企業
中的電腦與週邊產業為研究對象，採用 Sveiby 提出的評價方法，市價/帳面
價值(MVIBV) 、 Tobin's Q 、智慧資本附加價值你數(VAIC™)三種方法，計算
圍內外電腦與週邊企業的無形資產價值 ， 並進一步探討影響企業無形資產價
創造之組成因素，瞭解其無形資產價值差異的原因 。 實證結果:國外電腦與
週邊企業無形資產創造的價值明顯優於台灣企業，其中獲利能力為國內外企 業影響無形資產價值創造的共同因素，但因為對長期投資的看法不同、研發 投入認列等問題，導致無形資產價值創造影響因素有所差異，而影響台灣企
I Corresponding author: Department ofBusiness Management, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Ta油ungCity, Taiw徊，E-mail:yllin@ncut.edu.tw
2 Key F actors for Intangible Asset 均lueCreation: The Empirical Study ofComputer and Peripheral Firms
業能否追上國外企業的關鍵因素則為研發。
關鍵詞:電腦與過遺產業;無形資產;價值創造;智慧資本;科技百大企業
Abstract: Business Week and Business Next ranked the wor1d Info Tech 100 and Taiwan Info Tech 100 firms by financial data. What the traits of the Info Tech 100 firms? Did they create more intangible asset value? We chose the Computer & Peripheral industry from the Info Tech 100 for the objects of study and used three methods, MVIBV, Tobin's Q, VAIC™, to evaluate their intangible asset
values. Then compare the difference between foreign and domestic firms. The work is to find out the key factors for intangible asset value creation and analyze why the difference existed. The value of foreign firms is significant different from that of the domestic firms and foreign firms' value is higher than domestic firms'. Although financial performance is the same factor of foreign and domestic firms for creating intangible asset values, it the attitude about long term investment and inputs for innovation made the disparities of intangible asset values between foreign and domestic firms. R&D is the key point to short the distance between foreign and domestic firms.
Keywords : Computer and Peripheral Industrγ; Intangible Asset Value Creation; Intellectual Capital; lnfo Tech 100
1. Introduction
ln today's knowledge-driven economy, intangible assets are critical for business growth. We can foresee the intellectual resources will dominate future
c。中orate development. The market value of Google in March 2005 was about 50 billion in NYSE. lts PIB ratio was about seventeen times. This tells us that the value of intellectual capital of a firm is existing. Business Week and Business Next
ranked the wor1d lnfo Tech 100 and Taiwan lnfo Tech 100 firms by financial data.
What the traits of the lnfo Tech 100 firms? Did they create more intangible asset value? Because knowledge management is so critical today, companies must understand what their intangible assets are worth, how they are being valued, and
f全omwhere in the company that value is being derived. Both theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence suggest that understanding the determinants of the value
Chiao Da Management ReviewVol. 30 No. 2, 2010 3
of intangible assets is important to an organization 's strategic management.
Taiwan's information electronics industry is a significant part of Taiwan's economy. The long development history of the industry gave birth to the comprehensive industry value chain among the computer and peripheral industries and the sophisticated global specialization. The computer and its peripheral industry is becoming a real global business in Taiwan and production value in 2006 over US$ 90 billion. The study is based on the corporations which were among the world's top 100 technology corporations selected by Business Week and the computer and peripheral companies in the Taiwan top 100 technology corporations seJected by Business N，缸t from 2002-2006.
Accounting to Sveiby (2002), this study uses three different methods: market retum methods MVIBV and Tobin's
Q
, and asset retum methods VAICTM. These methods are applied to the companies each from Taiwan and global to compute the values of their intangible assets. Then compare the difference between foreign and domestic firms. The work is to find out the key factors for intangible asset value creation and analyze why the difference existed. Then, potential value determinants are extracted from financial and intellectual capital metrics using factor analysis. Finally, stepwise regression is used to estimate which of the potential determinants best explain intangible asset value and to what extent.2. Valuation and Driving Factors of Intangible Assets
The most critical ingredients of firm resource endowment are not tangible such as financial or physical assets, but are intangible and thus rare, valuable,
imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable (Bamey, 1991). The arise of knowledge-based economy has highlighted the importance of control and management of intellectual resources to today's corporate competitiveness.
The intangible assets discussed in this work adopt the generalized definition that is intellectual capital. According to studies and definitions by Steward(1997),
Edvinsson and Malone(1997), Johnson(l999), and Smith and Paπ(2002) ，
intellectual capital is comprised of three components: human capital, structural capital (organizational capital) and relational capital (customer capitaJ). The term
4 Key F actors for Intangible Asset 均lueCreation: The Empirical Stu砂 ofComputerand Pe巾heralFirms
human capital refers to the knowledge, seniority, mobility rate, skills, and experiences of the entire organization's staff and management. The term structural capital refers to the general system and procedures of the organization for problem-solving and innovation. It includes assessment of the stored knowledge value, the cycle of liquid capital, as well as accounting of administration expenses.
Finally, the term relational capital refers to the organization's establishment,
maintenance, and development of public relations matters, including the degree of customer, supplier, and strategic partner satisfaction, as well as the merger of value and customer loyalty.
According to Roos (1996,1997,1998) , intellecωal capital and intangible assets theories fall into two areas: strategy and valuation. Using Luthy (1998) and William (2000) 的 a foundation, Sveiby (2002) organized the existi月 tools for measuring the value of a company's intangible assets value into four primary categories of 28 methods. This paper was to evaluate the results of three methods of quantifying intangible value when they are applied to the same knowledge-intense indus訂y.
Market Va/ue/Book Va/ue (MJ-油昀
Steward(l997) pointed out if dividing a company's market capitalization by its book equity yields a quotient greater than one, there is intangible asset value in the company.
MV Market Share Price x Number of Common Shares Outstanding BV Total Assets - Total Liabilities
Tobin's Q
Nobel economist Tobin first developed this measure to help companies identify good investment or sell-off opportunities. Tobin's Q compares, through a ratio, the market value of the firm to its replacement cost. A value greater than one suggests that a company can purchase more assets because it is worth more than the price paid for their current ones. Because the original Tobin's Q is complicated to caiculate
,
Chung and Stephen (1994) proposed an approximate qChiaoDaManα'gement Review 均 1. 30No. 2, 2010 5
that was shown to explain 96.6% of the variability of Tobin's Q. This study uses the approximate Tobin's Q for its computations
Approximate Tobin's
Q
= (MVE+ PS+ DEBT) / Total Asset Book Value; where: MVE share price xnumber of common shares outstanding;PS = liquidating value offirm's outstanding preferred stock;
DEBT= (short-term liabilities - short-term assets) + book value ofLT debt.
均lueAdded Intellectual Co吃伊cient 仟"AI'σ門
Management, stockholders, and other stakeholders use VA1CTM to how much and how efficiently surplus value is created from various forms of capital.
Specifically, these various forms of capital are intellectual, structural, and financial capital (Pulic, 2000). Firer et a/.,(2003) surnmarized arguments for using
VAICTM. 1t is an appropriate standard for comparison across multi-national,
multi-industry companies. VA1CTM uses audited financial data. Conceptually VA1CTM is easy for relevant stakeholders to grasp and easy to calculate (Pulic & Borneman, 1999; Pulic, 1998, 2000).
VA = Depreciation + Dividends + Taxes + Retained Earnings + Wages
V AIC™
=
Capital Efficiency Index + Human Efficienct lindex + S甘ucturalEfficiency Index VA , VA. VA-Wages一一 Book Equity Wages VA
3. Methodology
The study compares the creation factors of intangible assets between computer and peripheral companies in Taiwan and overseas and 甘ies to c叮叮 out
an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind the different factors. The study first
selects the three types of quantitative evaluation methods for intangible assets to calculate the value of the intangible assets, which are then used as the variables in the regression formula. After that, 24 effect indexes from four major aspects are selected to find the 8 major common factors through factor analysis. Lastly, the
6 Key Factors for Intangible Asset 均lueCreation: The Empirical Stu砂 ofComputer and Peripheral Firms
stepwise regression method is used to filter the variables in order to find the real driving factors for the value of intangible assets.
Figure 1
The framework of research
Valuation of
IntanzibleAssets COlTlputer and
-Market Va/ue Peripheral Finns
•---Tobins Q YI
-VAIC
Stepvvise Regrc 草。n Detenninants of
the Valuation of
Intangible Assets
Intellectual capital 一
﹒正fuman capital Conunon index
3正且
-Srruclura/ capila/ Factor
Analysìs
-Relational capilal
The samples are from the wor1d's top 100 technology corporations selected
by US magazine, Business ~告ek， in 2002-2006, and the Taiwan company samples
are 台om the Taiwan top 100 technology corporations selected by Business Next
using the same criteria as Business Week during the same period. The financial raw data is 企om TEJ and Compustat data bases. As there are only a handful of corporations which were on the top 100 lists for 5 consecutive years and on both the Taiwan list and the wor1d list, the study selects the corporations which were on either list at least two years 企om 2002-2006, in order to take in more samples. The study takes the broad definition for company and peripheral companies, so 也at all corporations that provide computer related products or services are all in
the scope. As a result, the wor1d-listed computer and peripheral corporations
inc1ude computer and peripheral indus旬， service indus旬， communication
indu甜y and networking indus句; while those on the Taiwan list inc1ude 也ose m
the comput活rand peripheral indus紅y and electronic part indus甘y.
Chiao Da Managemenl ReviewVol. 30 No. 2, 2010 7
peripheral industry on the world list and Taiwan list of the top 100 corporations. This is aimed to achieve a clear picture of the di缸erent factors of intangible asset value between the computer and peripheral firms ofTaiwan and the world through the information of the study. The study period is the five years from 2002-2006 and the samples are divided into three clusters, which are 29 World-listed companies, 54 Taiwan-listed companies and 12 dually listed companies (as shown in Appendex 1).
The study shows that the mean of the world-listed corporations is significantly higher than Taiwan-listed corporations through the MBIBV method. Under Tobin's Q, the value ofthe world-listed corporations is also higher than that of Taiwan-listed corporations. Through the VAIC method, the mean of the dually listed c。中orations is obviously higher than for the world-listed corporations and also with smaller standard deviation. As VAIC is to evaluate the value-creation ability and the operation performance of the c。中orations， and these are the strengths of Taiwan corporations, their VAIC is naturally higher (as shown in Appendix 2).
As suggested by the different valuation methods and results presented above,
both financial capital and intellectual capital (structural, relational, andJor human) affect intangible asset value.These two arenas constituted the scope of measurement indices for this study. Based on the the related literatures and Edvinsson & Malone (1997), 24 variables were selected and their values ca1culated as a starting point for the next analysis. The mean values and standard
deviations for the companies in each subject group are shown in Appendix 3.
4.
Results4.
1.
Factor Analysis on Financial and Intellectual Capital Items This next section groups the 24 variables into sets through a process of elimination and then names each set according to the commonality of iìs contained variables. It is these sets, or attributes, which will be evaluated by stepwise regression as to how they contribute to the value of computer and8 Key Factorsfor lntangib/e Asset 均/ueCreation
The Empirical Stu砂 ofComputer and Peripheral Firms
peripheral firms' intangible assets. These attribute sets will also facilitate discussing management implications.
Summary of Factor Analysis
Cumulative Attribute Name Eigen- Pe的nt of p~';~~~;~i
value Varian心e vanance Set Factor Loading Variable Table 1
Setl Revenue per employee 0.826
Assets per employee 0.821
OPEX per employee
Revenue per employee
OPEX per employee
A 值 TAHVAU F 、 d AV 后 υ 句 ， 句'，'、' 。。。
Total assets tumover 0.527
Set 2 OPEXlSales 0.848
R&D exp.lTotal assets 0.805
Worker Productivity
(Human Capital)
R&D Expenses/Sales(% )
R&D Resources 0.795 (HlIman Capital)
Employee ∞unt
Set 3 Quick ratio
Current ratio Debt to equity ratio Set4 ROE
ROA
Set 5 Capital Structure Ratio
0.697 0.918 0.903 -0.601 0.937 .D...8.且且 0.938 F ixed assets tumover 0.931 Set 6
Fixed assets per employee 。 756
EPS 0.729
Set 7 Gross Margin Growth (%) 0.869 Sales growth rate
Operating Profit Margin(%)
Set 8 R&D Exp. /OPEX
0.637 0.588 -0.824 3.238 13.493% 13.493% 2.887 12.029% 25.522% Solvency . .. 2.678 11.160% (Financial Capital) Profitnability
frinancial Capital)
Equipment Sufficiency (Structllral cmllω Resource Sufficienc于 (Structllral Capital)
Sales Growth Rate (Relational Capital) R&D Investment t可，鬥，尸 1 1I rnl 2.169 9.036% 2.155 8.981% 2.117 8.822% 1.649 6.869% 1.464 6.098% 36.682% 45.718% 54.699% 63.522% 70.391 % 76.489%
Chiao Da Managemenl ReviewVol. 30 No. 2, 2010
Set Variable Loading Factor R&D Exp./Net Income 0.555
Attribute N ame
9
^ Cumulative Eigen-pemntof PErcentof
value Variance vanance
We used the standard rules for Principal Component Analysis and conducted orthogonal rotation with Varimax. Only those variables with Eigenvalues greater than one as generated by SPSS software were retained,
resulting in eight attribute groupings for both countries' companies. The accumulated variance of these eight attributes was 76.49% for the firms. We also performed the KMO test to verify that the original data was suitable for a factor analysis; the value ofKMO was 0.624.
Each attribute was named in accordance to the factor loadings of the variables it contained- those variables with higher factor loadings were given more weight in considering the attribute's name. The resu1ts of the naming are shown in Table 1. The eight at甘ibutes that affect the value of Taiwan computer and peripheral firms' intangible assets are (in order of their variance-explained):
Worker Productivity, R&D Resources, Solvency, Profit Ability, Equipment Sufficiency, Resource Sufficiency, Sales Growth Rate and R&D Investment. The results of the naming are shown in Table 1 below.
4.2. Stepwise Regression of Determinants of Intangible Asset Value
In the stepwise regression, the independent variables are the attributes (eight for each subject group) extracted and named in the preceding section. The dependent variables are the values generated by the three valuation methods discussed in following section. The regression's purpose is to quantify how various attributes of a firm's financial and intellectual capital structure affect intangible asset value. Similarities and differences among the three group's determinants and their strengths are discussed and form a starting point for subsequentresearch.
nu
Key Faclors for lntangib/e Asset 均/ueCreation The Empirical Stu吵 ofComputer and Peripheral Firms
4.2.1 恥1.V/BV
Profitability is the key index which affects the intangible asset value of the world's top 100 corporations. It shows that the ability of the world-listed corporations to create profits for themselves and the investors affects the growth of their intangible asset value in a directly proportional way. Resource sufficiency and equipment sufficiency signify intemal resource allocation and usage efficiency, both of which also affect the intangible asset value. However, the increase in cost does not bring significant benefits. This inversely proportional relationship might be because the expenses cannot be clearly reflected immediately.
Profitability, worker productivity, resource sufficiency and solvency are the factors affecting the intangible asset value of Taiwan corporations. For Taiwan corporations, profitability on the financial statement is directly proportional to their intangible asset value. Worker productivity represents the degree of contributions and the production value of each employee to the corporation; resource sufficiency represents the efficiency of using resources in the company; solvency represents the company's ability to repay short-term debts and the operational stability. All these three factors are directly proportional to the creation of intangible asset value.
Profitability, R&D resource, resource sufficiency and equipment sufficiency are the criteria for a corporation to get onto the top 100 technology c。中oratlOns
on both the world-list and Taiwan-list. It can be seen from the result that apart from strong profitability, resource allocation and management efficiency, Taiwan corporations also need to embrace and recognize creative development and research (R & D), in order to become a world-class corporation in terms of intangible asset value. As a result, all four factors, which are profitability, R&D resource, resource sufficiency and equipment sufficien句， ca汀y obvious directly
proportional results on the creation of intangible asset value.
4.2.2 Tobin's
Q
Chiao Da Managemenl ReviewVol. 30 No. 2. 2010 11
intangible asset value of the world-listed corporations. For these corporations,
apart from the financial performance of profitability, the financial factors of the corporations, such as short-term debt repaying ability and the debt management
abili旬， also affect the ups and downs of their intangible asset values. Profit growth is also one of the m句 or factors supporting intangible asset value creation for the c。中orations. As a result, the sales growth rate is also directly proportional with intangible asset value.
Profitability, resource sufficiency and solvency are the three m句 or factors affecting the intangible asset value of Taiwan-listed corporations. For Taiwan-listed corporations, profitability, debt management ability and short-term debt repaying ability have crucial directly proportional effect on their intangible asset value. Per capita fixed assets and benefits are the incentives for the employees to work hard to create intangible asset value for the corporations. As a result, resource efficiency is also directly proportional to the creation of intangible asset value
For the dually-listed corporations, the major factors affecting the creation of intangible asset value, as divided through the regression formula, are profitability, R&D resource, equipment sufficiency and resource sufficiency. The factors are the same as the result from MV/B\人 and the only difference is on the degree of inf1uence. The relationships with the creation of intangible asset value are obviously directly proportional from both methods.
4.2.3 VAIC
Solvency, profitability, equipment sufficiency and resource sufficiency are the major factors affecting intangible asset value. As VAIC measures the ability of the c。中oration to create intangible asset value through the use of resources, the effect from short-term debt management ability, resource efficiency and the per capita resource allocation of the corporation have significant effects. As a result, all solvency, profitability, equipment efficiency and resource efficiency are directly proportional to the creation of intangible asset value. The profitability of a corporation ref1ects the domino e缸ect on the ups and downs of intangible asset value from the profitability of the co叩oration. The result from the regression
12 Key F actors for Intangib/e Asset 均/ue Creation The Empirica/ Stu砂 ofComputer and Pe巾hera/Firms
method shows directly proportional relations.
For Taiwan-listed corporations, profitability, solvency and resource efficiency have a directly proportional effect on the creation of intangible asset value, which is the same as the world's corporation. Worker productivity and sales
growth rate also reflects the ability of the corporation to create profit and Table 2
Results of Stepwise Regression
lndex F onnula of Regression Estimation
MV IBV World MV IBV= 0.458(Profitability)- O.I92(Resource Sufficiency) -0.166(Equipment Sufficiency)
Taiwa MVIBV = 0.631(Profitabi1ity)+ 0.180(Resource Sufficiency) +
n O.13(Worker productivity)+ 0.104(Solvency) Dually MV IBV = 0.551 (Profitability)+ 0.6 1 7(R&D Resources) +
Adjusted-R2 29.0%
47.8%
0.280(Resource Sufficiency)+ 0.279(Equipment 50.7% Sufficiency)
Tobin's Q World Tobin's Q = 0.260(Sales Growth Rate)+ 0.487(Profitability)+ 0.377(Solvency)
Taiwa Tobin's Q = 0.576(Profitability)+ 0.22 1 (Resource Sufficiency)+
n 0.169(Solvency)
Dually Tobin's Q = 0.595(Profitabi1ity)+ 0.585(R&D Resources) +
37.5%
的 7%
0.264(Equipment Sufficiency)+ 0.246(Resource 53.0%
Sufficiency)
VAIC World VAIC = 0.419(Solvency)+ 0.297(Profitability) +
0.254(Equipment Sufficiency)+ 0.205(Resource Taiwa VAIC = 0.769(Worker Productivity)+ 0.428(Resource
n Sufficiency) + 0.294(Profitabi1ity)+ 0.197(Solvency)+
0.161(Sales Growth
Rate)-0.098(R&D Resources)- 0.084(R&D lnvestment)
Dually VAIC = - 0.539(R&D Resources)+ 0.345(Worker Productivity) 一
0.259(R&D lnvestment)
27.0%
71.0%
Chiao Da Management Reνlew 均 1. 30 No. 2, 2010 13
growth from resources, carrying a directly proportional effect on the creation of intangible asset value. Investment on R&D might not have an immediately effect on the financial statements apart from increasing the expenditu間， and Taiwan
c。中orations place insufficient priority on R & D. As a result, R&D resource and R&D investment are inversely proportional to the creation of intangible asset value for Taiwan-listed corporations.
For the dually-listed corporations, although the benefits from the investment and expenditure on R&D cannot be seen in the short-run, and R&D might even lead to reduced intangible asset value for the current financial teηn
the world-listed Taiwan corporations still highly emphasize R & D. As a result, it has a significant effect although it has a negative impact on the intangible asset value. Apart from that, dually-listed corporations have outstanding competitiveness on production, so worker productivity has a significant directly proportional effect on their creation of intangible asset value.
Summary ofThis Part
The combination and distribution of factors affecting intangible assets resulted from the three methods are different. Take the overall regression explanation forrnula as an example; the explanation power of VAIC under the asset retum method on Taiwan-listed computer and peripheral corporations is obviously much higher than those of MV /BV and Tobin's
Q
of market capitalization method. Despite this, these two evaluation methods do not have much difference on explanation power for the world-listed corporations and dually listed co叩orations of computer and peripheral corporations (as shown in Table 2).4.3. The Difference of lntangible Asset Formulation
Under MV/BV and Tobin's Q, profitability is the most important factor for computer and peripheral corporations in both the world list and Taiwan list. It
shows that intangible asset value can only be recognized by the market with operation perforrnance reflected on the profitability index. The re1ationship
14 Key Factors jòr lntangib/e Asset 均/ueCreation: The Empirica/ Stu砂 01Computer and PeriJ少的ra/Firms
between intangible asset value and profitability is directly proportional. The world-listed Taiwan corporations emphasize R&D resources but the capital market only recognizes the existence of intangible asset value if there is an increase in profit in the market. This is reflected on the market capitalization and the stock price of the corporation. The R&D I;:xpendi何時， human resources and related resources can only be continuously supported by stable profitability of the corporation, and, in tum, equip the corporation with advanced technology and
market share to sustain continuous profit and growth. The benefits brought by R&D investment are the value created by the intangible asset. For those Taiwan companies that aim to get onto the world list, they have to catch up with the world on R&D investment besides possessing strong profitability. This is the only way for them to tum into world class corporations. As a result, the world-listed corporations are different from Taiwan-listed corporations, and R&D resources are the most important factor for intangible asset creation for the dually listed corporat\Ons.
Among the intangible asset evaluation methods adopted in the study, MV/BV and Tobin's Q belong to the market capitalization method. In this method, the value calculation and the market value concept of intangible assets are the market expectation, which always fluctuate along with the extemal factors, such as overall environment, intemational situation and market sentiment. This is the reason why regression has less explanation power on the world-listed corporations. For Taiwan-listed and dually listed corporations, overall regression has better explanation power because the domestic market is more stable; with a special industrial structure and value creation model (the ability to control the cost and quality is the key for profitability for Taiwan companies).
From the VAIC method adopted in the study, the three types of corporations have different major factors of intangible asset value. Profitability and solvency are the top two factors for the world-listed corporations; worker productivity and resource efficiency are the top two factors for Taiwan-listed corporations; and R&D resource and worker productivity are the top two factors for the dually listed corporations. VAIC evaluates the rcsource efficiency and asset efficiency of the
Chiao Da Management ReviewVol. 30 No. 2, 2010 15
factors for the world-listed corporations to create intangible asset value,
profitability is the incentive for them to invest into intangible assets. High R&D expenditure needs to keep the corporation's profitability and financial performance unaffected. Short-term debt repaying ability, inventory control and liquidity are also very important factors.
In sum, the difference of the driving factors divided from the three methods are: profitability and solvency are the m句 or factors for world-listed corporations; profitability is also the most important factor for Taiwan-listed corporations,
followed by resource efficiency, which is the comrnon result from all three methods; profitability and R&D resources are the important driving factors from all three methods for the dually-listed corporations. For Taiwan-listed corporations, worker productivity and resource efficiency are the major factors affecting the creation of intangible asset value. The strengths of Taiwan-listed corporations are on cost and resource control and human resources, efficient1y producing the maximum value with the minimum human and non-human resources. The dually listed Taiwan corporations represent worker productivity,
which is the existing cost control and resource efficiency of Taiwan corporations. R&D resources are also one of the factors that separate them from ordinary Taiwan corporations. Value R&D and invest resources into R&D are the signals that these corporations have started to embrace the globalization concept, from which enable them to successfully take on the global market. This is where the value of intangible assets lies.
5. Conclusions and Implication
Jf旬rld-listed Computer and Peripheral Corporations
There are different effects on the creation of intangible asset value from different evaluation methods due to different focus aspects. For the wor1d-listed computer and peripheral corporations, profitability, resource efficiency,
equipment efficiency, sales growth rate and solvency are the important factors for and direct1y proportional to the intangible asset value. It shows that corporate
16 Key Factorsfor Intangible Asset 的lueCreation The Empirical Study of Computer and Peripheral Firms profit and growth, short-tenn debt management and the ability to repay debt have a significant impact on intangible asset value. Resource efficiency and equipment efficiency have different relations under different evaluation methods. Under MVIBV, they are inversely proportional but they are directly proportional under Tobin's
Q
and VAIC.Taiwan-listed Computer and Peripheral Corporations
The same results 企om alI the methods on the impact of the factors on intangible asset value. Seven out of the eight major factors are the important factors for and directly proportional to intangible asset values. These seven factors are profitability, resource efficien句， worker productivi旬" solvency, sales growth rate, R&D resource and R&D investment. It shows that profitabili旬， cost control
and resource e宜iciency promote the accumulation and creation of intangible assets for Taiwan corporations. As R&D factors do not have an immediate effect and most of the Taiwan corporations do not value R&D, R&D resource and R&D investment have an inversely proportional relationship with intangible asset value. Dually Listed Computer and Peripheral Corporations
The importance placed on R&D is the key for Taiwan-listed corporations to move up to the world list. Among the eight major factors, profitability, resource efficiency, equipment efficiency, worker productivity, R&D resource and R&D investment are the six factors which affect intangible asset value. The world-listed Taiwan corporations' R&D factors have more obvious effects on intangible asset value. Since investment in R&D does not have an immediate effect, it takes time for the R&D to launch in the market and the investment expenditure affects profitability in the current financial period, R&D has an adverse effect under VAIC evaluation. However, its effect is positive from MVIBV and Tobin's
Q
methods. It shows that apart from having the existing strengths, Taiwan corporations also need to invest in R&D in order to differentiate from the ordinary Taiwan corporations and move up to the world-Iisted corporations through the creation of intangible asset value.
Chiao Da Management Reνlew 的 l. 30 No. 2, 2010 17
The result shows that under MV!BV and Tobin's
Q
,
profitability is the most important factor on intangible asset value for both world-listed and Taiwan-listed corporations. For the dually listed corporation, apart 企om profitability, R&D resource also affects intangible asset value. Under VAIC, the world-listed and Taiwan-listed corporations have different most important factors for intangible asset value, for the world-listed corporations is solvency while for Taiwan-listed c。中orations is worker productivity. For the dually listed corporations, apart from worker productivi旬， R&D resource also affects intangible asset value. From thetwom句 or evaluation perspectives, the major factors for the creation of intangible asset value for the world-listed and Taiwan-listed computer and peripheral corporations are different.
The factors affecting the intangible asset value for the dually listed corporations contain R&D resource ap訂t from profitability and worker productivity, which are the same as the Taiwan corporations. It shows that Taiwan-listed corporation need to put more effort on R&D in order to get rid of the difference resulted from the traditional Taiwan corporation image of focusing on manufacturing but not on creativity. This is the only way for them to move up to the world-list and create more intangible asset value.
Although R&D factors do not have significant effect on the creation of intangible asset value for the world-listed and Taiwan-listed corporations, it does not mean that the world-listed corporations do not value R & D. The world-listed corporations' R&D expenditure against total asset ratios and R&D expenditure rates are much higher than the Taiwan-listed corporations. It shows the importance and investment placed on R&D from the world-listed corporations.
They view R&D and creativity as the base and they have the long-term vision of investing in the future and sustainable operation. As the investment on R&D does not have any immediate effect on the creation of intangible asset value, the R&D factors are not obvious in the overall regression formula. It is different from Taiwan-listed corporations which value less on R&D but focus on cost control and production quality. Taiwan-listed corporations aim to achieve instant effect.
These are the reasons behind the significant difference of intangible asset value between domestic and overseas co叩orations in the comput
18 Key Factorsfor Intangib/e Asset 均/ueCreation: The Empirical Study ofComputer αnd Peripheral Firms
industry.
The main reason for the difference on intangible asset value between domestic and overseas corporations is the strategic ideology of the corporation. World-class computer and perhiperial corporations have long-term vision and they are willing to bear short-term expenditure and cut on profit for future investment.
They view the R&D expenditure and the management fee of brand investment as capital expenditure. As a result, these might reduce the finanical performance. Taiwan computer and perhiperial corporations have less long-term vision. They focus on short-term profit and they are relatively less willing to invest in R&D and brand marketing which ca口y high uncertainty. They view R&D and marketing expenditure as expenses, and they are comparatively strong on finanical performance. Despite of that, it can be seen 企om the creation of intangible asset value that the finanical advantages of Taiwan computer and perhiperial corporations over the world-class computer and perhiperial corporations might not be able to sustain in the longrun. As a result, continuous investment in R&D is very important.
This study was unable to obtain information contained outside of financial reports in developing its metrics for intellectual capital. For example, a better metric for the quality of a customer relationship, a type of relational capital, was unavailable. Future researchers may want to investigate this in order to increase the field's understanding of how intellectual capital differs between different countnes.
6. References
Barney, 1. (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage",
Journal 01 Management. 17(1), 99-120.
Chung, K. 旺， & Stephen, W. P. (1994),“A Simple Approximation ofTobin's Q",
Financial Management, 23(3), 70
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. S. (1997), lntellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value by Finding lts Hidden Roots. ,New York, NY:
Chiao Da Management ReviewVol. 30 No. 2. 2010 19
Firer, S., and Williams, S. M. (2003), “lntellectual Capital and Traditional Measures of C。中orate Performance," Journal of lntellectual Capital, 4(3),
348-360.
Johnson, W. H. A. (1999),“An lntegrative Taxonomy of lntellectual Capital: Measuring The Stock and Flow of lntellectual Capital Components in The
Firm," lnternational Journal of Technology Management, 18(5/6/7/8),
562-575.
Luthy, D. H. (1998),“lntellectual Capital and Its Measurement," Working Paper. ( http://www3.bus.osaka-cu.ac扣/apira98/archives/htmls/25.htm)
Pulic, A and M. Bomemann. (1999),“The Physical and lntellectual Capital of
Austrian Banks," available online:
( http://www.measuring-ip.atlPaperslPubiclBank/en-bank.html)
Pulic, A. (1998), “Measuring The Performance of Intellectual Potential in
Knowledge Economy," Available Online:
(http://www.measuring-ip.at/Opapers/PulicNaictxt.vaictxt.html)
Pulic, A. (2000), “VAICTM: An Accounting Tool for IC Management."
lnternational Journal ofTechnology Management,20(5/6/7/8), 702-714
Roos, 1. (1996),‘'The Epistemological Challenge : Managing Knowledge and lntellectual Capital," European Management Journal, 14(4),333-337.
Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), “Measuring Your Company's lntellectual Performance," Long Range Planning, 30(3), 413 -426.
Roos, J. (1998), “Exploring The Concept of lntellectual Capital (1C)," Long Range Planning, , 31(1), 150-153.
Steward, T. A. (1997) , lntellectual Capital: The New Wealth ofOrganizations,
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Smith, G. V. and Parr, R. L. (2000) ，均luation of lntellectual Property and lntangible Assets, 3rd Ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smith, G. V., and Parr, R. L. (2002), Valuations of lntellectual Property and lntangible Assets, 2002 Cumulative Supplement , Hoboken, NY: John Wiley and Son.
Sveiby, K. E. (2001),“A Knowledge-8ased Theory of The Firm to Guide in Strategy Formulation", Journa/ of lntellectua/ Capital, 2(4), 344-358.
20 Key Faclorsfor Inlangib/e Asset 均/ue Crealion:
The Empirical Stu砂 ofComputerand Peηpheral Firms
Sveiby, K. E. (2002),“Methods for Measuring lntangible Assets弋 workingpaper. (http://www.Sveiby.comlartic1es/lntangibleMethods.htm)
Taiwan lnfo Tech 100 firms, Business Next , 2007后，的 7(in Chinese). The Future ofTech-The lnfoTech 100, Business Week, July 2, 2007.
Williams M. (2000), “ls a Company's lntellectual Capital Performance and lntellectual Capital Disc10sure Practices Related? Evidence 台om Public1y Listed Companies 企om the FTSE 100
,"
Paper presented at McMastersChiao Da Managemenl Review 均 1. 30 No. 2. 2010
Appendix 1: Sample Companies
World (29) Taiwan(54)
Appendix 1: Sample Companies
APPLE INC CORETRONIC CORP
ARROW ELECTRONICS INC CANON INC
CASIO COMPUTER CO L TD CISCO SYSTEMS INC DELL INC
EMCCORP/MA HARRISCORP
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO JABIL CIRCUIT INC KDDI CORP
AU OPTRONICS CORP
TRIPOD TECHNOLOGY CORP TRANSCEND INFORMSTION INC EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO LTD FSPGROUP
MOTECH INDUSTRIES INC FOXCONN TECHNOLOGY CO WINTEKCORP
UNIMICRON CORP
DELTA ELECTRONICS INC L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HLDGS
ASIA OPTICAL CO INC
lNC
LEXMARK lNTL INC 1m 1'-, 1\R (il{ t 11 l'
LG ELECTRONICS INC GOLD CIRCUIT ELECTRONICS LOGITECH SA INTERNA TIONAL MOTOROLA INC NlDEC CORP NOKIA (AB) OY QUALCOMM INC RESEARCH IN MOTION L TD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD SANDISK CORP SHARPCORP
SYNNEX TECH INTL CORP TOSHIBA CORP
TPV TECHNOLOGY LTD UTST ARCOM INC VTECH HLDGS L TD WESTERN DIGIT AL CORP
EPISTAR CORP
KINKO OPTICAL CO LTD
GLOBAL BRANDS MANUFACTURE LTD SIMPLO COMPANY LTD
LlTEON GROUP
JESS LlNK PRODUCTS CO LTD DYNAPACK CO LTD
RADIANT OPTO-ELECTRONICS CORP OPTIMAX TECHNOLOGY CORP MIN AIK TECHNOLOGY CO LTD
CAREER TECHNOLOGY (MFG.) CO LTD HARVATEK CORP
CHAUN CHOUNG TECHNOLOGY CORP TAIFLEX SCIENTIFIC CO LTD
LARGA~ PRLCJS10N CO LTD
ASJA VITAL COMPONENTS CO LTD
SOLAR APPLlED MATERJALS TECHNOLOGY CORP
KINSUS INTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGY TXCCORP
FORHOUSE CORP
l-SHENG ELECTRONIC WlRE & CABLE COLTD
21
Dually(l2) ACERINC
ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONIC CORP
COMPAL ELECTRONIC INC HIGH TECH COMPUTER CORP
HON HAI PRECISION IND CO LTD
INVENTEC CO L TD
LlTEON TECHNOLOGY CORP MIT AC INTERNA TIONAL CORP)
QISDAJ CORP
QUANTA COMPUTER INC WISTRON CORP
22 Key Factors for lntangible Asset 均lueCreation:
The Empirical Stu砂 ofComputer and Peripheral Firms
MERRY ELECTRONICS CO LTD SINTEK PHOTRONIC CORP QUANTA STORAGE INC GENIUS. KYE SYSTEMS CORP
TERAAUTOTECH CORPORATION INC ELITEGROUP COMPUTER SYSTEMS KINPO ELECTRONICS INC
AVTECHCORP
FIRICH ENTERPRISES CO LTD GETAC TECHNOLOGY CORP SHUTTLE COMPUTERS PORTWELL INC
ADVANTECH CO LTD ALTEK CORP
CHICONY ELECTRONICS CO
ACTION ELECTRONICS CO LTD AMTRANTECHNOLOGY ABICOGROUP
Chiao Da Management ReviewVol. 30 No. 2, 2010 23
Appendix 2: Mean Values and Standard Deviations of Intangible Asset Values Index 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 MV/BV World 3.27 4.01 3.89 4.00 4.13 (3.18) (3.23) (3.19) (2.40) (3.15) Taiwan 2.45 3.01 2.27 3.01 2.88 (1.49) (1.32) (1.10) (2.73) (2.69) Dually 2.18 2.18 1.94 2.88 2.59 (1.36) (1.00) (1.1 0) (2.21) ( 1.52) Tobi的 Q World 1.
27
1.76 1.81 1.88 1.95 (1.14) (1.44) ( 1.65) ( 1.35) ( 1.94) Taiwan 1.30 1.60 1.19 1.80 1.72 (0.81 ) (0.88) (0.75) (2.10) ( 1.87) Dually 0.92 0.86 0.80 1.12 0.96 (0.62) (0.40) (0.41 ) (1.25) (0.91) VAIC World 7.08 8.76 9.87 10.69 11.62 (3.79) (4.20) (4.39) (5.11) (5.32) Taiwan 6.80 7.35 7.23 7.45 9.31 (5.28) (4.94) (4.86) (6.55) (11.69) Dually 11.91 11.43 13.22 15.94 20.55 (1.46) ( 1.35) (1.81) (1.74) (2.58)24 Key F aClOrS for Intangible Asset 均lueCreation:
The Empirical Stu砂 ofComputerand Peripheral Firms
Appendix 3: Variables ofIntangible Asset Values - Mean Values and Standard Deviations
Variable World Taiwan Dually
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev. Financial Indicators
Eamings Per Share (NTD) 362.34 1725.63 4.55 3.86 4.09 6.78
Retum on Assets (%) 6.75 6.36 14.98 8.48 7.13 7.16
Retum on Equity (%) 14.51 15.37 21.39 13.60 13.97 22.76 Revenue per employee 20,713 17,596 20,477 37,912 71,957 62,354
R&D Exp.lNet Income (%) 773.3 4181.71 701.87 834.36 453.07 636.25 Op.Profit per employee 1,402.97 2,020.08 1,742.41 2,778.31 2,703.32 3,178.29 Current Ratio (% ) 212.73 152.23 221.38 125.38 147.97 37.76
Quick Ratio (% ) 161.93 145.31 172.52 106 106.99 37.17
Debt to equity ratio (%) 151.51 137.72 75.13 40.56 145.66 76.58 Structura1 Capita1
OPEXlSa1es (%) 19.08 10.46 5.30 2.53 4.91 2.74
OPEXlEmployee 3,619.82 2,951.63 775.74 937.48 3,677.41 4,065.91 R&D Expenses/Total Assets (% ) 5.93 3.99 2.54 1.48 2.92 2.12 Assets Per Employee 19,587.48 18,304.4616,008.2620,155.3642,370.4132,089.39
R&D Expenses/OPEX (%) 32.75 25.52 56.02 38.56 46.85 27.83
R&D Expenses/Sales (% ) 6.29 4.57 2.62 1.66 1.87 1.24
Operating Profit Margin (% ) 9.31 9.02 9.67 8.67 18.36 30.00
Capital Structure Ratio 602.43 473.10 3,799 21,264 374.24 260.02
Total Assets Tumover (%) 1.36 。 70 1.27 0.65 1.85 。 58
Fixed Assets Per Employee 3,826.20 7,062.19 1,945.02 2,384.40 7,493.24 7,677.72 Fixed Assets Tumover (%) 14.19 14.24 152.83 1127.94 13.92 8.38
Employee Expenses (% ) 3.87 0.83 4.77 3.55 1.51 1.12
Relationa1 Capital
Sales Growth (% ) 18.33 22.37 42.71 64.65 40.50 45.59
Gross Margin Growth (%) 19.31 27.99 70.61 319.96 141.71 375.75
Human Capita1
Employee Count 40,688.27 42,903.63 1,127.08 1,958.65 4,135.39 3,236.86 Note: Non-percentage items are in Thousands NTD (except for EPS)
